Evolution

[Sayre]

How could we possibly exclude the option that a certain scientific fact is a gettier type example? What I am wondering is: Why do you single out evolution when this is a basic epistemological problem (if it is a problem at all) of every fact?
And why and for what would the distinction between "belief" and "knowledge" (in your definitions) even be of relevance?
As far as I am concerned I am completely satisfied with something being a fact. Feel free to call my acknowledgement of this fact "knowledge" (or if, as it seems, you are trying to establish a definition of "knowledge" that generally excludes knowledge) call it "belief". No skin of my nose - as long as you apply those definitions consistently.

On another note, those gettier examples I have found were single claims that accidentally were true (and in which the false premise was also very simple and easy to spot). Whereas a scientific theory is a complex explanation of complex mechanisms.
Now, maybe you could give us hypothetical false premises that would render gravity or evolution gettier examples?



And I don´t think it is a good philosophical approach to first define "knowledge" in a way that makes knowledge generally an impossibility, and then in the next step demand something to be "knowledge".

I understand this is a basic epistemological problem of all facts and not just evolution.

I think the point of Gettier counter examples is to know that JTB is not alone sufficient to claim knowledge, that there must be another justifier, or a lack of possible counter example. I think the difference here is that the appearance of age is not a testable verifiable counter example, whereas in the Gettier counter examples, they all were. However, providing a scientific "fact" as a counter example to another scientific "fact" is self referential anyway.

So no, I can't think of a testable way to provide a gettier type counter example without becoming self referential.

And I don't think JTB+ is a very well defined way of explaining / defining knowledge.... so I guess I'm stuck.

 

[Gottservant]

The simple distinction is that knowledge is true before you believe it, and belief is true after you believe it.

So on the one hand, belief in knowledge is a self-fulfilling prophecy (I will know that I will know) and on the other hand knowledge of belief welcomes self-fulfilling prophecies (I know that there are things that will be known) but is not itself a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Where people make a mistake is to think, because belief welcomes other self-fulfilling prophecies, it is not necessarily true, whereas because knowledge is a self-fulfilling prophecy it is always true (which is irrelevant since it is not a particular piece of knowledge being true that makes it appropriate, but its actual appropriateness (regardless of whether it is true or not)).

The mistake Evolutionists make is to say, "here we have knowledge that things change under pressure, but we don't want that pressure applied to us as a belief, so we will remove ourselves from the realm of belief altogether and that will somehow absolve us of needing to address whether we really believe what we are saying or not", when the whole point of knowledge is to preserve what you believe, not be known for its own sake, as if that achieved anything.

As such Evolution is weak as a way of life and wholly dependent on distorting the truth to fit its objective of classifying everything as progressive, when what it does this for is completely unknown to it, having the gradual result that it is less and less relevant what it is so much as where it is going.

And of course, where it is going is a police state where people are treated as animals instead of human beings, not to say we haven't learned our lesson from WWII - where Evolution paid dearly for its elitism - but now we will see people bring it on themselves, as if the past has almost entirely got its grip on them and worsening the situation is the only way out.

That's not meant to alarm you, that's meant to make you think, is this path of self-effacing really the progress people are saying it is?

But I digress, the point I made was that the simple distinction is that knowledge is true before you believe it, and belief is true after you believe it.

This means things like the past, construction, progress, invention, belong to knowledge, and things like prophecy, leadership, heroism and expectation belong to belief.

 

[quatona]

I understand this is a basic epistemological problem of all facts and not just evolution.

I think the point of Gettier counter examples is to know that JTB is not alone sufficient to claim knowledge, that there must be another justifier, or a lack of possible counter example. I think the difference here is that the appearance of age is not a testable verifiable counter example, whereas in the Gettier counter examples, they all were. However, providing a scientific "fact" as a counter example to another scientific "fact" is self referential anyway.

So no, I can't think of a testable way to provide a gettier type counter example without becoming self referential.

And I don't think JTB+ is a very well defined way of explaining / defining knowledge.... so I guess I'm stuck.

Thanks for explaining!
Now, the question is: How did you manage to get stuck that way?
And I think your explanation confirms what I have said before: You are raising standards for "knowledge" that can impossibly be met. If, however, you want a workable/meaningful distinction between a certain insight being "belief" or "knowledge" you need standards for "knowledge" that can be met.
Certain frames of references have such standards and criteria. The judicial system has one, science has one.
From a fundamental philosophical epistemological (or meta-epistemological) perspective these (more or less pragmatic) criteria and standards may be questionable, and once you have started going down the infinite regress of "How do we know - how do we know that we know - how do we know that we know we know..." no standard, no criteria will be sufficient.
It´s like:
You are thirsty and you are offered a bottle of water. How do you know that the water isn´t poisoned?
Whatever someone will try to convince you that it isn´t, there will be ways for you to question it.
Even if the person drinks a few gulps himself first, you may escape to most fundamental epistemological questions and make up hypothetical Gettier examples as you walk along: What if water is actually (and always) poison, but God has but made it appear to be not poisonous (that´s basically what YEC´s do with postulating embedded age, omphalos and whatnot).
You may even give objections such as "Maybe we are all but brains in a vat or fictional characters in a computer game, there is no external world and water doesn´t exist, anyway."

Now, you are entitled to refuse to drink the water offered (or even any water or fluid at all) for such reasons, but the fact that this will make you die of thirst pretty soon demonstrates clearly that your criteria aren´t suitable for any practical intent or purpose.

Then again, even if this is all but a computer game or an illusion given to us by God, it´s still the frame of reference of our existence. We need to play this game, we need to deal with the way God has made things appear - so in this world where water appears to be healthy you don´t need the fundamental epistemological certainty you are demanding, in order to establish workable standards for "known facts" ("water is potable and even healthy") - even though from a hypothetical metaphysical pov the universe, its components and mechanisms may just be an illusion.

