[lit-ideas] Re: Can You Imagine 2 + 2 = 5?

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:07:43 +0000 (GMT)

--- Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 1. Why should such non-philosophical usage ground the philosophical
> debate?
> Again, what debate? 

Debate as to whether knowledge should be conceived as JustifiedTrueBelief and
therefore that 'I know x' implies 'x is true' (otherwise I don't _know_ it,
merely believe it).

> There is a standard take on it, certainly. If I know that Ursula lives 
> in Canada, then Ursula lives in Canada. If I believe (some would say 
> 'merely' believe) she does, then she may not.

This just restates, one-sidedly, what is in fact up for debate viz.whether
knowledge should be conceived this way. In a previous post I sketched some of
Popper's reasons why it should not. These remain unaddressed.

Though there are many usages which no doubt reflect a JTB-view of knowledge,
Popper discusses usages that reflect a conception that is of 'objective
knowledge' in his sense [see: 'Objective Knowledge', for example], including
I recall an OED definition.

Might I add another example of a usage of 'knowledge' as a concept where not
only is the usage readily intelligible but where it is a clear that the
concept is deployed so that 'knowing x' does not entail 'x is true':
"Everything You Know Is Wrong", by 'Weird Al' Yankovicz.

Stooping as far as needed to match Robert Paul's examples


Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good  
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: