http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2007/01/03/the-structure-of-empirical-knowledge-chapter-one/ My Wrong Opinions.. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:53:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2007/01/03/the-structure-of-empirical-knowledge-chapter-one/#comment-106 roodee Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:29:30 +0000 http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2007/01/03/the-structure-of-empirical-knowledge-chapter-one/#comment-106 As a short answer to your second point, "opinion" is analagous to unjustified belief. I won't bother to outline the difference between true or false belief, because it is possible to have an unjustified belief that happens to be true. So, "good reasons" differ from opinion in that these reasons constitute some measure of justification for a said belief. As a short answer to your second point, “opinion” is analagous to unjustified belief. I won’t bother to outline the difference between true or false belief, because it is possible to have an unjustified belief that happens to be true. So, “good reasons” differ from opinion in that these reasons constitute some measure of justification for a said belief.

]]> http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2007/01/03/the-structure-of-empirical-knowledge-chapter-one/#comment-105 anathema Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:54:06 +0000 http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2007/01/03/the-structure-of-empirical-knowledge-chapter-one/#comment-105 Interesting. Upon reading this, I had a few questions which I am positive are answered by the text. 1 - How exactly can you prove that P is true. In the quest for knowledge, if P is true, then P is true. How can we use the final state as a test? It seems that this could not satisfy itself. If P is true, and 1 and 3 are true, which means 2 must be true, making P true . . . Granted I do not have the background in Epistemology that you have, but it seems that this statement creates an infinite loop, with which no criteria exists to satisfy. 2 - When "good reason to think to be true" is used, how is this measured? If I think that I have good reason, but someone else disagrees, how do we move this past the realm of opinion. Even in your earlier posts you mention that the scientific method is subject to error and amendment. At that point, how far from "opinion" were they. This may be covered by the statement that criteria must be established, but how do we agree on criteria? I think the same problems would exist, especially if we are looking for different answers to the same questions? How do we filter out life experiences, perspective, etc? Interesting. Upon reading this, I had a few questions which I am positive are answered by the text.
1 - How exactly can you prove that P is true. In the quest for knowledge, if P is true, then P is true. How can we use the final state as a test? It seems that this could not satisfy itself. If P is true, and 1 and 3 are true, which means 2 must be true, making P true . . . Granted I do not have the background in Epistemology that you have, but it seems that this statement creates an infinite loop, with which no criteria exists to satisfy.
2 - When “good reason to think to be true” is used, how is this measured? If I think that I have good reason, but someone else disagrees, how do we move this past the realm of opinion. Even in your earlier posts you mention that the scientific method is subject to error and amendment. At that point, how far from “opinion” were they. This may be covered by the statement that criteria must be established, but how do we agree on criteria? I think the same problems would exist, especially if we are looking for different answers to the same questions? How do we filter out life experiences, perspective, etc?

]]>