: : [snip]:
: 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.
Yes, that conclusion follows, quite logically, from that premise. The question is clearly about whether the premise is correct. My previous post was intended to suggest that whether or not the premise is correct is entirely dependent on how "knowledge" is defined. Since multiple definitions are possible, I admitted that it would depend on which definition was being used. If the definition of knowledge is not fixed, my answer can not be asumed to be fixed either.
: : 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.
Fair enough.
: :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?
That's exactly what I was asking you. If you say "no, these folks' ideas don't fit my definition of knowledge." Then I can only respond, alright, then other sources of knowledge are not possible. However, their beliefs most decidedly DO satisfy their own, emic, definition. See the bind? If I say "other sources of knowledge can not exist," following your definition, they can respond by saying "ah ha! But we have another source of knowledge, and therefore science is wrong." This would, of course, be complete poppycock, by the Socratic definition of knowledge, and you and I would know that, but that would have no effect on the folks with alternative definitions.
: : 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.
I'd be interested in reading any references you can offer that provide objective tests of "justification," in this sense. Not that I doubt you, but I haven't found any recent stuff on objective knowledge at all convincing. Nothing since the 1930s has really seemed to accept the possibility of purely objective knowledge. (Please, please, PLEASE don't over-interpret this comment. It means only what it says, and I'm most decidedly not a proponent of the "there is no reality" school of...well, I hesitate to even call it "thought.")
[snip]
: 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).
Correct.
: 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)?
You can take me at my word that I don't use any other source of knowledge. Whether or not such things exist is, as I said, a matter of definition.
: : I hope I was more clear that time.
: Your always clear floyd [but then again nothing is certain!].
Thank you, that's very kind. I try. However, some things are certian. For example, it is certain that the sun will rise at dawn. It is certain that talc has a lower density than lead. It is certain that humans evolved from non-human animals. It is certain that some creationist will disagree with the previous sentance, at least in his or her head. Finally, in conclusion, I am certain that I'd like a pint of stout right now. Bye.
-Floyd
None.
