/lit/ - Literature

>>15550045
Not an argument.

it's their job, they need to write papers and are incentivized to never agree

>>15550045
>filtered on the first day of epistemology class
Ouch.

The problem with "justified true belief" is that the definitions of both "justified" and "true" are taken for granted (or rather, not specified) prior to discussing what knowledge is, and ignore the possibility of the nature of things-in-themselves being impossible to know, therefore making it impossible to ever state something that is without any doubt "true".

JTB is a meme. you only need belief to have knowledge.

>>15550133
Filtered? Are you retarded? All of his 'counter-examples' rest on the justification containing a false assumption. Nobody in the world thought that a belief is justified if you're justifying it with false fucking assumptions. This is so fucking obvious. So fucking obvious. I am not a genius. I am not some wonderkid. Why can I see it but these utter retards can't?

>>15550279
you got fucking owned the first day of epistemology KEK

>>15550263
I believe youre a a low IQ faggot. Hence I know youre a low IQ faggot

What's stupid is that among analytics JTB has acquired this status of the 'classical conception of knowledge'. Apart from Plato describing something that resembles it a few times (and furthermore dismissing it), it has by no means served as a steady conception thereof throughout the history of philosophy (something analytics are blind to).

>>15550301
JTB is the only time analytics cared about continental philosophy. really, a massive oversight.

>>15550301
This as well. They created a strawman of Greek epistemology and couldn't even defeat their own strawman. I just don't understand why this is the state of philosophy.

>>15550045
Why would you waste your time with any American """"philosopher""""?

>>15550045
It's a pretty big problem. It seems like we can talk about knowledge, but when we're pressed to give an account of what we mean by knowledge, we usually say something like, a belief, that is true (and not accidentally). So something like a JTB. Counterexamples are always good stuff, so Gettier deserves his acclaim.

>>15550279
You sound like an utter retard. You have no arguments, just spergy bluster.

>Nobody in the world thought that a belief is justified if you're justifying it with false fucking assumptions.
False assumptions? What the fuck are you talking about? What exactly is the theory of knowledge you are postulating?

>>15550232
>The problem with "justified true belief" is that the definitions of both "justified" and "true" are taken for granted (or rather, not specified)
That's not a problem. If knowledge were JTB, you could reduce the problem of knowledge to the problems of justification and truth, which you need to have theories of anyway. It's one less concept to worry about.

>>15550307
Knowledge as Justified Truth Belief is not "continental philosophy", you mouthbreathing moron. Continental 'philosophy' is just obscurantist trash.

>>15550301
What, in your mind, is the "classical conception of knowledge" if not JTB? It appears you know exactly nothing about either philosophy or history.

>>15550296
>>15550368
OP is right, analytic phil is a fucking embarrassment

>>15550368
I really thought /lit/, the purportedly high-IQ board, wouldn't need an explanation as to why the 'Gettier problems' are so breathtakingly retarded. But I suppose I will explain it to you.
Gettier proposed some 'counter-examples' to the JTB theory of knowledge. All of these counter-examples are retarded precisely because they rely on the person having a justification which rests on false assumptions. An example:
>Smith and Jones are both competing for a job. Smith counts the coins in Jones's pocket and, finding ten, comes to believe the proposition, 'Jones has ten coins in his pocket'. The director of the company at which they are competing comes out and tells Smith that it will be Jones who gets the job. Based on all this, Smith comes to believe the proposition, 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.'
>It turns out that, in fact, Smith gets the job, not Jones! And, by chance, though he didn't know this before, Smith also had ten coins in his pocket.
>So we have a justified (the director told him and he counted the coins), true (the man who got the job had ten coins in his pocket), belief, yet this is based on luck, so it can't be knowledge!
This is apparently what 'refuted' the JTB theory of knowledge, leading to developments. But the glaringly obvious false assumption here is that Jones would get the job. The justification for the belief 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket' is the false assumption that Jones would get the job. This is literally how it is for all of Gettier's 'counter-examples' which he uses to refute JTB -- and this is apparently one of the most influential arguments in modern epistemology. But nobody in the fucking world believes that a belief is justified if you're justifying it with false assumptions. It's so retarded.

>>15550459
>I really thought /lit/, the purportedly high-IQ board, wouldn't need an explanation
hahaha!!!! you just got baited!!! ofc I knew the reasoning behind your polarizing opinion. I read your fucking mind. but now you sperged out and you look like a total IDIOT!!! like haha UMAD???? xDDDDDDDDDD

bro I can't believe this guy got filtered on DAY ONE xDDDDDDDDDD

>>15550459
other day i was reading a page about gettier problems and saw this example too didn't get it
bookmarked the page on analysis of knowledge and haven't read it since
t.stemfag

>>15550459
Based. I recently ran into the Gettier in one of the books i'm reading and I thought it was a pretty pointless objection to JTB but i'm too much of a brainlet to truly get why.

>>15550459
>But nobody in the fucking world believes that a belief is justified if you're justifying it with false assumptions.
Everybody in the world believes that, you moron. And rightly so. Justification is about having rational grounds for drawing a conclusion. Epistemic justification does not require the agent to be omniscient. You really are a complete fucking retard.

