Contd. As truth is correspondence with reality, in being aware of reality acting, we are by definition aware of truth. (4) Not all knowledge is hypothetical. Some in by abstraction from reality. It is intrinsically impossible to falsify statements, such as 2+2=4, of this kind. Therefore, falsification has limited applicability. (5) Certitude need not be a feeling. It can reflect knowledge of methodological adequacy. This is not inerrant, just adequate to be sure we are right. Peace, Dennis
A good video, with some problems. (1) Justified true belief is not traditional. Doxa in this context in Plato is not belief, but judgement. (2) The primary meaning of knowledge is awareness of reality. Other meanings, like knowledge in books, are derivative on this, & so knowledge by analogy of attribution. (3) Justification need not be by other theories, so there need be no infinite regress. It can be by experience, which is our awareness of reality acting on us. Contd.
A very well made and well argued video.I've read Popper and was searching for a flaw in this video-for the reasons you've outlined-but I failed.So my failure is your success.
@top414141 Wow. Despite years of academic training and a deep respect for toleration and civility, I simply want to remark you must be utterly devoid of any intelligence whatsoever. Just the otherday I heard someone say, "Oh yea man, I know Nietzsche, I haven't read his stuff, but I know Nietzsche." Could you be the same person? To be clear, I'm not upset with your comment, just baffled as to the stupidity of some individuals. I know that is harsh and I feel bad for saying but, wow. Incroyable!
This is an entertaining and an intelligible video. The commentator sounds hyper. But i must say, meta-ethical statements like "slavery is wrong" is not a "fact" unless youre talking about it in a layman's way. Moral realism is far from factual, its a matter that is disputed vehemently.
@LulieTanett Read JL Mackie's Inventing Ethics or Richard Joyce's The Myth of Morality. Both of their arguments are fairly short, the first few chapters in each book (the rest is devoted toward "inventing ethics" or "moral fictionalism", but this isn't necessary to understand the argument for Moral Error theory. Actually if you are some sort of subjectivist, look up Harman (though I wouldn't advise taking up a position if you aren't informed on it :)).
Rarely do these 10 min philosophical summerys turn out intelligible, but this is not the case with this one. Good job
I'm currently reading Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies," and I have to say there is little archive footage or interviews to be found on this remarkable thinker. If anyone is interested in hearing a very compelling defense for democracy, supported by a analysis on Plato,Marx and Hegel, then I recommend they read the book I cited above.
Cool vid. i must say i arrived at very similar conclusions before ever reading Popper. One thing however: You suggested faith is the basis of a Belief in God. I agree, but, my faith is the fruit of much reasoning. My years of reasoning led me to the frayed edges of reason where i concluded that what i can not see - yet seems to be there - is there.
There is a minor error at approximately 50 seconds. You said and I am paraphrasing: The idea of how to cure cancer isn't in anyone's mind, because no one knows yet how to cure cancer.
This isn't necessarily true. Let us imagine there is some way to cure cancer p, but no one has discovered p. But some person S believes p merely by luck (perhaps, it is just a guess; how S comes to believe p is unimportant as long as he believes p without any justification).
@analyticaa If the cure to cancer isn't in someone's mind as addressing this problem of 'how to cure cancer', and the person doesn't apply it to that, it's not useful so wouldn't count as 'knowledge' even under the Popperian definition.
I'm a little skeptical the cure is so simple that one could get it merely by luck, but maybe in solving other medical problems someone happens on the right idea. Maybe, but we still don't have the cure in one sense. (Recall I'm arguing *against* justification.)
@LulieTanett You are correct to say that S wouldn't have knowledge of the cure p. That is my point. If S believes p ("p is in S's mind" as you might put it), such that S doesn't have justification for p, then we would not want to say this counts as knowledge. So with my counterexample, no one knows how to cure cancer and yet, the idea of how to cure cancer is in someone's mind. This is a clear counterexample to what you said.
@analyticaa We don't need justification for something to count as knowledge: I was saying that instead of justification, the important thing is *whether people understand it's a solution to that particular problem*. If people have a theory about something, but don't realise that theory *applies to* curing cancer, then those people are lacking knowledge of how to cure cancer. (Rather, they contain some knowledge of how to cure cancer, but they don't have the knowledge of how it applies.)
@LulieTanett You write that you are skeptical the cure is so simple that one could get it merely by luck. Obviously, it would be unlikely, but the relevant consideration isn't about cancer. You could strip the example of cancer out completely and pose the relevant constants this way: p is true; p is not knowledge; S believes p; S is not justified in believing p. I hope this is clear now.
