Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
How does your scenario change if I merely say this:
"No, Tampa Bay won. I watched it. I know I saw it with my own 2 eyes."
|
Ok, if we're really gonna do philosophy, then we need to be precise about what we're saying. You know that you saw Tampa Bay win a game. But since it wasn't the game you thought it was, you don't know that they won yesterday's Superbowl. Your comment (in the context of the conversation with your co-worker) implies that you saw Tampa Bay win the most recent Superbowl, which didn't happen. So you do not know that you saw Tampa Bay win the most recent Superbowl with your own two eyes.
Quote:
How about this:
Columbus: "I shall sail around the globe and find China! I know I can do it!! And I know you'll want to be a part of the journey!!!"
Reluctant sailor: "C'mon Chris, I know that evil hag Isabella will never give you the money. Even if she did we both know the current theory is that the world is flat and you'll be eaten by dragons before you have a chance to drop off the edge anyway!"
According to your model they're just a couple of know-nothings, aint they?
|
No, I don't think so. The reluctant sailor clearly doesn't know anything about dragons. And although he knows that most people
believe that the world is flat ("the current theory"), he doesn't know that it's flat.
Quote:
|
You saying your model doesn't allow for incorrect or inaccurate beliefs in a system of knowledge? If that's true then we don't really know anything at all, do we?
|
I'm saying that you don't know anything that's false. You can believe something that's false and include that belief in a larger belief system that includes true beliefs. One false belief does not imply that you don't know anything. You can't know that the Earth is the center of the solar system. But even if you believe that, you can still know that the sun first appeared in the East this morning and last appeared to the West tonight, even tho you're wrong about why that happened.