>>15550560
The person you replied to is even more of a brainlet. He literally did not even grasp why Gettier cases are effective counterexamples. Embarrassing.

Analytic philosophy is retarded.

>>15550668
All philosophy is analytic.

>>15550648
Is it rational to believe that there is a correlation between how many coins someone have and getting a job?

>>15550805
No. Why would you ask that? You appear to have misunderstood the example.

>>15550045
>comes up with the Gettier problem first in the 12th century and anticipates and refutes all possible solutions to it 800+ years before Gettier
nothing personal mleccha

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sriharsa/

>>15550648
>Epistemic justification does not require the agent to be omniscient.
You are a total and utter moron. I never said the agent has to be omniscient. I said his justification is inadequate if it is based on false assumptions. The belief 'The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket' was based on a false assumption -- 'Jones will get the job' -- therefore it wasn't adequately justified.

Am I really the only one smart enough to see how bafflingly stupid the Gettier problems are? What the actual fuck is going on? How can nobody else see this?

>>15551014
>I said his justification is inadequate if it is based on false assumptions.
You're a full-on moron. The whole point of reasoning is to make rational inferences based on incomplete information about the world. Whether or not an argument has false premises is complete irrelevant to its validity. Take an elementary logic class some time, brainlet.

>>15550448
There is none you retard

>>15551085
>t. never studied ancient, medieval or modern philosophy

>>15550733
Real philosophy is synthetic a priori

>>15551092
Show me where Descartes and Kant expound JTB

>>15550045
I don't really get it. The problems seem like semantic cases where the fallibility of our expectations of the future come in to play. I mean it seems obvious to me that we can never "know" the future in the same way we know the past. Lots of analytic arguments come down to stuff like this in my experience. They also treat justification as a mental state instead of it being an epistemological tool.
I never understood why conceptions of knowledge all have the requirement that it be true in the first place, it seems so circular and unintuitive.

>>15551065
In the example, Smith made an inference from a false premise. Not from 'incomplete information' -- from a FALSE, UNTRUE, premise. The whole reason he came to believe what he did is because he inferred it from something that wasn't true. That is not justification.
If I look at my computer and see one of those fake 3d spider images, and from this infer the proposition 'there is a real spider on my computer', whether or not there is actually a spider lurking somewhere on my computer does not make the slightest different to the fact that my justification was inadequate because it was based on a false assumption -- namely that the fake 3d spider image was a real spider. The belief was not justified because it was based on a false assumption. This is how it always is in the Gettier examples.

>>15551163
If it's not true, then you don't know it. You just believe it. Not sure why you're having trouble with that requirement. It's pretty obvious.

>>15551219
>The whole reason he came to believe what he did is because he inferred it from something that wasn't true. That is not justification.
Yes it is. Again, this is basic logic. Justification has nothing to do with the truth of falsity of the premises. It describes a mode of inference that is truth-preserving. That means that the epistemic procedure is structured in a way that conserves truth value. For example, if you believe Socrates is a man and that all men are mortal, then you are justified in inferring that Socrates is mortal. Even if turns out Socrates was not a man but a demigod, falsifying the first assumption, the inference itself is still valid because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

>>15551230
It's because terms such as "justification" or "belief" are based on mental states in the way I've seen them used. For example in the case of someone who feels as though he is justified based on the given information, but the justification is false or unknowable. Belief is treated the same as well but there's no difference in common language anyhow. But for knowledge it's different, someone can know something, or be in a state of knowing something, which is in reality false or unknowable. For example you could say "I know the external world exists", give a complete book-length argument as to why, but it could all well be completely unknowable or false. This comes down to sematics and the dissonance between use in ordinary language and use in philosophy. I guess I don't really get why there is an inconsistency between using words as mental states and using words as epistemological tools/objects.

>>15550279
>>15550045
>so you need to have a justified belief to know something
>but what if... You just thought it was justified?
>world of philosophy stands up and claps

>>15551335
based. anal phil btfo

>>15551316
Everyone knows the distinction between soundness and validity, you teenage fuck. We're talking about the standard for justification of one's own beliefs and how this pertains to the definition of knowledge. If you think that bare logical validity is all that is needed for one to be justify their beliefs, then you can literally justify ANYTHING.
Premise 1. I am talking to you
Premise 2. Talking to you means the sky is blue
Conclusion: the sky is blue
Wow! We have a Gettier case! A justified true belief! Except it's not knowledge! JTB must be false!
Except that premise 2 is a false fucking assumption so I was not justified in my belief that the sky was blue. If you want a less ridiculous example I already gave you the one about the spider on my computer.
Anyway, this thread has convinced me that /lit/ is either full of dumbasses or I'm just a genius because I saw through Gettier's shit as soon as I encountered it in high school yet anons here are defending him and the skeptical ones don't even see why he's so stupid.

>>15551316
why are you assuming justification is the same as logical validity in a discussion about knowledge in general?

