←back to thread

Gettiers in software engineering (2019)

(jsomers.net)
303 points FigurativeVoid | 2 comments | 14 Oct 24 18:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[14 Oct 24 21:41 UTC] 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 ◴[14 Oct 24 21:51 UTC] No.41842396[source]▶
Could you elaborate what you mean by that?
replies(1): >>41842828 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[14 Oct 24 22:30 UTC] 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 #
bee_rider ◴[14 Oct 24 23:05 UTC] 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 #
1. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[14 Oct 24 23:21 UTC] 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 #
2. n4r9 ◴[15 Oct 24 15:53 UTC] 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".