Great video Olly! This was fun. Let's do it again. :)

@jackhe568

3 жыл бұрын

就你？

@ekayim

3 жыл бұрын

This so far makes me SO exicited that you guys will collaborate again! Nice!

Man, I've been trying to find a way to discuss Gettier problems with comics. Your Pluto example was great!

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+NerdSync I smell a colllaaaabbbbb!

@NerdSyncProductions

8 жыл бұрын

Philosophy Tube I am seriously ALWAYS open to a collab!

@luisemmanuel3990

8 жыл бұрын

+NerdSync There is also a course that talks about gettier problems, it's called "Introduction to Philosophy", by the University of Edimburgh, for free and in Coursera. If you like :D

@LimboJimbo

8 жыл бұрын

Hey Scott, great to see you here - It's cool to see that some of my favourite channels also watch each other! If you did a video together, that would be seriously cool! :)

@Mecharnie_Dobbs

Жыл бұрын

1:37 saying "I believe there are 9 plannets" then and saying it now, mean two different things, because they changed the definition of the word "Planet"

The Pluto example strikes me as off. We were never wrong about Pluto being a planet, we simply changed our classification scheme. By the classification of the day, everyone who thought Pluto was a planet was correct. It would be the same if we changed the definition of a week to six days. It would change nothing about reality and It doesn't mean that we were wrong before when we thought a week had seven days. We didn't get any knew information or knowledge, just restructured our classification.

@forsakenofgilead5209

8 жыл бұрын

Very good point. So many "paradoxes" end up being based on the ambiguity of language.

@Namelify

8 жыл бұрын

+AcrobatMr The traditional example of the Gettier problem might be better at illustrating the uniqueness of the problem. The classic problem goes like this: You see a broken clock that shows that the time is 09:30. When you look at that clock, it happens to be 09:30. So, it is true that the clock is 09:30, you believe it is, and you have justification through the clock that it is 09:30. That seems to fill the three classic requirements for knowledge, yet your intuition would tell you that you do not know that it is 09:30 because the clock you got the information from is broken.

@AcrobatMr

8 жыл бұрын

+Johnny Edström Thank you for your response. I am struggling to understand the substance of the problem. The requirements as you state them seem to be "truth of the source of measurement, belief in that truth and justification for believing the truth. For the clock example, if the observe could only glance at it for a single second, believed that the clock was unbroken and had no other contrary information to suggest it was other than 930, then is it is simply not possible for that observer to differentiate between it being 930 or another time and he may as well believe it to be 930. Without contrary information, who is to say he is wrong. There is no such thing as an independent 'correct' time. And if he had information that the clock WAS broken then he has justification for believing it to be possibly not 930. Am I simply missing the point?

@ceulgai2817

8 жыл бұрын

+AcrobatMr We didn't change out classification of a planet, we simply found evidence that Pluto wasn't a planet. So we were wrong, even though we thought we were right. It shows that sometimes Humans make mistakes and that appearances are deceiving.

@AcrobatMr

8 жыл бұрын

+Ceul Gai No. You are just plain wrong. From the NASA webpage "Astronomers of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted on and passed the first scientific definition of a planet in August 2006. According to this new definition, an object must meet three criteria in order to be classified as a planet. First, it must orbit the Sun. Second, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball.ct, be spherical because of gravity and go around the sun. And third, it must have cleared other objects out of the way in its orbital neighborhood. To clear an orbit, a planet must be big enough to pull neighboring objects into the planet itself or sling-shot them around the planet and shoot them off into outer space. According to the IAU, Pluto does not meet this third requirement but is now in a new class of objects called "dwarf planets." It is this third part of the definition that has sparked debate." Also, i could call my sock a planet if i wanted to. It just depends on the classification system.

your videos are the reason I'm going to get an A in philosophy tbh.

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+gift okonkwo I hope so! Good luck!

I like your new style. I've always loved your videos, and not I'm entirely sure how they feel different now but your videos feel a lot more approachable. You look like you're more comfortable in front of the camera, and I like how your personality slips in while you explain things. It makes the content feel more personal and fun. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but I'm always inspired when I see friends, family, and even strangers on the internet improve. It gives me hope that if I just keep showing up, eventually I'll just get into the groove of things and find my voice. Thanks for all the education you've shared and helped us understand. I know what it's like to have restricted access to higher education, and I promised myself I'd never take it for granted again. If this gig isn't paying off the way want yet, you should know that you're helping a lot people out there. That kind of work doesn't go unnoticed for too long, so expect great things in the future. Good luck :)

"octopusses are intelligent AND delicious!", oh dude,...that was so wrong

@user-ek7vp6et4l

6 жыл бұрын

Why?

Maybe we can fix the Gettier problem by narrowing our definition of "justified"? Like, if we thought there were nine planets because Scientists told us so, and if Scientists were wrong about what was and wasn't a planet (even though they were doing their best and happened to be right about the number of planets), then that doesn't feel "justified" to me. I don't really have a good definition for "justified," but I feel like it leaves out processes which require false beliefs somewhere in the line of thinking.