Further more, the opposite, epistemological particularism, is now rather popular giving philosophy's new found appreciation of language.
And lastly , philosophers that are agianst the correspondence theory of truth are not against all truth theories lmao. The coherence theory, pragmatic theory, redundant theory, and minimalist theory are the most popular ones as I understand it, and your criticism wouldn't make sense against any of them.
Calssic epistemology does not tell us to try to justify beliefs lmfao. Descartes? Spinoza? Lebniz? Hume? Berkley? kant? None of them came even clsoe to this description. They were all epistemological Methodists. That is, they came to a theory of the nature of epistemic justification, and then put our beliefs under a litmus test.
@spawk1993 I'm not sure I understand what you're saying -- what's the difference between seeking justification for beliefs, and making a system which you can put your beliefs through to see if they're justified?
There are two approaches you can take. You can say "this is what we know" and then find out why we know it. This is called epistemological particularism. It was championed by people like GE moore in the twentieth century.
The other approach, called methodism , is when you deiced what it is to be justified and then find out whether our beliefs fit the bill. So, for instance a radical empirist would say that the only justification is that of immediate experience.
There is a third approach you can take -- and this is the one that Popper takes -- namely to consider the question "why do we know it?" the wrong question. Instead, we may focus on the question "how do we find and correct errors?"
All these questions like "how do we know what we know" or "do our beliefs have justification?" or "how can we be sure" or "how can we make our beliefs more probable" are instances of trying to justify theories, which is useless and which Popper rejected.
@LulieTanett And so, we dont know anything about the past or material reality. In light of this methodology it would seem unfair to say that philosophers spend their time trying to justify their beliefs, to show that they are right. And this is the methodology that was prominent through out most of the history philosophy. I hope that makes what I am saying somewhat clearer.
1. Books dont contain knowledge. To say that a bok knows something is silly. Rather, the properties of a book are such that the human mind interprets them in such a way that they may have new thoughts. This seems obvious. There is no need to say that a book has knowledge.
2. There are lots of arguments for particular foundations. For instance, we have direct acquaintance with sense perception, and so this is the only possible non inferential justified belief.
@spawk1993 Books: The information in the books was the same information as in the writers; so it seems a bit strange to call that same information 'knowledge' when it's in writers and readers, but not when the identical information is in the books.
Sense perception and foundations: Senses aren't direct either -- we have to interpret them. E.g. visual illusions. We could be and often are fooled by our senses.
@LulieTanett The information is not literally written. Letters are written that when looked at by an observer may be interpreted as signs symbolizing information. The information, both when being read and written, if just in our heads.
Ummm, we have a direct acquaintance with sense perception lol. Maybe your conflating this with objects. Im not saying, for instance, that I have a direct relationship with the table I see. Rather, that I have a direct relationship with my own presentation of it
@moftan The first version of this was actually designed for and given to a class of high school students (well, the British equivalent: 6th form college).
@aaron0883 Accepting an axiom means judging everything according to that axiom, which implies the axiom itself can't be judged. This means that one is shielding it from all criticism.
If you don't have axioms, but instead have tentative theories that can be criticised and changed if you find better ones, there isn't that problem. But then you run into the infinite regress problem... unless you reject the idea that justification is needed.
Great video! I am always glad to find someone who understands Popper. Sometimes I think there are only very few of us!
jamesthenabignumber 1 week ago
Great video !
rafaelwaa 2 weeks ago
Contd. As truth is correspondence with reality, in being aware of reality acting, we are by definition aware of truth. (4) Not all knowledge is hypothetical. Some in by abstraction from reality. It is intrinsically impossible to falsify statements, such as 2+2=4, of this kind. Therefore, falsification has limited applicability. (5) Certitude need not be a feeling. It can reflect knowledge of methodological adequacy. This is not inerrant, just adequate to be sure we are right. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
A good video, with some problems. (1) Justified true belief is not traditional. Doxa in this context in Plato is not belief, but judgement. (2) The primary meaning of knowledge is awareness of reality. Other meanings, like knowledge in books, are derivative on this, & so knowledge by analogy of attribution. (3) Justification need not be by other theories, so there need be no infinite regress. It can be by experience, which is our awareness of reality acting on us. Contd.
dfpolis 2 months ago
A very well made and well argued video.I've read Popper and was searching for a flaw in this video-for the reasons you've outlined-but I failed.So my failure is your success.
henryporter101 8 months ago
i'm nietzsche to the fullest!!!
there is no truth!!!!!! even the previous statement is wrong!
