debate

[OldTrees]

Believing absolutely that the earth is flat is foolish. (Not a contradiction)
Yes, but "believing absolutely that something is true" is in a way a contradiction like "everything is relative" is. Saw the difference? This sentence tries to be absolute itself.

Believing absolutely means you don't consider the fact that you can be wrong.
That's is close to knowing, isn't it? Believing absolutely is either a knowledge or just a nonsense, because "believing" pretty much means that that I can be right or wrong, right? But if "believing absolutely" is a knowledge or close to it, then it relates to truth traditionally. 1 plus 1 is 2, I believe that I can't be wrong; am I foolish now?

A fool in this context is someone that forgets that they can be wrong.
Context is pretty much missing here, in this sole sentence we spoke about.

You are using the wrong meaning of something. In this case it is used as a pronoun for "insert belief here". It does not imply relativity. Additionally you should assume that someone that protests ignoring the possibility of being wrong is not ignoring the possibility of being wrong.

Believing absolutely (aka forgetting you can be wrong) is not related to knowledge it is related to conviction. So yes, merely believing you can't be wrong about 1+1=2 is foolish. Knowing 1+1=2 would not be foolish. There is a difference.

The context is who spoke the sentence and the conversation around that sentence.

[pervepic]

"I am convinced that I went outside 1 hour ago". English is not my native language, but I don't get why this sentence is more close to believing than knowing. For me it seems then every knowledge can be expressed as strict conviction or belief - that's why knowledge is true (and justified, as you wish) belief.

From you just follows that "merely believing" is stupid in any case (even in case that 1 plus 1 and the circle is round) and "absolute belief" is even worse (since it somehow mysteriously forgets that it can be wrong and is therefore a  belief) then both of then just can't participate in the traditional meaning of knowledge. For me it is completely unclear from where that strict distinction comes from. From truth? No, since both knowledge and belief are trying to be true. From justification? But you never know when something is justified enough and you shouldn't ask further. That's a matter of belief.

"You are using the wrong meaning of something. In this case it is used as a pronoun for "insert belief here". It does not imply relativity. Additionally you should assume that someone that protests ignoring the possibility of being wrong is not ignoring the possibility of being wrong."

Saying again: a sentence that says that believing something absolutely is foolish is foolish because it believes absolutely that believing something absolutely is foolish. Relativity was just an example. Further, about the possibility of being wrong, did I assumed anything else? Where?

[OldTrees]

"I am convinced that I went outside 1 hour ago". English is not my native language, but I don't get why this sentence is more close to believing than knowing. For me it seems then every knowledge can be expressed as strict conviction or belief - that's why knowledge is true (and justified, as you wish) belief.

From you just follows that "merely believing" is stupid in any case (even in case that 1 plus 1 and the circle is round) and "absolute belief" is even worse (since it somehow mysteriously forgets that it can be wrong and is therefore a  belief) then both of then just can't participate in the traditional meaning of knowledge. For me it is completely unclear from where that strict distinction comes from. From truth? No, since both knowledge and belief are trying to be true. From justification? But you never know when something is justified enough and you shouldn't ask further. That's a matter of belief.

"You are using the wrong meaning of something. In this case it is used as a pronoun for "insert belief here". It does not imply relativity. Additionally you should assume that someone that protests ignoring the possibility of being wrong is not ignoring the possibility of being wrong."

Saying again: a sentence that says that believing something absolutely is foolish is foolish because it believes absolutely that believing something absolutely is foolish. Relativity was just an example. Further, about the possibility of being wrong, did I assumed anything else? Where?

If I know X then I believe X. [P -> Q]
Q does not imply P.
Knowledge is usually defined as justified true belief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief
Justification is discussed in Epistemology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
I hold to the concept that justification arises if the belief could only exist if true. This solidifies the usage of knowledge as a belief that is necessarily true.
If a belief can be wrong (merely belief) then treating it as if it can't be wrong(stronger justification definition of knowledge) is foolish.

The belief that believing something absolutely is foolish is only foolish if believed absolutely. If the possibility of error is recognized then there is no contradiction.