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

+Xidnaf The solution most philosophers try is the same idea as yours: to say that there's something wrong with the justification, so you weren't really justified in believing the thing after all. The problem is that you then need to give a more detailed account of what good justification really is, and why is there something wrong with the justification in the Gettier cases. However, pretty much every single account offered by famous philosophers to solve this problem in the last five decades has proved to be vulnerable to new Gettier-style counterexamples. One of these ideas was to ban false beliefs from the line of thinking. However, it turns out you can know things on the basis of falsehoods, so that doesn't work. A deeper problem here is that many believe justification cannot imply truth - that would require you to be infallible, and that's a standard thats simply too high. We would know very little, if anything, if that were the case. In other words, it must be possible to have a justified false belief (even if, as you say, it might be highly unlikely). But the consequence of this (very plausible) idea is that such a justified false belief can be made true by adding some luck - exactly what happens in Gettier cases. This luck seems to be incompatible with knowledge. A very good and illuminating piece is "The Inescapability of Gettier Problems" by Linda Zagzebski. Highly recommended if you want to better understand the problem. (available online)

@curioustill

8 жыл бұрын

+Roland xB Could it be that the culprit is not even justification, but simply our intuition of what "knowledge" is supposed to be? It always bugged me that Gettier problems tend to point towards justification as the weak link, but in the end just make me feel like I couldn't care less why whether you did or didn't "know" how many sheep/planets there are. Especially when you're coming from a more subjectivist perspective, where the only "truth" or reality is the one you perceive. Perhaps any meaningful definition of "knowledge" just breaks down when applied to someone who's not you, or someone inside a system that you can observe from the outside? Why would we even WANT to say anything about such a person apart from he/she PERCEIVES X and concludes Y. The more I think about it, the less I believe that we mean the same thing when we talk about our own knowledge and that of ANOTHER person inside our system. Or maybe we do? Perhaps the elusive nature of consciousness is what messes things up fundamentally? Or the fact that (I think) we can't really define consciousness of OTHER people (apart from Turing test style definitions, which aren't very useful here). What do you guys think? Am I going crazy?

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

You mean (paraphrased) the problem is that our intuitive concept of knowledge is incoherent? That might be true (I wondered this myself), but would be hard to prove, because the apparent failure of the analysis can have a different cause (so instead you might want to try "knowledge first" epistemology for example). Also, the idea of conceptual analysis can involve rejecting contradictory intuitive judgements in order to remove the incoherence. 1) Why do we want to do this kind of analysis? As to the examples, they can be bizarre and inconsequential, that's true. But the point here is that many philosophers and laymen care about the truth and reliability of their beliefs - they need to represent reality in an accurate manner. Knowledge is our only reliable way to the truth. Simply believing X doesn't make it true or knowledge. I might perceive climate change is bogus and conclude global warming doesn't exist, but in reality that is false and my reasons are bad. So you see why this is important I think? The answer why we would want to ascribe or deny objective knowledge is that we care about the way the world really is. Analyzing knowledge can potentially help us understand when we have good reasons to believe something. 2) does it give reasons for relativism? Not entirely sure why you think these problems support it. Widespread and protracted disagreement? I think you overestimate the troubles. The rough extension of the concept of knowledge is widely agreed upon. It's mainly the reductive analysis that is problematic. So applying the concept of knowledge isn't very different between people (besides borderline cases). We can actually talk about the roughly same thing - language isn't private, you learn how to use concepts from other people around you. There are only minor differences usually, but they get all of the attention. (I'd really leave the problem of consciousness out of this, I really don't see the relevance here and it just makes the discussion insoluble. We can simply say that we all believe and know certain things, that's enough. We can then compare them. The nature of the mental can be left open.) But if you don't care about reality or reject objective truth and falsity altogether as somehow incoherent, I'm not sure what the point of philosophy or science is in that case. We need an belief-independent standard, call it truth or anything you else you prefer, to do science and philosophy. If you haven't, it just leads to intellectual laziness since the only thing that matters is your own perception. I think it's one of the worst ideas in philosophy honestly:3 I don't think you're going crazy, it's just that metaphysics and epistemology are really hard and confusing.

@curioustill

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks, I really appreciate this detailed response. Still not sure I can wrap my head around it, but it definitely helps. 1) I just have this feeling that our intuitive notion of "knowledge" might rely on too many assumptions about the world, which are (perhaps) borderline inconsistent, which is why we run into Gettier problems. It might not be about consciousness or even relativism, but it could as well be. I don't think it's always possible to philosophically/logically define intuitive concepts (let's say ... the perception of the colour "red"), and perhaps, just perhaps, the concept of "knowledge" has some hidden assumptions or hidden qualia-like qualities? And again, the more I think about what knowledge might mean, the less I feel confident in even having an intuition of it. 2) I'm not a direct advocate for relativism, and I know it's a giant cop-out, but intellectually I don't have any choice but to subscribe to some kind of "theoretical" relativism (with zero practical consequences). For all practical purposes (including most philosophical ones) I do see the need of constructing some kind of objective reality. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help!

@rolandxb3581

8 жыл бұрын

Hey Till, I'll reply later today or tomorrow, way too busy right now. :/ no worries!

This cross shoutout was so seamless

I am very happy to hear about this animal logic channel as a student of the royal veterinary college.

Is Pluto a good example in this case? I mean Pluto does exist, it is there at the edge of the solar system. The tangible knowledge of Pluto was correct, the physical world is the physical world. Humans just changed their classification system for planets.

@zachburke8906

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think that is the point. They are not saying Pluto now doesn't exist anymore.

@propersquat8770

7 жыл бұрын

Can they pass knowledge by imitation, teaching, down through generations?

Really fun video. It would be cool if you went further with this exploration of epistemological philosophy. As a person who wrote his bachelor essay on the benefits of externalist solutions to the Gettier problem, I would love to hear your take on the debate between externalist and internalist epistemology.

Favorite channel man

I studied this in class! it's really interesting, I like the Pluto example!

"If the history of the Gettier Problem has taught us anything, it is to be skeptical regarding purported solutions. [...] For nearly fifty years, epistemologists have been chasing a solution for the Gettier Problem but with little to no success." Source: Church, Ian M. (2013). Manifest Failure Failure: The Gettier Problem Revived. _Philosophia_ 41 (1):171-177.

After watching the animalogic channel I was directed here, way to be.

@PhilosophyTube

7 жыл бұрын

Cool, welcome to the little community!

How deep does the understanding in "knowledge-how" need to be to qualify as true understanding? A caveman may know how to build a fire by rubbing sticks together, but he doesn't understand what oxidation is. And while I may understand basically what oxidation is, I may not completely understand the quantum principles which cause elections to move between different shells, thus allowing chemical reactions to occur.

I do philosophy as school and the annoying thing about learning about knowledge and it’s different types was the constant battle between rationalism and scepticism. It sent a lot of people into a state of hyperbolic doubt while in the class. Both A-priori and A-posteriori knowledge were constantly disproven and then brought back again. Especially when talking about Descartes.

I think I should point out that Pluto being/not-being a planet is a game of definitions, and that knowing that there is X amount can be considered knowing that there is _at least_ X amount since X was not specified as an upper limit.

Well, the Bible does say at least part of what they learned: "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked." So that would be knowledge-that. Interesting topic! Thanks for discussing this. :)

Hi Olly - I'm really glad you brought up Gettier cases. I came across them only recently and I'm really struggling to understand why they're such a problem - which probably means I don't understand them. In your Pluto example, the Justification doesn't seem, to me, to be a justification at all because it doesn't point correctly to the "fact" in question. The Justification is pointing to Pluto being the 9th planet, not "Planet X" or whatever. Another Gettier case (that I'm sure you've heard) is the sheep in a field. A man looks into a field and believes he sees a sheep. He's actually looking at a distant bush. But hidden behind the bush is a sheep. His "Justification" (in believing there is a sheep in the field) is poorly aimed. I'd be super grateful for any (introductory level!) books/articles you could point me too, because I believe what you're telling us - that Gettier cases are really tough in philosophy - but I want to understand why, without just casually dismissing it. Alan :)

@biranfalk-dotan2448

8 жыл бұрын

+AlanKey86 I agree! In every Gettier case I have come across so far, the "justification" doesn't seem to be a legitimate justification. (By "legitimate justification" I mean evidence that logically shows that the belief is true or highly likely to be true, and of which the believer is aware.) It looks to me like Gettier cases need some further explanation at least.

@AlanKey86

8 жыл бұрын

+Biran Falk-Dotan I'm glad I'm not alone!

@EdenNov

8 жыл бұрын

+AlanKey86 went to the comments to post exactly that (let me guess, "I came across them only recently"=crash course philosophy?)

@UnPuntoCircular

8 жыл бұрын

+AlanKey86 Oh, but look who I found here! Hi Alan! ;D

@AlanKey86

8 жыл бұрын

+eden nov Correct!

liked for learning the correct plural form of octopus

hello from st. andrews.. studying epistemology this semster!

On the subject of knowledge, have you considered doing a video on Sellars' Epistemological and the Philosophy of Mind?

I learned that there are (at least) three kinds of knowledge: knowing of, knowing that, and knowing how (or savoir, pouvoir, connaitre; wissen, kennen, koennen) - also some people claim that there is a forth form: g-experiential knowing (gender specific knowing). [cf. for example Pascal Engel, french philosopher]

0:09 Knowledge of good and evil*

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+BecomingMike yeah, but to specify exactly what that is would take a lot of metaethics!

@MikeJunior94

8 жыл бұрын

+Philosophy Tube True enough :) and in the end, anologies and anekdotes always fail at some level.

@malchir4036

8 жыл бұрын

+Philosophy Tube So you just settled for an erroneous quote instead...

Can we not extend TJB to include the statement that all premises of the justification are true? Two questions that arise then are: (1) would that lead to an infinite regress (but, in response, so what?) (2) is it possible to know something by holding the correct justification and but also believing an additional statement which may contradict the correct conclusion (logically, the contradictory statement does not need to have anything to do with the original case considered, so it can be trivial)? Of course, all this is concerned with declarative knowledge and not necessarily other types of knowledge.

I feel like I'm back in my theory of knowledge class again.

I love your videos but I have a question. Do you do the reading the comments section in your newer videos? This is the newest video I've watched and I was curious

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+Rubik's Cube I tend to separate them out and do them every few weeks now, just so I can do more of them and also have a filming schedule that allows me to film stuff in advance if I want :)

Recently I have read Goethe's Faust and was intrigued to see the likeness of the nominal to Kant can explain the Adam/Eve story much more... I haven't read Kant much but. I'd be interested to learn about the Kantian lens of "what is knowledge"

can you please read mean Engels argument "eating meat is immoral " and give your thoughts

Pluto was a planet, so you did know that it was a planet. Then the astronomers changed their minds, and it stopped being a planet, so you could no longer know that. Here's another example of something like this. Imagine you met a composer of music, and he's writing a symphony. He's about halfway done. You know that he is writing the symphony, but not that he has completed the symphony. This is true, and you have a justified belief in it.What happens when he finishes the symphony? You now have a justified belief that he is still writing it, but it's no longer true. You did know he was writing a symphony, but now you just think he is. When he tells you, your belief changes, and so you now believe something contradicting what you knew before, and yet you know/knew both of them. The same goes for Pluto.

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

I've just realised that I, and it looks like the whole comments section, have misunderstood the whole 'Pluto' thing. If anyone reads this comment, heed my words: Olly was not saying that we knew Pluto was a planet (though I and many have argued that we did). He was saying that we knew that there were nine planets, assuming there is a ninth.

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

*he was questioning whether we knew that there were nine planets. Sorry, can't edit on my tablet.

"Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. " -> Knowledge is a awareness of something such as facts, information, etc, acquired through experience by perceiving. THUS *An electron has knowledge* An electron perceives the positive charge of a proton for example. We can probably say we can prove thing because an electron changes when it detects another charge, and doesn't when it doesn't detect it. Because it "reacts" we can say that it is aware of this other thing. Is an electron's knowledge knowledge-that or knowledge-how?