When I went to college and took a class on epistemology, I expected to learn about theories of knowledge. Instead, I had to sit through a series of painfully pedantic debates over the Gettier problems, as autistic analytics added more and more qualifications to their formulations of the meaning of the word "knowledge" in an attempt to "solve" Gettier's "problem." Not only were they ignorant of the whole history of philosophy before the 20th century, they were even ignorant of their immediate predecessor, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who wrote a whole book on why formalizing meaning is retarded.

There's plenty of value to be found in analytic philosophy, but anyone who tells you that it has less bullshit than continental philosophy is ignorant. Just like most of continental philosophy today is just dressing up simple claims in obfuscatory language and circlejerking over Marx, Nietzsche and Deleuze, most analytic philosophy today is just pointless autistic navel gazing over word definitions and imaginary scenarios.

>>15551614
Same here. From my experience at NYU and Pittsburgh, supposedly top schools for epistemology, it's the same thing. Analytic philosophers are so far up their own asses they haven't seen real philosophy for nearly a century now.

>>15551648
The theory of knowledge put forth in Plato's Theaetetus is far more autistic than anything to be found in analytic philosophy. Plus, it has the disadvantage of being false.

>>15550477
>xDDDDDDDDDD
cringe don't use that again

>>15551614
>most analytic philosophy today is just pointless autistic navel gazing over word definitions and imaginary scenarios.
You could say the same thing about mathematics. What you're missing is that philosophers aren't being autistic just for shits and giggles. Every philosopher starts out reading 'accessible' pop stuff like Camus and Sartre as teenagers, only later realizing it's a pile of bullshit. Every mathematics student starts out aspiring to prove Fermat's Last Theorem in a page or two of simple elegant mathematics. The more you learn about the depth of the problem, however, the more rigor and attention to detail you have to impose upon yourself, and the more 'autistic' your methods seem to the lay man. When you finally deliver your 129 page proof, relying on arcane results involving the category of schemes and Iwasawa theory, no one but a few thousand experts even knows what you're on about. Of course, Wiles didn't insert that stuff for fun. He simply had no choice if he wanted to solve the problem.

Requesting that super mega where a guy eats another guy's laptop

I dont know if there's anything more middlebrow than trying to define "truth" and thinking that philosophy is some kind of pursuit of truth. Words like "truth" or "being" fundamentally cannot be defined explicitly, their meaning can only be know implicitly and through language their underlying concepts can only be alluded to.
Excerpts from one of blog posts:
>They have meaning, largely in the sense that they can be alluded to by highlighting what they are not, but it is much harder to pinpoint what they are. Words without definitions should be used when attempting to convey the ineffable. They should be used in passing, orbiting the point to increase the likelihood that the reader takes the leap into understanding. Never should be uttered the phrase, “truth is” or “consciousness is”. Not only does it not make sense, but it reduces the whole to an infinitesimal slice.

Philosophy is much closer to art than anything else, with the medium being ideas, finished works being systems:
>This talk about “using words” brings me to what I originally planned to talk about: words and ideas are to be used, as a painter uses color or a sculptor uses a chisel. Indeed, philosophy is building and chiseling. Continuous refinement to best convey the ineffable.
>It is not too different from a good painting: at its surface is the literal representation (what’s being painted, what the words are literally saying), beneath that is what is open to explicit interpretation, at the core is the ineffable.

>Philosophies should be approached like paintings hung in the museum of ideas called philosophy. Philosophy is not useless, it is useful in the same effort as art in shaping the cultural imagination.

>Just like any other art, philosophy requires practice. Many people spend so long studying the techniques and the ideas, that they don’t get any practice. These people become the curators of The Museum, aggregating works via citation to exhibit in their papers, and keeping intact pieces deemed valuable. But these curators do not have their works exhibited in The Museum. Future curators won’t be exhibiting the exhibits of curators, they’ll exhibit the works of the artists.

>>15552991
That kind of handwaving defeatism is not helpful. Truth is a fundamental concept in logic and linguistics and provides the basis for model theory. Godel and Tarski's results show that the concept of truth generally exceeds the proof-theoretic resources of a language, and is therefore not in any sense redundant or unnecessary. Whoever you're quoting is a brainlet.

>>15553021
>truth is a fundamental concept in logic and linguistics
No it's not. You can do both (and indeed you do) without any definition of universal truth. Truth in these contexts are internal consistency.
>Godel and Tarski
Which results? Its not clear what you're talking about or what you mean, I genuinely want to know what you're talking about

you can just hand wave away 95% of analytic philosophy

This entire thread seems to me an anon making an honest question about why the "Gettier problem" is even a problem, and then another anon arguing and repeatedly saying "hah! you don't understand it, what are you dumb? it's to show that JTB is false!" and so on.

Very disappointing.

>>15553146
The OP is a literal mongoloid who thinks he's defending JTB when he doesn't know what justification even means in an epistemic context.

>>15550477
Underage

>>15551065
>incomplete
A lie is not incomplete info

>>15553177
Okay, so what does it mean?

You have, or one or two others, have consistently been complaining that one does not understand yet without explaining;-- So explain!

>>15553198
Justification means having adequate evidence. In the coins example, belief in the proposition is justified because, given the state of information available to the agent, it would be irrational to disbelieve it.