so no final truuth, no nothing, just nothingness is the truth
top414141 9 months ago
@top414141 Wow. Despite years of academic training and a deep respect for toleration and civility, I simply want to remark you must be utterly devoid of any intelligence whatsoever. Just the otherday I heard someone say, "Oh yea man, I know Nietzsche, I haven't read his stuff, but I know Nietzsche." Could you be the same person? To be clear, I'm not upset with your comment, just baffled as to the stupidity of some individuals. I know that is harsh and I feel bad for saying but, wow. Incroyable!
analyticaa 9 months ago
very good... greetings from Greece
griechereservist 10 months ago
thanks! pretty informative
TwentyTwelveee 11 months ago
Very nice video. Kudos.
basimbaig 1 year ago
I think you should do more of these quick summarized philosophy vids
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago 4
@idontgiveashit0930 Any suggestions for which topics I should cover in future videos? :)
LulieTanett 9 months ago
@LulieTanett The problem of induction and falsifiability.
participant706 7 months ago
This is an entertaining and an intelligible video. The commentator sounds hyper. But i must say, meta-ethical statements like "slavery is wrong" is not a "fact" unless youre talking about it in a layman's way. Moral realism is far from factual, its a matter that is disputed vehemently.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
@idontgiveashit0930 What's a good argument against there being objective truth in morality?
LulieTanett 9 months ago
@LulieTanett Read JL Mackie's Inventing Ethics or Richard Joyce's The Myth of Morality. Both of their arguments are fairly short, the first few chapters in each book (the rest is devoted toward "inventing ethics" or "moral fictionalism", but this isn't necessary to understand the argument for Moral Error theory. Actually if you are some sort of subjectivist, look up Harman (though I wouldn't advise taking up a position if you aren't informed on it :)).
analyticaa 9 months ago
@analyticaa What's the most persuasive argument from those works you cite? Or what's a good one about it?
LulieTanett 9 months ago
Rarely do these 10 min philosophical summerys turn out intelligible, but this is not the case with this one. Good job
I'm currently reading Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies," and I have to say there is little archive footage or interviews to be found on this remarkable thinker. If anyone is interested in hearing a very compelling defense for democracy, supported by a analysis on Plato,Marx and Hegel, then I recommend they read the book I cited above.
Howsonify 1 year ago
Cool vid. i must say i arrived at very similar conclusions before ever reading Popper. One thing however: You suggested faith is the basis of a Belief in God. I agree, but, my faith is the fruit of much reasoning. My years of reasoning led me to the frayed edges of reason where i concluded that what i can not see - yet seems to be there - is there.
sgt7 1 year ago
@sgt7 Faith isn't always the basis of a belief in God, you're right. In the video, it was just used as an example of one foundation some people use.
LulieTanett 1 year ago
THE END hahaha
blondieo80 1 year ago
There is a minor error at approximately 50 seconds. You said and I am paraphrasing: The idea of how to cure cancer isn't in anyone's mind, because no one knows yet how to cure cancer.
This isn't necessarily true. Let us imagine there is some way to cure cancer p, but no one has discovered p. But some person S believes p merely by luck (perhaps, it is just a guess; how S comes to believe p is unimportant as long as he believes p without any justification).
analyticaa 1 year ago
@analyticaa If the cure to cancer isn't in someone's mind as addressing this problem of 'how to cure cancer', and the person doesn't apply it to that, it's not useful so wouldn't count as 'knowledge' even under the Popperian definition.
I'm a little skeptical the cure is so simple that one could get it merely by luck, but maybe in solving other medical problems someone happens on the right idea. Maybe, but we still don't have the cure in one sense. (Recall I'm arguing *against* justification.)
LulieTanett 1 year ago
@LulieTanett You are correct to say that S wouldn't have knowledge of the cure p. That is my point. If S believes p ("p is in S's mind" as you might put it), such that S doesn't have justification for p, then we would not want to say this counts as knowledge. So with my counterexample, no one knows how to cure cancer and yet, the idea of how to cure cancer is in someone's mind. This is a clear counterexample to what you said.
analyticaa 1 year ago
@analyticaa We don't need justification for something to count as knowledge: I was saying that instead of justification, the important thing is *whether people understand it's a solution to that particular problem*. If people have a theory about something, but don't realise that theory *applies to* curing cancer, then those people are lacking knowledge of how to cure cancer. (Rather, they contain some knowledge of how to cure cancer, but they don't have the knowledge of how it applies.)
