: [snip]: : Now, as you believe in sources of knowledge other than science, it follows that you must find acceptable sources of justification other than science. Yes?
: I guess I wasn't clear. To reiterate,
Forgive me floyd, but as i understand the conversation to date you have failed to specify exactly what you consider the basis of your epistemology to be. Focus has been on justificaiton of knowledge claims. If you accept other forms of knowledge besides science, it follows that you must accept forms of justification other than science.
: I'm willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that other sources of "knowledge" exist, (e.g. "revelations," hallucinations, dreams, etc. as "ways of knowing,") but I think you're putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I "believe in" other sources.
Well, i did phrase it with a question mark, seeking to draw you out further on this matter.
:The difference here, I think, is that I'm willing to accept that "Gotch" and his ilk "know" that they're right, and no amount of material evidence will serve to convince them.
They might think they 'know', but does it satisfy the criterion of knowledge set out?
: Therefore, their odd superstitions (Gotch's version is not even very Christian, IMHO) can be viewed as a source of "knowledge," insofar as they believe that their beliefs are justified and true.
But i don't think justification is a subjective test. If i see a piece of graffiti on the wall and take that as evidence of truth, it clearly fails to satisfy the 'justification test', even if i believe that what is written on walls is unerringly true.
: There is a lurking "Von Neuman's catastrophe" (what some philosophers call the K-K problem) in this type of belief however. "I know x is true, because I believe it, and I believe it because it's true." Do they actually have "knowledge," by Socrates' definition?
I think i just answered this objection, it would fail the justification test.
: I'm not sure, frankly, because their belief rests entirely on itself; it is self-justifying, and assumed to be true based on the strength of the belief, rather than on supporting evidence. Does that satisfy the Socratic definition of knowledge? If so, then ok, I believe that there are other sources of knowledge, that is, I believe they exist, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe these sources of knowledge, per se. It's sort of like A) "I believe a form of state socialism exists in China" is not the same as B) "I believe in the goodness and validity of the Chinese model of state socialism." Sentance A, for me, is true, sentance B is, in my case, false. However, both sentances could be written C) "I believe in the Chinese form of state socialism." If, by that, I was implying version A, it would be a justified, true belief, and therefore knowledge, sensu stricto. However, I would have no control over whether you interpreted C as meaning A or B, since both are possible implications, so you might interpret C as meaning B, and assume, mistakenly, that I was a Chinese style socialist. You would even have evidence to support this belief, in the form of sentance C. Would you, then, have "knowledge?" In other words, if I said C, yould you "know" that B was true? You would have justification, in the form of my sentance, for thinking so, would you not? See, if you interpret C as meaning B, then you'll "know" something that isn't true (that is, the time-space even "me" is not actually a supporter of state socialism, although the semantic event, "me" saying sentance C might make it appear that way.)
: So, if you interpret C as meaning B, do you have knowledge? If so, then, yes, I believe other sources of knowledge exist. If not, then no, I don't believe it. It's a question of how important "true" is in your definition of knowledge, and what you mean by "true," I suppose.
Well, strictly i don't suppose interpreting C as meaning B would be true as it is, as you say it is an implication and does not actually indicate your mental state as regards chinese socialism (it would i suppose be a mistaken belief).
So am i to infer then floyd that you do not believe other sources of knowledge exist (ie aside from science, observation[in the form of 'the sky is blue'], or a priori forms such as maths)?
: I hope I was more clear that time.
Your always clear floyd [but then again nothing is certain!].
: -Floyd