[pervepic]

Yeah, from that follows that this sentence itself can't be very radical or something like an universal principle. In addition, often "mere beliefs" that are most likely true are used practically in everyday life (I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow etc).  And overall  I agree that the "foolishness" can come only when a believer confuses "mere believing" with the "strict believing" as necessarily true beliefs. In a way it is so self-evident that seems almost tautological, since  "absolute believing" can't be a "mere believing" at the same time. It is a contradiction and only a fool can believe in contradictions. But the problem that I wanted to show was that from the first person's perspective it is very hard to make difference between that kind of "absolute believing" and knowing. When a person is so certain then he thinks that he knows something, although others may tell that this is just his belief. Of course in my interpretation I didn't consider knowledge as something about "necessarily true", because this is far too narrow definition imo. Besides, necessity is also a matter of interpretation. And knowledge can be also about single facts (I don't like that word either), events and tendencies which can or can't be interpreted as a part of the necessity. Seeing it in that way it seemed to me that since there are no too obvious way to make difference between knowing and absolute believing, the whole sentence seemed far too naive. Another problem lies in the meaning of "belief". I thought that it has pretty much the meaning of "mere belief" and if so, how can it turn out to be "absolute" as almost non-belief anymore? Is it still a belief then and who says so? In a word, the term "absolute belief" seemed contradictious too, because it requires awareness of that belief as a belief from the first-person perspective (it can't be knowing which it seemed to be finally). One most know that one believes. Who else can judge that? So, a sentence about the absolute belief turned out to be both trivial and contradictious at the same time. Therefore I stated to think that maybe there is another possibility to see that and I think that there is: to believe that something is absolutely true is foolish because there is no absolute truth! This seems more interesting but sadly it is contradictious too, already because the meaning of the fool who doesn't know how the things really are (it assumes the universal truth again). Secondly, absolute believing which seemed to be close to knowing was also related with truth. Anyway, the whole sentence is full of problems, it seems.

[OldTrees]

You lost me.

I think you meant trivial or a contradiction. Trivial logical statements are rarely contradictions. However while the statement is trivial when thought about, in practice some people fall victim to ignoring that they can be wrong. Thus the comment is not trivial when applied to the limited rationality of society.

If I said "The sky is blue", then regardless of the detail that it could have meant "The sky is sad" it does not mean "The sky is blue". Even if you can interpret the sentence to mean something about relativity, it was not talking about relativity.

[memimemi]

I am afraid I am much more of an amateur in this field. I don't know of Russel or Whitehead by name.

This is a good start.

@Unproveable statement that truthfully claims it is unproveable. [Unknowable]
I have 2 statements. Both claim to be unproveable. One is true the other is false.
I can learn the false claim is false by proving it is false. If it were not false I would not be able to prove it false. Therefore my belief it the false claim being false is true and would not exist if the claim were not false. This belief would be knowledge.
I cannot differentiate the true claim from a yet unproven false claim. Therefore if I believed the true claim were true then I would believe it were true regardless of whether it was true or not. Since I could have the same belief from the same premises and be incorrect, the belief is not knowledge.

Okay, so, take the statement "[This statement] cannot be proven to be true."  In order to falsify it, you would have to prove that its true - thereby rendering it false, which means your axioms, or the system of logic used, is providing false statements as proven truths, rendering it unreliable as a gauge of truth.  However, if it cannot be proven true, that makes it true, which means the logic system is unable to provide all truths as outputs from manipulation of axioms.  Either way, you have what is either obviously a true statement, or a subtly true AND false statement.  In both cases, proofs fail, despite our sure and certain knowledge that it is true.

@"This statement could be false"
Was this a typo? I initially wrote "Inherently true means a belief that could not have been false." The beliefs that the statement "This statement could be false" being true or false both can be false. Since the beliefs could be false they are not knowledge.

Usually knowledge is defined as justified belief that happens to be true. I find issue with the coincidence of "happens to" rather than the stronger link of "must".

The statement "This statement could be false" defies your criteria for knowledge, and most certainly was not a typo.  If it is true, then it could be false, rendering a formal proof impossible, despite it being true.  If it is false, then it is true.  So, in either case, it is true, but not (by your definition) inherently true, and so not knowledge, and by extension, not knowable. 

