ain't a dogma, it's a proposed analysis (by one version of Plato's views, that he denounced after all) that it is not a dogma, is easily visible since the view affords counterexamples (due to PLato, Gettier & many others0 in any event note taken, you take it to be the case that people/some/or at some time all/ have knowledge of something false. you'll amuse yourself with the discussion of dogmatism in 'philosophical troubles' by s a kripke On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > >Popper stresses that 'knowledge' is a conjecture etc. > does he say that he rejects ant of the standard notions of knowledge? > meaning: > if > > > x knows that q > ENTAILS > 'q' is true (hence, modulo Tarski, q)> > > > Popper does indeed contest the standard notion that "knowledge" equals > "justified, true belief". Prior to and over the Christmas period, there was > much discussion of so-called 'JTB theory'; and various fundamental > criticisms were offered. The most fundamental are that we can have > "knowledge" even without this correlating to (degrees of) belief, we can > have false "knowledge" (e.g. false scientific theories, like Newton's > physics), and that no "knowledge" is "justified" in a way that removes its > fallible and conjectural character. > > Secondary to this is the criticism that those who defend JTB theory > against these kinds of criticism do so typically by adopting stipulations > as to what constitutes "knowledge" (so, for example, false scientific > theories are deemed not "knowledge" because they are false), and this > dogamatic defence by stipulation empties JTB theory of substantive content > and interest - for something true merely by stipulation cannot be > simultaneously true by virtue of it corresponding with any substantive > reality. > > No real counter-argument of any worth - such as would trouble any serious > epistemolgist - was offered to this critique of 'JTB theory'. But we did > find that the dogma of 'JTB theory', like much other philosophical dogma, > dies hard for those long inculcated with it. > > Dnl > Ldn > > > On Saturday, 5 April 2014, 11:23, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Popper stresses that 'knowledge' is a conjecture etc. > does he say that he rejects ant of the standard notions of knowledge? > meaning: > if > > > x knows that q > ENTAILS > 'q' is true (hence, modulo Tarski, q) > > x knows conjecturally that q > entails or not that > 'q' is true? > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Donal McEvoy > <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > Had a he above site, that Popper does not agree with this theory. > Nevertheless it not only long antedates H and Davidson (both of whom will > arguably prove extremely minor figures in terms of anything worthwhile > philosophically) but may be a much greater and more interesting kind of > theory. > > > > > -- palma, e TheKwini, KZN palma cell phone is 0762362391 *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod 29 rue d'Ulm f-75005 paris france