The question of the bike is even funnier, because we know how to ride a bike, but we still don't knownfully how it's even possible how a bike is even able to ride in the first place.

one of your best lessons. i really enjoyed this. thank you for your dedication to producing valuable content for your audience. only i feel you did not take it far enough or come to any type of conclusion or juxtaposition of popular ideas. i have two questions; first it is a consideration of your education. i do not intend any insult or invasiveness i simply ask, because you received your education in Britain, do you believe you have a bias towards Analytic philosophy as opposed to what is broadly termed Continental philosophy? my second question is related to the first in that from an analytic, logical perspective knowledge is obviously based on a structure of a binary opposition and synthesis between "knowledge that" and "knowledge how" such as you argue, but you began the video by quoting Socrates stating that he questioned everything and i believe that Socrates intended his maxim to include logical, mathematical analysis. With that being said and perhaps taking the risk to elevate your conceptual paradigm beyond the conveniently neat, tidy and orderly fashion of the Bertie Russell crowd, can you conceive of a situation in which all human knowledge is or could be considered a "Gettier problem"?

Pluto _was_ number nine. It has since been _decreed_ "not a planet" by reasoning that is only consistent if you disqualify Neptune as well. Pluto didn't change. Some people added a qualification specifically to disqualify Pluto.

If I had this for my exam for AS philosophy yesterday, it coulda helped a bit 😂

@finmoorhouse4007

8 жыл бұрын

+Small Asian Dude Hey same! How do you think it went?

@connor_selby

8 жыл бұрын

+Small Asian Dude I was literally about to say this lol

@WarCraFtFanBoii

8 жыл бұрын

I found it pretty calm compared to last year lol.

@finmoorhouse4007

8 жыл бұрын

Small Asian Dude Hmm I think I prefer last year's. Each to their own :)

That Katie Melua reference!

He sounds like Tom Scott. Who else thinks so? You got an extra sub, btw.

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+MCommandguy welcome to the little community :)

BWAHAHA this is just in time for me to revise for my general epistemology exam! From my standpoint it seems that the Gettier problem only challenges the justification aspect of the JTB model of knowledge IF being right about something COUNTS as justification. One could challenge the idea that the three conditions of knowledge is met in Gettier's thought experiment, by expanding the definition of justification and adding further conditions. For instance, Goldman suggests an additional condition which involves causal connections, arguing that the proposition P (there are 9 planets in the solar system) should cause S's (random person) belief that P is true. This removes cases where it is just coincidence that the belief happens to be true. Meaning, that in a hypothetical world where there was no additional planet in the solar system, S would still believe P, because S's reason for belief in P is outdated 'facts' learned in school. I think the most challenging version of the Gettier problem lies in Hamlyn's citing of the story of 'The Rocking-horse winner', a D.H. Lawrence in which a boy always guesses the winner of a horse race right by frantically riding a rocking horse. Does the boy KNOW the winner of the horse race, considering that he is using such a remarkably reliable method, even though he has no idea of the rationale behind why the horse he guessed won the race. If no, then what do we do, since technically most of us, having never looked into a powerful enough telescope, are boys sitting on the rocking horse of scientific authority, claiming to know that there are eight planets in the solar system? Imo heated debate about the justification aspect of knowledge exists far too much in the theoretical realm. As Edward Craig suggests, we should begin our analysis of the concept and meaning of knowledge with the purpose and meaning of knowledge rather the necessary and sufficient conditions for us to have knowledge. Rocking horses should be shamelessly hoarded wherever possible until maybe we figure out how they work. The reason why we call the stuff that emerges from the scientific method 'knowledge' is because of our confidence in their reliability if not their 100% hit rate, and because we know that whatever emerges from the scientific method NEEDS to be taken seriously.

actually... if you've actually read Genesis, it does say what Adam and Eve learned. When they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they learned that they were naked. :P But since they might have already known technically that they didn't have anything on them, I think the real thing they gained was the reaction to being naked- shame. So it does bring up the interesting idea that though before they might have understood that they were naked, it didn't effect them until they ate the fruit. So basically I'd have to disagree that the text doesn't say what they learned, because it's quite plain if you read Genesis 3, but as to what they actually gained by eating the fruit, I think that is the more interesting question to be thought about. Anyway, very interesting video about knowledge! I would like to see more in-depth about the other things you explored, such as the Gettier problem. It seems you have a lot of videos exploring different concepts, but they're very basic from what I can see. I guess that's standard procedure, but perhaps some links to your source material for further reading would be helpful? I'm interested in the concepts you explored in the video and links to articles about your sources would be a nice addition!

Question: To get around the problem with your poker example instead of adding understanding as a condition couldn't we say that normal circumstances isn't what's normal for you but rather what's normal for the activity? So, in normal poker conditions you'd lose cause not everyone would be bad at it. Then we could say the the octopus has knowledge-how. I think this is a better solution because it is possible to know how to do something and not understand it. For example, it is possible to know how to play the guitar without understanding music theory, how sound works, or even how guitars work. Now 2 people who play guitar with an equal amount of technical prowess, one who understands the three things I mentioned and one who doesn't, both have knowledge of how to play guitar. One also possess another kind of knowledge, or perhaps a deeper knowledge (if we can put knowledge into a hierarchy) but the other does have a basic knowledge of how to play the guitar.

A comment by +Johnny Edström illustrates the Gettier problem better, I think: "The classic problem goes like this: You see a broken clock that shows that the time is 09:30. When you look at that clock, it happens to be 09:30. So, it is true that the clock is 09:30, you believe it is, and you have justification through the clock that it is 09:30. That seems to fill the three classic requirements for knowledge, yet your intuition would tell you that you do not know that it is 09:30 because the clock you got the information from is broken." I'm quoting here because of my own difficulty with this matter: Fact 1: The broken clock shows 9:30. Fact 2: The time of day is 9:30. My issue with the Gettier problem is that since fact 1 seems completely disconnected from fact 2 (the broken clock was always going to show 9:30), I don't see how i counts as a justification. If there's a known rebuttal for my objection or anyone comes up with one, I'd be glad to read it. Thanks!