Knowledge is to Truth as Quadrilateral is to Square.  Truth is only one of the domains of Knowledge.  We can also know, for example, fears; lies; fictional characters; hopes; legends; etc. (Note that all of these things are knowable, despite not being true in any proveable way.)  Truth is but one of many things we can know; however, without a knower, there is no Truth.  Note that 'knower' is used loosely, here - any mechanism for distinguishing falsehood/logical inconsistancy from Truth/formally provable fact - will do.

Knowledge cannot possibly be a 'justified belief' - the very concept begs the question: how can one have a 'justified' belief, without prior knowledge with which to justify it? 

[OldTrees]

@memimemi
Thanks for the link!

@"This statement cannot be proven true"
If it could be proven true it would be proven false. If this statement could be proven false then it would be true. If it must be true xor false (suspicious premise for such statements), then it cannot be proven true. If we know that it must be true xor false then it could be proven true. If it must be true xor false then we must not be able to know it must be true xor false. If we know it is not true xor false then we get into hairy possibilities (both and neither) about which I do not know the logic to shape into proofs. I do not know the truth value of this statement thus I do not know if it can be proved true.

@"This statement could be false"
If true it is either true but not false or true and false. If false it is both false and true. If neither true nor false then it is neither true nor false.
[different meanings of could might shift these a bit]

PS: I assume there is some math out their that can work with 4 truth states.

I might be able to know Tolkien wrote Legolas was an elf. I do not think I would be able to know Legolas was an elf. The first is true the second is not true.
Knowledge is a type of belief. I assume there are true statements that can be made about the time before rational beings. Wouldn't these statements be true before they were conceived? Aka is truth a belief or a characteristic?

If you do not ascribe to justified true belief (for good reason it looks), what is the definition for knowledge you use?

[memimemi]

@memimemi
Thanks for the link!

 

@"This statement cannot be proven true"
If it could be proven true it would be proven false. If this statement could be proven false then it would be true. If it must be true xor false (suspicious premise for such statements), then it cannot be proven true. If we know that it must be true xor false then it could be proven true. If it must be true xor false then we must not be able to know it must be true xor false. If we know it is not true xor false then we get into hairy possibilities (both and neither) about which I do not know the logic to shape into proofs. I do not know the truth value of this statement thus I do not know if it can be proved true.

In principle, however, you can know that it's true: take the set [all theorems proven true from these axioms], and see whether the statement 'This statement cannot be proven true' lies within it.  If it does, then it has been proven true, and so is true - except that it has falsified itself.  If it does not, then it cannot be proven true, and so is true.  In both cases, you do know the truth value, because you cannot provide a proof.  No matter what, it's a true statement to our understanding (mind, self, what have you), and yet cannot be proven.

@"This statement could be false"
If true it is either true but not false or true and false. If false it is both false and true. If neither true nor false then it is neither true nor false.
[different meanings of could might shift these a bit]

PS: I assume there is some math out their that can work with 4 truth states.

Mathematics have a great deal of trouble with discussing themselves.  I think you'll enjoy the Principia.

I might be able to know Tolkien wrote Legolas was an elf. I do not think I would be able to know Legolas was an elf. The first is true the second is not true.
Knowledge is a type of belief. I assume there are true statements that can be made about the time before rational beings. Wouldn't these statements be true before they were conceived? Aka is truth a belief or a characteristic?

If you do not ascribe to justified true belief (for good reason it looks), what is the definition for knowledge you use?

i) To say that knowing Tolkien wrote LoTR, with Legolas as an Elf, precludes knowing that Legolas is an Elf, is akin to saying that knowing that Tolkein was a product of his DNA reacting with its environment precludes knowing that Tolkien was a writer.  The truth of whether elves exist is irrelevant; we know that Legolas is one.  Legolas is fictional, elves are fictional, we know they're fictional, but we also know what they are.  We also know what they aren't - Ents come to mind, OldTrees.

ii) Knowledge is not a type of belief.  They are cousins, perhaps, but not siblings.  I can know, based on census figures, that the population of Detroit, MI, was just over 700,000 people in 2011, even though I really find it hard to believe that that many people have bothered to stay.  If I trust the census, though, my belief will change to fit the facts.  I can believe, wholeheartedly, that the Earth will turn entirely to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I know that there is no mechanism by which that could conceivably happen.

iii) Truth is neither a belief nor a characteristic.  It is the most agreed upon representation of the Human experience of events, most of which are far beyond our comprehension.  Knowledge is the repeated experience of events, and perception thereof, that best agrees with the common experience of one's peers.