 

[Sayre]

So I take it you aren't fond of solipsism . Do you have an alternative to JTB that is more functional? I think this is what I was trying to do with an objective observer. What is reasonable practical epistemology? Thank you for your patience - I think I've learned a lot from this discussion.

 

[quatona]

So I take it you aren't fond of solipsism .

I´m not particularly fond of it, but that wasn´t the point. The point was:
It´s somewhat strange that some people accept the existence of an outside world quite fine all the time, but bring up the possibility of solipsism (or any other such fundamentally skeptic view) only when it comes to one or few hand-selected issues.
So, if I tell one of my students that it would be better for him to practice scales, and his response is: "No, I won´t. After all, maybe guitars and music don´t exist, and maybe they all are products of my mind, and possibly you are, as well." I may find this thought-provoking - but on the other hand he is suddenly cancelling a lot of silent agreements that the whole context and frame of reference of our interactions is based upon.

Do you have an alternative to JTB that is more functional? I think this is what I was trying to do with an objective observer. What is reasonable practical epistemology?

When it comes to the mechanisms within the universe, I think the scientific method (including its criteria for facts, evidence, knowledge is remarkably good. I have yet to see a better method. We all seem to - in theoretically and, even more important, practically - accept it as reliable all the time.
Of course, a method designed to discover the mechanisms within the universe isn´t capable of e.g. proving the existence of the universe. This would (see above) exceed its epistemological frame of reference.

So I guess what I am trying to say: What renders an epistemological approach reasonable and practical depends a lot on the frame of reference. Not even science and the judicial system define their epistemological keyterms in the same way.

And even in order to start philosophising you don´t get around accepting some premises that the philosophy you are arriving at will not be able to prove true. If you are determined to chop off the branch you are sitting on, you will always be able to find such an unsubstantiated premise.
Talk to Received - he´s an expert at doing this.

 

[Loudmouth]

I´m not particularly fond of it, but that wasn´t the point. The point was:
It´s somewhat strange that some people accept the existence of an outside world quite fine all the time, but bring up the possibility of solipsism (or any other such fundamentally skeptic view) only when it comes to one or few hand-selected issues.
So, if I tell one of my students that it would be better for him to practice scales, and his response is: "No, I won´t. After all, maybe guitars and music don´t exist, and maybe they all are products of my mind, and possibly you are, as well." I may find this thought-provoking - but on the other hand he is suddenly cancelling a lot of silent agreements that the whole context and frame of reference of our interactions is based upon.

When it comes to the mechanisms within the universe, I think the scientific method (including its criteria for facts, evidence, knowledge is remarkably good. I have yet to see a better method. We all seem to - in theoretically and, even more important, practically - accept it as reliable all the time.
Of course, a method designed to discover the mechanisms within the universe isn´t capable of e.g. proving the existence of the universe. This would (see above) exceed its epistemological frame of reference.

So I guess what I am trying to say: What renders an epistemological approach reasonable and practical depends a lot on the frame of reference. Not even science and the judicial system define their epistemological keyterms in the same way.

And even in order to start philosophising you don´t get around accepting some premises that the philosophy you are arriving at will not be able to prove true. If you are determined to chop off the branch you are sitting on, you will always be able to find such an unsubstantiated premise.
Talk to Received - he´s an expert at doing this.

I agree 100%. Attacks on one scientific theory based on metaphysical claims is an attack on all theories, from germs to gravity. It is a rejection of a rational universe.

As you state, we use the scientific method because it works. It is a pragmatic acceptance that the universe appears to be rational and consistent. Since it acts a certain way, we accept that it is.

 

[Gottservant]

I agree 100%. Attacks on one scientific theory based on metaphysical claims is an attack on all theories, from germs to gravity. It is a rejection of a rational universe.

As you state, we use the scientific method because it works. It is a pragmatic acceptance that the universe appears to be rational and consistent. Since it acts a certain way, we accept that it is.

Except that trial and error is equally interchangeable with the model of convergence on pre-established truth.

The only difference is that on the one hand you verify principle from fact and on the other hand, you confirm trust through experimentation.

The dichotomy therefore is wholly arbitrary, and condusive to nothing but debate about the place of human psychology in a world of artificial systems.

The only reason people appeal to it, is to creation the illusion of a very exclusive path for truth, which narrowly appears crucial to manipulating reason as an example of power.

The real test, is of course, changed lives.

 

[Sayre]

I agree 100%. Attacks on one scientific theory based on metaphysical claims is an attack on all theories, from germs to gravity. It is a rejection of a rational universe.

As you state, we use the scientific method because it works. It is a pragmatic acceptance that the universe appears to be rational and consistent. Since it acts a certain way, we accept that it is.

And again, I'm not attacking the scientific method. It is valid, it works. I'm just checking if we consider it fact... I'm not all that good at epistemology as you can see... but I'm certainly not using epistemology as a prop to suggest that evolution is false or that the scientific method is invalid.

 

[Loudmouth]

And again, I'm not attacking the scientific method.

I never meant to imply that you were, so I apologize if that is the impression you got.

It is valid, it works. I'm just checking if we consider it fact... I'm not all that good at epistemology as you can see... but I'm certainly not using epistemology as a prop to suggest that evolution is false or that the scientific method is invalid.

Epistemology is theory of knowledge. It is a set of ideas about how we gain knowledge. There are many epistemological systems that differ in one way or another.

Closely related is metaphysics. These are sort of the rule set for a given epistemology. Metaphysics are axioms that we assume to be true without being able to test them or prove them. The metaphysical rules for science are pretty basic in that the universe is a rational, consistent universe with testable mechanisms that can be determined through empirical evidence.