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

I would agree with you here. You believe it's 9:30 (belief), it is 9:30 (truth), but your justification is a broken clock. I don't think that this counts as justification.

The "normal circumstances" of knowlrdge-how isn't defined enough, I'd say, but it's not that problematic - you can just say you know how to do it given those circumstances. Knowledge-that is tougher, because how do you decide what's enough justification? I assume some philosophers tried to define that, but I can't imagine a good enough definition. Honestly, I'd say we can't really "know" things about the universe, just hold enough information to make good conjectures. Since we can't ever be certain nothing new will be discovered to disprove our "knowledge", we can just assume things and say we "know" them as an approximation. The only things we can really "know" with absolute certainty are human-defined/reality-independant concepts like math and language. Pluto's case, by the way, isn't really about knowledge - "Planet" is just a man made term, not an inherent property of the universe. Pluto stopped being a planet because we redefined the word and excluded Pluto. So before that it really was a planet because it was considered to be one.

Cool video, I definitely wasn't expecting anything about animal intelligence in a video about the Gettier problem and the tripartite definition. (That said, both octupuses and octopi are correct plurals.

@Hecatonicosachoron

8 жыл бұрын

+Aline Thome (octapi is incorrect. The etymologically correct form is octopodes / octapodes. However, octopuses is most commonly used and is, typically the correct form)

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

One could argue that, as both octopuses and octopi are commonly used the rules regarding the plural have changed so both are valid. Octopodes, while etymologically correct, is not commonly used, and so not really the plural. But I digress.

@Hecatonicosachoron

8 жыл бұрын

klop422 I've only seen octopusses widely used in English. 'Octopi' is a mistake. The one consistent with the declension of 'pous' in greek is 'octopodes'

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

+Jason93609 Really? I have seen people use 'octopi'. I think. I did know about 'octopodes' but, as I said, no one really uses it, so I wouldn't count it.

@alinethome4064

8 жыл бұрын

Jason93609 That's not how language works, though. We may have ignorant 18th century grammarians to thank for making the Latin plural of a Greek word the most common usage for a little while (until around the 1920's from a quick ngram search). But the fact is the usage remains common and has been accepted as correct usage for a good couple of centuries now. Etymological arguments don't have normative force.

Olly, think you forgot to make reference to knowing as acquaintance. As in, I know Olly, meaning I am acquainted with Olly. I think the problem with the definition "justified true belief" is that we don't actually know if it's true. It's based on whatever justification we have accompanied by belief. Or does 'true' mean that the belief should be in true knowledge rather than false knowledge?

Hi Olly, I love your work. Thank you for all you are doing. Have you heard of an unusual work titled "A Course in Miracles"? Would love to hear your views on this work.

How does this fit in with technology? Isn't "the knowledge that" just a function of our ability to verify our perceptions by the use of technology? As the precision of technology increases so does available knowledge.

With things like knowing-how to ride a bike - doesn't that involve autonomous muscle memory that you can't really explain how it works, if asked? It's one of those things which often if you start to consciously think about it when you do it you will fail at it (especially if you are doing it at a high level of skill, like say racing it). So isn't that a little bit like the octopus?

I have been thinking about JTB, and Pragmatism. If truth is what works, then the demonstration of the belief working makes the belief true and justified in one, would it not? Then there is the idea of Reliably produced, true belief. But couldn't we just classify RDB as type of justification? With these in mind, maybe a Pragmatist only needs a Justified Belief. How would Knowledge be affected with propositions that seem to have a relative truth value? Like "If I go to the music store, then I can buy a Queen CD." The truth value of this proposition changes relative to time, day, stock, etc. So, can someone's knowledge be relative as well?

Well, the reason Pluto's status as a planet was revoked is BECAUSE our knowledge and scientific advancement grew. We developed better technology which allowed us to better observe the solar system and galaxy around us and that's how we discovered exoplanets, which are planetoids that are structured and orbitally behave differently than planets, and how we came up the conclusion that Pluto was not a planet but an exoplanet. Our growth of knowledge and improvement of technology also allowed us to discover a celestial body beyond Neptune's orbit that may be a new planet. So it's more the case that in light of new evidence and new tools with which to discover that evidence that led to the conclusion that Pluto is not a planet.

But for "knowledge how", how in depth does your understanding of the rules have to be? Eg. for a long time I didn't understand how the English language worked, even though I could speak it perfectly. It wasn't until I learnt another language that I could see how English was put together. How can we say that speaking our native tongue is any different from an octopus opening a jar (if it's true the octopus doesn't understand what it's doing)? Or, to use your example, when riding a bike we know how to stay uptight through trial and error, but most of us won't understand all the forces at play. Similarly, even if the octopus doesn't understand WHY, it still knows HOW.

Knowledge-That is merely observation. Knowledge-How is application. Adam and Eve realized they were naked and felt embarrassed upon eating the forbidden fruit. Prior to that they were already living life and functioning amongst their environment with ease. It’s clear they gained the _knowledge of that_ (observation) post-forbidden fruit.

winning at poker can't be a requirement for knowing how to play it because a group of people who all know how to play it can play a game and only one will win. you could adjust it to "knowing how to win at poker" but it's the same problem. knowing how to win boils down to knowing the proper strategy, and everyone could know that strategy despite only one of them being destined to win.

you're looking good and you're looking clean! It was quite nice hearing you talk while eat that apple. Not disgusting like you'd expect.