I hold forth that we cannot claim any absolute knowledge, as we have but a finite capacity, in the face of an infinite universe.  Remember that we're built to survive on one small speck of rock and iron, in a suburban area of a backwater galaxy - we're not so good at imagining truly universal concepts, since they don't really add any survival value to our genes. 

[OldTrees]

ii) Knowledge is not a type of belief.  They are cousins, perhaps, but not siblings.  I can know, based on census figures, that the population of Detroit, MI, was just over 700,000 people in 2011, even though I really find it hard to believe that that many people have bothered to stay.  If I trust the census, though, my belief will change to fit the facts.  I can believe, wholeheartedly, that the Earth will turn entirely to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I know that there is no mechanism by which that could conceivably happen.

iii) Truth is neither a belief nor a characteristic.  It is the most agreed upon representation of the Human experience of events, most of which are far beyond our comprehension.  Knowledge is the repeated experience of events, and perception thereof, that best agrees with the common experience of one's peers.

I am really glad you necro'd this thread.

ii) I can believe that the Earth will turn to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I do not know of a mechanism. Are you sure you can believe it if you know no mechanism exists?

iii) So Truth can be false? See the belief in a flat Earth back when there was a consensus to that effect.

[pervepic]

"You lost me"

Dream on.  Many trivial commonsense beliefs can be contradictious if we analyze inherent meanings that are assumed there. Self-contradictious sentences can also include tautologies (like simple derivation from the obvious meaning of the concept) , I don't see any problems with that. If you want me to start counting how many times you "lost" me, then I can do that. But that's a childish way to speak about the topic.

"If I said "The sky is blue", then regardless of the detail that it could have meant "The sky is sad" it does not mean "The sky is blue". Even if you can interpret the sentence to mean something about relativity, it was not talking about relativity."

Mh? I wasn't talking about realtivity either. I just brought one example how a sentence about relativity relates to itself. Are you reading what I am writing or just throwing your ideas, guru? Please explain further what did you meant with the "sky is blue" example and how it is related with the topic.

Sentences like "you should always consider that you can be wrong" are something that are called truisms, which have rather bad reputations. Their seeming self-evidence hides many contradictions and problems and after analyzing them all that remain are just a vaguessness and tautologies (or too small hermeneutical circles, which don't give us anything new).

Explaining once more. I can take a mental state (a bit problematic but overall more or less understandable thing like "absolute belief") and say something about that tautologically (using that is "foolish", but this "foolishness" comes pretty much from the definition of that weird thing). It is not a logical tautology but a rhetorical one - it doesn't open many new horizons and meanings with that. Besides,  now it is also unclear why this weirdness doesn't apply to the whole sentence itsef (although there was used "feeling" instead of "believing", but no big difference in principle). So, what we have here is vaguessness, tautology, contradiction(s) in one sentence. Therefore, in a way it is a brilliant one.

[memimemi]

I am really glad you necro'd this thread.

ii) I can believe that the Earth will turn to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I do not know of a mechanism. Are you sure you can believe it if you know no mechanism exists?

iii) So Truth can be false? See the belief in a flat Earth back when there was a consensus to that effect.

ii) Yes.  To do otherwise is to deny the phenomenon of religious belief.  Tertullian's "credo qua absurdum;" Kirkegaard's 'leap of faith:' for many, knowledge of how God performs his divine acts is in direct contravention with faith in God, which is isopomorphic with belief in God. 

iii) First, we need to separate the concepts of '(absolute) Truth' from mere truth.  The former, were it to be a consistant quality, must not be false in any way at all.  The latter, however, has no such strict requirement.  Look at the scientific method: all truths are conditionial.  Does this mean that science is not a means of garnering knowledge?  Did Ptolemy not 'know' that the planets followed their unusual epicycles, on their paths around the Earth?  Human-level truths are necessarily conditionial - until such a time as we become omniscient, we have no way of knowing whether any true statement is absolutely true.

