Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 19) AchillesSinatra: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as always, provides an invaluable source... http://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2008/entries/knowledge-analysis/ According to the following analysis, which is usually referred to as the "JTB" account, knowledge is justified true belief. The JTB Analysis of Knowledge: S knows that p iff i. p is true; ii. S believes that p; iii. S is justified in believing that p. [Now pay close attention to what follows, Zeffur  ]Condition (i), the truth condition, has not generated any significant degree of discussion. It is overwhelmingly clear that what is false cannot be known. For example, it is false that G. E. Moore is the author of Sense and Sensibilia. Since it is false, it is not the sort of thing anybody can know.  Blackshoes: https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/features-on-jewish-world/the-anti-semitism-of-george-bernard-shaw/2015/05/06/ AchillesSinatra: As far as I can discern from a little googling, the Shaw "quote" in question appears in his 1903 play "Man and Superman". So the first salient point to note here is, given that we're dealing with a work of fiction, caution is surely advised in imputing a literal interpretation to Shaw's words, and indeed whether the words can be regarded as a reflection of his own thoughts at all. Anyone out there read it? If so, can you shed any light on this? Any ideas why he might be using a locution as perverse as "false knowledge"? My own knowledge of Shaw the man might be described as exiguous, to say the least, and my knowledge of this particular play, prior to today's googling, non-existent. Interpretation, therefore, would be best left to someone more well versed with the man and his work. (Edited by AchillesSinatra)  zeffur: After further & careful consideration, my position stands: knowledge can be false & true. There has been many examples of information (knowledge) that has been taught to others for decades that was later proven to be false. It was considered 'knowledge' that we now know as 'false knowledge'. It matters little that our goal is for knowledge to always be true & verified whenever possible. False knowledge is still known forever as 'false knowledge'--no matter how much our resident munchkin would like everyone to believe otherwise. What I stated before still stands, as does: "Interesting that ole Bernie Shaw knew what 'false knowledge' is--but then, he was just a Nobel prize award recipient--nothing compared to the great Achilles of WireClub. Sadly, even that fact will still likely mean nothing to the narrow-minded view of Achilles--because, you know, he has to be right--even when he is obviously wrong." Shaw wasn't comparing Juliet to the sun--he was making a point about the dangerousness of false knowledge & about ignorance--both of which affect a proper state of mind. Playing semantics & trying to pretend his words are not literally written is a pretty pathetic offering--but, then what should we expect from such a narrow-minded dishonest or confused person?? Not much, I suppose. You're free to believe (or pretend to believe) whatever rubbish that tickles your latest delusion. (Edited by zeffur) AchillesSinatra: Ok, let it be known, boys and girls of Wireclub, that Zeffur is committed to the existence of false knowledge. The evidential situation can be summarized thus: On my side, the unanimous support of the greatest thinkers of the last 2400 years. Meanwhile in the red corner, Zeffur, as evidence, has adduced one -- yes, one -- quote from a work of fiction to defend his position. Let the reader make up his/her own mind.  Now, Zeffur, moving on to something more sensible: What's your position on vixens that are not female? (Edited by AchillesSinatra) zeffur: It's already been clearly defined--knowledge exists that is known to be true & to be false--though we don't value the false knowledge except for the historical value of it & to know who not to trust again in the future or to identify how we can prevent it from happening again. Is that clear enough for you or shall we delve into the deeper meaning of each & every word to pretend we're smarter than we are?? Or perhaps you might consider offering a few unnecessary analogies for the peanut gallery? (Edited by zeffur)  chronology: Achilles, why do you bother with these people? You are so superior and cultured compared to these babbling imbeciles. zeffur: re: "chronology: Achilles, why do you bother with these people? You are so superior and cultured compared to these babbling imbeciles." Looks like a good time to leave the forum so that these two can engage in adulation/idol worship & a pretense of superiority. Someone lock the door, it's bound to become sexual, too... (Edited by zeffur) Angry Beaver: Like you n BS over on his evolution is not science thread? Real game of soggy biscuit, that one   theHating: Clarity of thought? From an anti-realist approach? How do you apply this logic if you are a juror for a murder case? AchillesSinatra: The scientific realism vs anti-realism issue is (largely) a result of concerns over the status of unobservable entities postulated in scientific theories. Many of the greatest scientists -- Bohr, Mach, Poincare, Heisenberg, early Einstein, etc., etc. -- feel, as I do, that science ought to stay as close as possible to what is directly observable lest we find ourselves dabbling in metaphysics and committing ourselves to a belief in the existence of (what may well be) non-existent creepy-crawlies: quarks, phlogiston, aether, .... God  ... hence their adoption of an anti-realist position. In murder trials, given that there are no postulated unobservables involved, an anti-realist stance would be bizarre indeed.  (Edited by AchillesSinatra) Blackshoes: In any trial or important case, the facts and evidence need to be well supported. Evidence or facts that are contested cannot be counted on to convict (Edited by Blackshoes) | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