I believe that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Or in your example with Pluto about the 9th planet. There are true-experienced things like octopusses There are true-nonexperienced things like Jedi Jedi could possibly exist, like in some parallel world, but since we have no experience of them, they are not the same as octopusses. All things are true, except nonexistence, which can't exist

Philosophy rabbit hole; For something to be considered knowledge, i have to have the belief that it is true. I have to have justification for my belief. I have to have evidence for my justification. My evidence has to be tangible and quantifiable. I have to rely on my senses or experiences to have evidence to quantify it, or experience it. My senses, or previous experiences have to not deceive me. My senses will deceive me at one time or another via hallucination of misattribution. I cannot rely on my senses 100% of the time. I have nothing else to rely on. There is potential for nothing to be real, provided my senses deceive me at all time - I would be none the wiser. My 'reality' may be different to others. If it's a construction of my brain fed information by my faulty senses is it even considered 'reality'? What is real? If nothing is 'real' or tangible because of my senses, then I can at least rely on my brain as a source of consistency since it's what's 'constructing' everything I can trust that my thoughts are 'real'. What if my thoughts are fabricated by another? Are my thoughts my own? Are my very thoughts created by some being that distorts our neurological pulses into what we consider 'real'. Do I think for myself? If i assume that i can think for myself because i can question the existence of this other being, then what if the other being is leaving that option open as a double bluff. What if the other being is so assured in my captivity to the injection of external thoughts that there is no issue with allowing me to entertain the idea that there is a abeing doing so. That even if I were to ponder the existence of the other being and find out there is one injecting thoughts and constructing my reality before me, that there is nothing i can do even if i knew the truth.

Could you consider another aspect of knowledge could be the "knowledge-of"? For the knowledge of an object or subject implies a deeper understanding of the topic. This may be out of reach but take the statement: 'I am'. These words represent the implication that the human knows of itself and is able to comprehend the environment around it and bring relation to itself and what is surrounding it. The notion of 'I am' gives the understanding that the subject and predicate are both one in the same. It could be like saying, 'I am what is'. If I am scattered with my thoughts, apologizes! I just was curious if you could categorize knowledge-of in relation to what was discussed in relation of -how and -that.

As far as the octopuses go, it may be impossible for us to truly determine whether or not they are intelligent, or "have knowledge." As human beings can only understand the universe from a human perspective, it would be difficult to pose a non-anthropocentric argument for the knowledge, or even morality of other species. For example, an alien might look down upon us thinking, "the animals of Earth (including humans) do not have knowledge or morality." The alien may think this because we do not function or communicate in the same way. To him, we may just be making aggressive sounds and simple shelters, while we are actually debating and creating architecture.

So what would be an example of knowledge-that and knowledge-how?

Question: if you had no justification in your belief that you would win the lottery, but you still believe and you win, does exclaiming "I knew it!" afterwards make you a liar? Also, in terms of knowing things about what will happen, take this scenario:I have two friends (for the same of argument) and they are very attracted to one another. Knowing this for sure (they've bottomed me because I'm the best friend ever, of course), I convince one to ask the other out. Can I know that the other will say yes, though? I have a belief that they will, I'm justified, and it's true. So is that knowledge?

yes!

Hey Olly. I have a question. Isn't it a bit foolish to throw knowledge-that and knowledge-how into one bag? They share the same word, but that's it. In a different language, they'd be called differently, and nobody would think about categorising them together. How would you respond to that?

Can't I have knowledge-how without, say, the physical ability to accomplish the thing under normal circumstances? I feel like I have knowledge-how to dunk a basketball...but I guess maybe I don't...

@patricksratliff

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe that's just knowledge-that, which happens to be about a process?

Everyone has their own reality, regardless of the truth. What we have in common with one another could also be considered truths :)

What is the problem with properly justified true belief (properly justified = justified with only true justifications)?

precisely speaking, the pluto example isn't a Gettier problem. We didn't learn something new about Pluto that changed our understanding of it, we learned something new about the kinds and frequencies of objects like Pluto that lead is to change thr definition of a planet. That's not a criticism. It's still a good brief intro to the topic, but technically it's incorrect.

beneficial

Why isn't there a better term for justified false belief than: "Honest Mistake" and unjustified true belief than: "Lucky Guess"? OR IS THERE?

1:15 no my friend, you fall down a sea, and either get to the surface and on to land cuse you dont like it. swim for fun to entertain yourself, or like ous here (or me) dive into the beauitful infinite depth of gorgeous ocean blue and see the increadible myriad of life within. (and occasinally be lost in the gorgeous eyes of the merman speaking to ous, you know who :) )

As to what Adam and Eve were supposed to have learned, well actually the knowledge was said to be that of Good and Bad. Since Eve attested to what was Good and Bad according to God the Creator then what other knowledge there would be of this is in what was confirmed in the 22nd verse of Genesis chapter 3. The point of the persuasion was to reject the decision of what was Good and Bad by the Creator so that He ruled their lives, (the word God meaning ruler) but to rather become god to themselves in deciding what is Good and Bad for them to do or not do, have or not have, make or not make, etc. This attitude toward higher authority is part of what is later spoken of as what all mankind inherited.

Epistemology is so tough to understand, ethics is easier. Can you please recommend me an epistemology book (textbook or otherwise) thats good for absolute beginners? Thankyou!

You should watch CDawgVA. You Remind me of him A LOT. Maybe because the accent. I'm not sure.

I would say that, at least in the Pluto issue, the justification for knowing there are nine planets is that Pluto is the ninth planet, which is false, so the justification is false, therefore there is no knowledge.

But isn't "knowledge how" just composite "knowledge that"? You know that pushing on the pedals of a bike spins the drive wheel, you know that turning the handlebars turns the steering wheel, you know that pulling the brake lever applies the brakes, etc, etc.. which add up to knowing how to ride a bike.

Is this like the Chinese Room thought experiment?

4:19 "Octopuses are intelligent _and_ delicious" Do you think that imposing suffering and/or death upon sentient beings like octopuses, dogs or pigs for reasons like pleasure, convenience or habit is ethical?

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

He did discuss that in another video, earlier. Also, as octopuses have brains in their tentacles, they can also dangerous to eat, as the still-living tentacles realise that going down the throat of a creature is not same, so they clamp themselves to the side for dear life, sometimes choking the human at the same time. Sorry, just wanted someone to know that.