[OldTrees]

"You lost me"

Dream on.  Many trivial commonsense beliefs can be contradictious if we analyze inherent meanings that are assumed there. Self-contradictious sentences can also include tautologies (like simple derivation from the obvious meaning of the concept) , I don't see any problems with that. If you want me to start counting how many times you "lost" me, then I can do that. But that's a childish way to speak about the topic.

"If I said "The sky is blue", then regardless of the detail that it could have meant "The sky is sad" it does not mean "The sky is blue". Even if you can interpret the sentence to mean something about relativity, it was not talking about relativity."

Mh? I wasn't talking about realtivity either. I just brought one example how a sentence about relativity relates to itself. Are you reading what I am writing or just throwing your ideas, guru? Please explain further what did you meant with the "sky is blue" example and how it is related with the topic.

Sentences like "you should always consider that you can be wrong" are something that are called truisms, which have rather bad reputations. Their seeming self-evidence hides many contradictions and problems and after analyzing them all that remain are just a vaguessness and tautologies (or too small hermeneutical circles, which don't give us anything new).

Explaining once more. I can take a mental state (a bit problematic but overall more or less understandable thing like "absolute belief") and say something about that tautologically (using that is "foolish", but this "foolishness" comes pretty much from the definition of that weird thing). It is not a logical tautology but a rhetorical one - it doesn't open many new horizons and meanings with that. Besides,  now it is also unclear why this weirdness doesn't apply to the whole sentence itsef (although there was used "feeling" instead of "believing", but no big difference in principle). So, what we have here is vaguessness, tautology, contradiction(s) in one sentence. Therefore, in a way it is a brilliant one.

When I said you lost me I was serious. I did not understand what you were trying to say in your last post. "Dream on" is a rude comment to make. I am trying to understand what you said. If I understood enough to ask a question, I would have. Since I did not understand that much, I admitted my failing and notified you that your message was not received.

"Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid"
"A contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions." A self contradicting statement is something that cannot be true.
Therefore "No tautology is a contradiction"

There was a typo in the Sky is blue example:
"If I said "The sky is blue", then regardless of the detail that it could have meant "The sky is sad" it does not mean "The sky is sad". Even if you can interpret the sentence to mean something about relativity, it was not talking about relativity."
It was in reference to you interpreting a possible relativity meaning (there is no truth) in the original sentence that was not put there by the writer. This might just be an example of where I have misunderstood what you have been writing.

"A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder"

In the case of the original statement we have a truism used as a reminder combined with a normative assertion. The truism is self-evident and thus not a contradiction. The assertion was derived from the truism and an unstated normative premise ("irrationality is foolish") so the assertion is not tautological nor self contradicting.

I am really glad you necro'd this thread.

ii) I can believe that the Earth will turn to Nerf next Tuesday, even though I do not know of a mechanism. Are you sure you can believe it if you know no mechanism exists?

iii) So Truth can be false? See the belief in a flat Earth back when there was a consensus to that effect.

ii) Yes.  To do otherwise is to deny the phenomenon of religious belief.  Tertullian's "credo qua absurdum;" Kirkegaard's 'leap of faith:' for many, knowledge of how God performs his divine acts is in direct contravention with faith in God, which is isopomorphic with belief in God. 

iii) First, we need to separate the concepts of '(absolute) Truth' from mere truth.  The former, were it to be a consistant quality, must not be false in any way at all.  The latter, however, has no such strict requirement.  Look at the scientific method: all truths are conditionial.  Does this mean that science is not a means of garnering knowledge?  Did Ptolemy not 'know' that the planets followed their unusual epicycles, on their paths around the Earth?  Human-level truths are necessarily conditionial - until such a time as we become omniscient, we have no way of knowing whether any true statement is absolutely true.

ii) All the religious belief I have encountered is more similar to believing despite having evidence against (know of no mechanism) rather than despite having solid proof (know no mechanism exists) against.

iii) I think I understand. You are using truth to describe our perception of a statement rather than describing the truth value of the statement. Is this accurate?