Talk:Epistemology/Archive 3

message: I would like to delete the 3 philosophers below from the long list of "Epistemic Philosophers" at the end of the article. I will do so unless someone objects:
**Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (Her work is just too new and too sparse to be included with the other great minds on this list. I have never heard of her before. Maybe in 20 years she'll belong on the list. Her Wikipedia article is probably unjustified on grounds of not being notable enough. It might even be a vanity article.)
**Alfred Sohn-Rethel (Never heard of him either. From his wiki article, there is no reason to think that he was really an epistemologist in the sense of this list. It sounds like he is really an economist/political philosopher who perhaps used "epistemology" in some non-standard sense.) 
**Gaston Bachelard (Also never heard of him. I'm intriguied by his wiki article and would like to know more, but it sounds like he is what is called a sociologist of science or maybe even psychologist of science as distinct from an epistemologist.) 
--Nate Ladd 23:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
: Bachelard is a keeper.  He's listed in all three major single volume encyclopedias of philosophy, and while he's more of a philosopher of science, I think he's big enough to be listed here.  Zagzebski is good and interesting, but I agree not important enough to be on this list.  I'm with you on Sohn-Rethel.  Never heard of him. KSchutte 02:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop me before I delete again 

message: Gettier's counterexamples show why the odd notion that belief is a factor in knowledge is rejected as absurd; plus knowledge is not belief, because uttering, 'Knowledge is belief' suffers from the logical fallacy of conflating two different things, knowledge and belief.--67.182.157.6 19:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gettier problem|Gettier's]] counterexamples show that belief is not a factor in knowledge

message: :Gettier neither says nor shows anything of the sort. ...
Balderdash. His counterexamples kill your dogma that knowledge is justified true belief.
:...To say that there is JTB which is not knowledge doesn't imply the contrary. ...
What? Getter's counterexamples kill your dogma that knowledge is justified true belief. You understand the meaning of the term, 'counterexample' don't you, ChristoFurious?
:Gettier's cases are consistent with the view that being JTB is a necessary, although it isn't yet a sufficient, account of knowledge. Certainly we shouldn't commit ourselves to the absurdity of a circular definition of knowledge as "that which is known..." ...
So we should never EVER call a spade a spade, ChristoFurious?
 
:-- whatever comes after the word "known" there, the definition will still be fallaciously circular, ...
Balderdash. By your "line of reasoning" instead of calling a spade a spade we would have to call it a manuo-pedal excavationary implement or something?
If you object to saying "Knowledge is simply that which is known to be in accord with the actual state of affairs," then how about the following:
"Knowledge is simply that which is proven to be in accord with the actual state of affairs, a statement supported by proof, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning."
Any objection to that one?
:... as well as unsupported by anybody in the history of epistemology, Gettier included. BTW, Gettier is already treated in this article. 
Not treated fairly. As the article stands now Gettier is "treated" from your JTB bias. That ain't right.
:And if something is true but no one believes it, who knows it?  --Christofurio 21:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
That's the same sophistry by loaded question Nat Ladd tried. Y'all get that at Sunday School? You are being a little overprotective of your dogma ("Knowledge is belief") here aren't you, ChristoFurious, in the manner of a true obscurantist sesquipedalian?
Obscurantist Sesquipedalian: One who is inordinately infatuated with polysyllabic obfuscation, preferring never to employ a less complicated syntactic arrangement of descriptive words when there exists a single expressive unit that amalgamates the multiplicity of morphemes1 comprising the simpler phrase. Among the manifold objectives of multisyllabic, holophrastic verbalism are those of: rendering the author's meaning indisputably precise yet simultaneously incomprehensible; demonstrating through superior orthography and lexical awareness that the writer is manifestly more erudite than the reader; disempowering intellectual challenge to the proponent's argument by using logomachinations to divert discussion to the establishment of the opponent's comprehension of the vocabulary as opposed to addressing the factual import of the treatise which, upon analysis, may well prove amphigorous. The obscurantist sesquipedalian is likely to compound the reader's difficulties by indulging in glossosynthesis, thus enabling the author to dismiss all opposing views as ultracrepidarious. In other words, a sesquipedalian is one who would call a spade a manuo-pedal excavationary implement.  
Best regards.--67.182.157.6 23:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't use long words (sesquipedelian) or complicated arguments (obscurantist)?  Remember this is a philosophy article--editors should be able to use either in the talk page at least.  If you don't understand something, just say what it is you don't understand, and hopefully the original editor will paraphrase it, or someone else will explain it better.  (I think the word sesquipedelian is itself humorously long.)  WhiteC 18:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You think the word, 'sesquipedelian' is itself humorously long, moron? Well DUH!
===Here is how Gettier and JTB should BOTH be given appropriate mention in the article===
Epistemology is the study of knowledge.
====Defining knowledge====
Knowledge is simply that which is known, to a high level of confidence, to be in accord with the actual state of affairs because it is supported by proof, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
For many long years of philosophical history the majority point of view was that knowledge is justified true belief. This changed n the 1960s when Edmund Gettier showed by counterexample that the Theaetetus definition of knowledge was bogus by pointing out situations in which a believer has a justified true belief that does not in any way qualify as knowledge. 
Another current objection to the Theaetetus definition of knowledge is that the statement, "Knowledge is ... belief" suffers from the logical fallacy of conflation of two entierely different things. See informal logic.
--67.182.157.6 16:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deconstructing the above disingenuous reply in which ChristoFurious demonstrates how to act like a truely remarkable Sesquipedalian Obscurantist

message: Epistemology is the study of knowledge.
====Defining knowledge====
Knowledge is simply that which is known, to a high level of confidence, to be in accord with the actual state of affairs because it is supported by proof, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
For many long years of philosophical history the majority point of view was that knowledge is justified true belief. This changed n the 1960s when Edmund Gettier showed by counterexample that the Theaetetus definition of knowledge was bogus by pointing out situations in which a believer has a justified true belief that does not in any way qualify as knowledge. 
Another current objection to the Theaetetus definition of knowledge is that the statement, "Knowledge is ... belief" suffers from the logical fallacy of conflation of two entierely different things. See informal logic.
--67.182.157.6 16:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is how Gettier and JTB should BOTH be given appropriate mention in the article

message: Knowledge is simply that which is known, to a high level of confidence, to be in accord with the actual state of affairs because it is supported by proof, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
For many long years of philosophical history the majority point of view was that knowledge is justified true belief. This changed n the 1960s when Edmund Gettier showed by counterexample that the Theaetetus definition of knowledge was bogus by pointing out situations in which a believer has a justified true belief that does not in any way qualify as knowledge. 
Another current objection to the Theaetetus definition of knowledge is that the statement, "Knowledge is ... belief" suffers from the logical fallacy of conflation of two entierely different things. See informal logic.
--67.182.157.6 16:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining knowledge

message: #Edit out all of Banno's obscurantist nonsense, including his diagram, which conflates knowledge (facts supported by evidence), and belief without evidence, two entirely different things.
#Keep asking Banno and friends how could it possibly be that belief is a factor in demonstrating knowledge of the facts in any particular case when that odd notion was taken out by Gettier's counterexamples way back in the 1960s.
#Keep pointing out that the big problem with belief is that any belief can be wrong, so belief cannot possibly be a factor in demonstrating knowledge. Evidence talks, bullshit walks.
Freethinkers please add more.
--67.182.157.6 06:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Freethinkers' list of things to do as an alternative to being one of Banno's sheep