@shawna2529

6 жыл бұрын

All animals are sentient beings

OCTOPI WILL NEVER DIE!

Remember kids knowledge get you Lamborghinis, OK?

Maybe I am getting at this wrong but intelligence is knowledge why. The only reason we are intelligent as a species is because we have asked why. I was watching a movie about how they took chimpanzees and gave them 2 building blocks that looked identical except for one was slightly round at the bottom so that it couldn't stand up. The chimps tried and tried to stand the round one up but kept failing, and none of them ever studied the blocks to figure out why the weren't standing. The scientists eventually had to take away the blocks.

Have you checked out Crash Course Philosophy yet?

i believe there is no such thing as knowledge, at least not for us humans. We can only think, guess, hope or believe that anything of what we say is correct. I believe that because we do not possess any kind of tool or any means in general to objectively observe the world. Eveything the way we see, hear, smell, taste, feel or perceive things and situations is almost 100% personalizwd and thus objective

Delicious?! DELICIOUS?! (Danielle's reaction I bet)

Hawley's definition of knowledge-how doesn't make sense to me. Suppose we take Usain Bolt as an example. Clearly, Usain Bolt knows how to run 100m in less than 10s (he knows how to train, he knows how to mentally prepare, he knows how to race, etc.). He has done it many times and can do it again if he chooses. However, thirty years from now Bolt will be weaker and won't be able to run 100m in less than 10s. His *knowledge* hasn't changed, only his physical ability. It's also not fair to say he is not under "normal circumstances" because being 59 is pretty normal. So "normal circumstances" is not the right condition. I would say that knowledge-how is the ability to consistently perform a task under a particular set of circumstances (i.e. different circumstances mean the actual task is different). This means Usain Bolt knows how to run 100m in less than 10s *with his age, health, talent, etc.*. It also means you know how to beat very bad poker players (and so does basically everyone), but you don't know how to beat players how understand the game. In this case there is some confound between the types of knowledge, because knowing how to win in poker typically depends on knowing what the rules are.

@nkd1352

8 жыл бұрын

It seems fairly easy to claim that Bolt has lost some knowledge in your example. In the same way that some people lose a lot of knowledge-that as they grow older.

@MrKyltpzyxm

8 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say that he lost any knowledge. You just have to be more specific about the nature of the original knowledge. Instead of saying that "Usain Bolt knows how to run 100m in less than 10s." Extend that to say that "Usain Bolt knows how to run 100m in less than 10s at age 29." (You could add additional qualifiers if you desire as well.) Then as he ages he will have to "learn" over and over again how to run 100m in 10s. In this case, we might say that no human being will ever "know" how to run 100m in less than 10s at age 89. I won't start in on it here, but this is just another example of how it seems that so many of the problems of philosophy boil down to language and semantics. The difficulty frequently lies in accurately defining terms and then having everybody agree on those definitions. Then agreeing on syntax, and logical structure, and so on... There is only one reality. Reality is never wrong; our perceptions of reality quite often are.

4:55 Isn't that the same as the thought experiment of a man who lives in a room transcribing Chinese until he memorizes the Chinese language? He knows how to write Chinese but he doesn't know functional Chinese. Did you already talk about this? I can't remember.

@PhilosophyTube

8 жыл бұрын

+OwenBruch22 Eeehh, similar. I have talked about that one before in a video on Artificial Intelligence, yeah.

You need the justifications, i.e the causes of your true belief, to be the actual causes for you to have knowledge. if it werent the case then having justification would be essentially meaningless. we could just make random guesses and if they happened to be true then you would have knowledge

If you do not know how play poker even if you keep winning because you don't understand the connection, is the same not true for a bike? What I mean is: The only reason that I can argue that I know how to ride a bike is that I keep successfully riding it - but I don't actually know why it is that I know how to stay on and my baby brother doesn't. I just pedal the pedals and I stay up! Much like you keeping throwing cards down and winning. So, do I not know how to ride a bike after all?

@edgrimm5862

5 жыл бұрын

You probably know a lot more about what the circumstances needed for successful bike riding than the woman I knew who thought she was a whiz at poker without actually knowing much about the game knew of poker. It turned out she was just quickly satisfied with her winnings and left the table while the sharks were still trying to reel her in. On numerous trips to casinos, she played two hands and left. Then she tried playing with some geeks at college with no money at stake and was very confused about what happened. She went into it feeling her information wasn't complete, but she felt it was just a lack of experience, rather than a lack of knowing much beyond the number of cards dealt and that various arrangements of cards had various levels of worth.

I wouldn't say the poker example is valid. The fact that you're playing against many people that are bad at it makes it an abnormal circumstance. On average of playing a game of poker with many different opponents that want to play poker, you will get people that know how to play poker, not people that are terrible at it.

bro who else has to watch this for philosophy class???

Then can we know how to walk assuming we don't know the underlying mechanism of walking and just do it instinctively?

@Eon2641

8 жыл бұрын

+Sina Shahbazi Because knowing the actual physical mechanics of walking would be more "knowledge that" than "knowledge how".

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

We know what we have to do to walk, what specific effort we have to make. Our knowledge of biology or physics is not quite relevant, although you make an interesting point.

@cshahbazi1220

8 жыл бұрын

+Eon2641 I actually didn't mean the knowledge of the biophysics of walking but rather the algorithmic step-by-step knowledge-how of walking. Do we really know what we're doing when we walk, how we take our steps? I'd say no, we don't, and it just comes instinctively to us.

@Eon2641

8 жыл бұрын

Sina Shahbazi Well I think there's a difference between not having to think about doing something and being ignorant of how you do it. If I actually stop to think about it, without moving, I could describe the moment to moment actions I _would_ take in order to walk. It probably wouldn't be articulated very well as it's a weird thing to describe, but I could do it. I think a more apt bodily function would be knowing how your heart beats or something similar, something the average person couldn't control if they tried.

