←back to thread

303 points FigurativeVoid | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41842315[source]
> true, because it doesn't make sense to "know" a falsehoood

That's a problem right there. Maybe that made sense to the Greeks, but it definitely doesn't make any sense in the 21st century. "Knowing" falsehoods is something we broadly acknowledge that we all do.

replies(5): >>41842396 #>>41842494 #>>41843126 #>>41845053 #>>41845173 #
n4r9 ◴[] No.41842396[source]
Could you elaborate what you mean by that?
replies(1): >>41842828 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41842828[source]
We all carry around multiple falsehoods in our heads that we are convinced are true for a variety of reasons.

To say that this is not "knowing" is (as another commenter noted) hair-splitting of the worst kind. In every sense it is a justified belief that happens to be false (we just do not know that yet).

replies(2): >>41843138 #>>41845388 #
1. bee_rider ◴[] No.41843138[source]
What exactly does it mean to know something then? As distinct from believing it. Just the justification, and then, I guess it doesn't have to be a very good justification if it can be wrong?
replies(3): >>41843254 #>>41844006 #>>41844119 #
2. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41843254[source]
I think I would say that knowing means that your belief can resist challenges (to some degree) and that it is capable of driving behavior that changes others' beliefs.

The strength of the justification is, I would suggest, largely subjective.

replies(1): >>41849853 #
3. dahart ◴[] No.41844006[source]
> What exactly does it mean to know something then?

This is one of the best questions ever, not just for philosophers, but for all us regular plebes to ponder often. The number of things I know is very very small, and the number of things I believe dramatically outnumbers the things I know. I believe, but don’t know, that this is true for everyone. ;) It seems pretty apparent, however, that we can’t know everything we believe, or nothing would ever get done. We can’t all separately experience all things known first-hand, so we rely on stories and the beliefs they invoke in order to survive and progress as a species.

4. mrbombastic ◴[] No.41844119[source]
I think like many things “know” and “believe” are just a shorthand for convenient communication that makes binary something that is really a continuum of probability. That continuum might be something from loose theory to fundamental truth about the universe in our minds. Justifications and evidence move things down the continuum, such that we might assign a probability a thing is true, things can approach 100% probability but never get there, but we as mortals need to operate in the world as if we know things so we say anything close to 100% we “know”. Even though history tells us even some things we believe to be fundamental truths can be discovered to be wrong.
5. n4r9 ◴[] No.41849853[source]
My issue with this definition is that it includes deluded charlatans, can be applied to unfalsifiable (unknowable, even) propositions, and depends on the gullibility and cognitive biases of the general populace. So for example, Jesus "knew" that he was the son of God, even though a more rational interpretation is that he was mistaken in his own belief but charismatic enough to convince many others. (Please replace Jesus for another religion's prophet if you are Christian!)

Also I don't think this definition fits with people's intuition. At least, certainly not my own. There are times where I realise I'm wrong about something I thought I knew. When I look back, I don't say "I knew this, and I was wrong". I say "I thought I knew this, but I didn't actually know it".