Katrex wrote:If you can't understand the argument, and the simple logic of it there's no helping you. If you don't understand you wont agree, that's fine. If you're capable of understanding it you will agree.
I know that sounds arrogant but its just one of those things either you get it or you don't. You think just because it might be written in some book will make it more valid than if not?
Regardless it's self consistent, and no ones been able to find a fault in it yet. Having no citations makes no difference to it's validity. Look at the evidence, try to think up a scenarios where it's not true and decide for yourself, not because some overrated philosopher said it was the case.
Of course if you're religious and/or hold unjustified beliefs to be "TRUE" then will not fit in with your world theory, but if you "believe" in logic and evidence it is a very good definition on knowledge.
I really couldn't disagree more. Claiming to have fixed a major problem in philosophy in a couple of paragraphs without consideration of, disagreement with, or building upon named predecessors is stupendously unlikely to be correct. Let's say that you do have a fully worked out system, radically different from everything before, with complete internal justification and minimal reliance on outside sources for substantive content. Let's see it, the magnum opus, with every angle worked out by baby steps. Heidegger did it, and if you're serious about your argument so will you. In the meantime, let's expand on what I meant by "citation needed":
Justified true belief is a nice easy definition, but that's not what knowledge is.
Knowledge doesn't have to be "true" the definition most people have of it anyway. Hard to parse, sloppy grammar.To go with a pure science approach , Define "pure science" clearly, preferably with a precedent citation.
Knowledge is the belief that accurately explains all the evidence. What kind of evidence? What is belief in this context? Again, which literature does this base itself upon?
Truth requires no evidence. It is true that 2+2 is 4. Says who?
the only Truths with a capital T are provable. This is an assertion, again with no supporting citation and or heavy duty exposition.
Everything else is meaningless use of language and confusing ourselves. The extension of this phrase is not clear. The rest of the discourse on truth is meaningless? All utterances or inscriptions putatively about things not apodictially true are a waste of breath?
The statements, this knowledge is true, this knowledge is false are meaningless, as knowledge is our best explanation. If it's not our best explanation, then it's just less justified belief. Conclusion from undefended or weak premises (see above comments).
Take the question "How can the universe have always existed? How can it have had a beginning" These questions are meaningless, You can't prove them mathematically and there is no evidence to use that could allow us to come up with theory to explain. They are meaningless abstract statements. All we know is the evidence suggests the universe had a beginning, that's it. It might be incomprehensible, but that is all it comes down to. It had a beginning end of. You're missing a meta-metaphysical premise here relating to the impossibility of logically proving ontological statements or a precise ontological statement about the universe.
You'll find half the questions in philosophy aren't provable and have no evidence either way. They are meaningless and that's why no one ever comes up with a real answer. People confuse matters by trying to find meaning. I tend to agree, but then again a broken clock is correct twice a day. There's no such thing as meaning, it's a human invention so that the concept of human existence doesn't destroy us.
EDIT: copy-pasted wrong material from word into the fora first time round.