@klop4228

8 жыл бұрын

+Sina Shahbazi Also, I take issue with your use of the word 'instinctive' as newborns can't walk. They learn by watching other humans. Walking is about as instinctive as talking is. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with Eon2641's comment.

I actually have a interesting idea about justification but I do not think that KZread comments are the best medium to try to discuss philosophical ideas.

Could you not group both knowledges into one? Knowledge-how is the knowledge that's what you're doing will work. Or not?

I think the gettier problem is irrelevant since we can never betermin if a claim about the physical world is true we can only have justified belives, the justifiacations might be realy good but there is always the possibility that our senses are wrong

I heard that knowledge is better than Lamborghinis

Hey Olly. I recently came across Gettier cases in an online philosophy class I'm taking and am sort confused by why they present such a huge problem for epistemology. Say you're staring at a man across the street, and you have a justified, true belief that that man is standing there. You believe he's standing there, and to support this, you cite the fact that he looks exactly like a human in every way possible, and no one around him is treating him like anything else. Because of this, you say that your belief is true. Now that you have a justified, true belief, you say you have knowledge of him standing there. But all of a sudden, he walks up to you, and unscrews his head from his body. Turns out he was just a cyborg! Does that mean you just got "lucky" and that you have to circumvent the problem with all sorts of fancy logic? I don't think so. It just means that one of the original things that you based your belief on was just wrong to begin with, and you didn't know it.

@NerdSyncProductions

8 жыл бұрын

+Andrew Bryant Hmm, that example doesn't seem like a Gettier case to me, but I could be wrong. It would be a Gettier problem if hidden behind the cyborg out of your view was a real man standing there. So technically you'd be right in saying that there was a man standing there, but could you really say that you knew it?

@andrewbryant3286

8 жыл бұрын

+NerdSync Right. I guess that you're saying that if my example were a Gettier case, the man would've been a real man all along, but you wouldn't have figured that out through any logic. You actually would've just gotten lucky. That's actually pretty tricky.

@TaylorjAdams

8 жыл бұрын

I agree with NerdSync there that yeah making it an actual Gettier statement makes it trickier but I think your point shouldn't get lost there either. All the term "Justified True Belief" in any Gettier problem I've been presented with has had to do directly with the amount of justification involved. IMO it wouldn't be a problem if it were just changed to "your belief is justified for the same reason that the truth is justified". You'd have to deal with a much stricter version of "justification" because it would basically require it to be dependent on truth, but I think the whole point isn't that you can be justified in believing something that's wrong. It's that you can easily believe things which happen to be true for entirely unjustified reasons.

Planets are a human construct of categorization... We were right, but then we added that a planet had to clear its orbit. So we were right it was a planet, we are right it is not...

"You can't know that the earth is flat"Well I know some fellas who would object to that :D

Defend octopus rights! Don't oppress octopuses with your teeth!

I think the definition of knowledge how as described here is insufficient. How do puppies, when tossed into a body of water, know how to swim? How do newborn babies, know to feed when something touches their lips? This would indicate there is "knowledge how" in "animals" (including the baby) without a doubt.

it says they learned the knowledge of good n evil

@understandingcomplicated2199

7 жыл бұрын

Which is they gained morality.

Can't we get around the Gettier problem by defining knowledge-that as "justified true belief derived from steps that are themselves justified and true"? That way, "Pluto is a planet", the statement from which "there are 9 planets" is derived, is a necessary part of "knowing there are 9 planets".

@ltericdavis2237

8 жыл бұрын

+Eric Vilas That is along the lines I was thinking. In the case of "there are nine planets," the initial justification - of Pluto being the ninth planet - was simply incorrect, therefor that knowledge was unjustified. Never said anything about it being wrong, just unjustified. Its just a belief that happen to be true, but the justification was wrong.

@ericvilas

8 жыл бұрын

***** Eventually, you need to end up at some point of universally agreed empirical data. The loop is infinite if you're technical about it, but if you assume that the world as we believe we know it is, in some sense, the "real" world, then you can rely on empirical stuff. Otherwise, yes, for all you know you're stuck in the Matrix and nothing is real.

@ericvilas

8 жыл бұрын

TruthUnadulterated That is the conclusion many come to, but it's not the only conclusion. Many others (such as myself) have come to simply have faith in experience. I personally believe that Occam's razor can apply here, and that the simplest answer is scientific realism - we settle for believing that what we repeatedly experience is _probably_ true, until further experiences prove otherwise. That way, we asymptotically come ever closer to "truly knowing" things.

@ericvilas

8 жыл бұрын

+TruthUnadulterated how is that? Science does not necessitate God. It leaves a hole in the places where you assume God to be in and tries to find out what else could have that effect. If anything, it's asking "what is the minimum amount of things God, if He exists, would have to have done in order to create the world as we know it?" Atheists like myself believe the answer to that question is "none at all". Deists believe the answer is "only enough to set the universe in motion". Theists believe the answer to be "active involvement in its development". These 3 are all perfectly legitimate hypotheses whose answers have not been fully tested. Either way, science is compatible with many (though not all) religious views. Now, as for the matter of scientific realism, suppose God didn't exist. What would be logically inconsistent about this? I'm not seeing the contradiction in my reasoning.

@ericvilas

8 жыл бұрын

TruthUnadulterated Wow, those are some pretty harsh accusations you're throwing there. Atheists simply start from the statement "if something happens a million times and nothing changes, it's practical to assume that it's going to happen a million and one times". Yes, everything that exists has a cause. We take that chain of causality all the way back and ask what caused that first seemingly causeless thing which is the creation of the universe. What was _its_ cause? We don't know. Logically, there are only 2 options: either there is an eternal infinite cause, or there is something that caused itself to be. Neither one requires a God, only a cause. That cause could be God, but it could just as easily be a simple law that regulates how the universe works, that is eternally constant.