LulieTanett 9 months ago
@LulieTanett You write that you are skeptical the cure is so simple that one could get it merely by luck. Obviously, it would be unlikely, but the relevant consideration isn't about cancer. You could strip the example of cancer out completely and pose the relevant constants this way: p is true; p is not knowledge; S believes p; S is not justified in believing p. I hope this is clear now.
analyticaa 1 year ago
Comment removed
analyticaa 1 year ago
Tight!
Karl Popper grew on me.
penchago 1 year ago
All that being said, its nice to see videos about philosophy on youtube.
spawk1993 1 year ago
Further more, the opposite, epistemological particularism, is now rather popular giving philosophy's new found appreciation of language.
And lastly , philosophers that are agianst the correspondence theory of truth are not against all truth theories lmao. The coherence theory, pragmatic theory, redundant theory, and minimalist theory are the most popular ones as I understand it, and your criticism wouldn't make sense against any of them.
spawk1993 1 year ago
Or that logic is axiomatic, in the formal sense.
Calssic epistemology does not tell us to try to justify beliefs lmfao. Descartes? Spinoza? Lebniz? Hume? Berkley? kant? None of them came even clsoe to this description. They were all epistemological Methodists. That is, they came to a theory of the nature of epistemic justification, and then put our beliefs under a litmus test.
spawk1993 1 year ago
@spawk1993 I'm not sure I understand what you're saying -- what's the difference between seeking justification for beliefs, and making a system which you can put your beliefs through to see if they're justified?
LulieTanett 1 year ago
@LulieTanett
There are two approaches you can take. You can say "this is what we know" and then find out why we know it. This is called epistemological particularism. It was championed by people like GE moore in the twentieth century.
The other approach, called methodism , is when you deiced what it is to be justified and then find out whether our beliefs fit the bill. So, for instance a radical empirist would say that the only justification is that of immediate experience.
spawk1993 1 year ago
@spawk1993
There is a third approach you can take -- and this is the one that Popper takes -- namely to consider the question "why do we know it?" the wrong question. Instead, we may focus on the question "how do we find and correct errors?"
All these questions like "how do we know what we know" or "do our beliefs have justification?" or "how can we be sure" or "how can we make our beliefs more probable" are instances of trying to justify theories, which is useless and which Popper rejected.
LulieTanett 1 year ago
@LulieTanett And so, we dont know anything about the past or material reality. In light of this methodology it would seem unfair to say that philosophers spend their time trying to justify their beliefs, to show that they are right. And this is the methodology that was prominent through out most of the history philosophy. I hope that makes what I am saying somewhat clearer.
spawk1993 1 year ago
1. Books dont contain knowledge. To say that a bok knows something is silly. Rather, the properties of a book are such that the human mind interprets them in such a way that they may have new thoughts. This seems obvious. There is no need to say that a book has knowledge.
2. There are lots of arguments for particular foundations. For instance, we have direct acquaintance with sense perception, and so this is the only possible non inferential justified belief.
spawk1993 1 year ago
@spawk1993 Books: The information in the books was the same information as in the writers; so it seems a bit strange to call that same information 'knowledge' when it's in writers and readers, but not when the identical information is in the books.
Sense perception and foundations: Senses aren't direct either -- we have to interpret them. E.g. visual illusions. We could be and often are fooled by our senses.
LulieTanett 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LulieTanett The information is not literally written. Letters are written that when looked at by an observer may be interpreted as signs symbolizing information. The information, both when being read and written, if just in our heads.
Ummm, we have a direct acquaintance with sense perception lol. Maybe your conflating this with objects. Im not saying, for instance, that I have a direct relationship with the table I see. Rather, that I have a direct relationship with my own presentation of it
spawk1993 1 year ago
@LulieTanett And from that fact many foundationalists have tried to build systmes of knowledge and metaphysics.
spawk1993 1 year ago
Excellent video! They should show this (or something very similar) at all high schools world wide.
moftan 1 year ago
@moftan The first version of this was actually designed for and given to a class of high school students (well, the British equivalent: 6th form college).
Tack för kommentaren. :)
LulieTanett 1 year ago
nice video. I am not sure if justification has an infinite regression if someone accepts certain axioms, like the law of identity.
aaron0883 1 year ago
@aaron0883 Accepting an axiom means judging everything according to that axiom, which implies the axiom itself can't be judged. This means that one is shielding it from all criticism.
If you don't have axioms, but instead have tentative theories that can be criticised and changed if you find better ones, there isn't that problem. But then you run into the infinite regress problem... unless you reject the idea that justification is needed.
LulieTanett 1 year ago