Re: Insult Jamble
- From: "Steve Goldfarb" <slg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:24:14 +0000 (UTC)
In <h08h7m$4ak$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> micha@xxxxxxxxxxx (Micha Berger) writes:
When you say "took care of," does that mean you left out food, which
disappeared? You put out a catbox, and found droppings which you cleaned
up? If so, then you have empirical evidence that the cat exists. If not,
then you can't actually claim to be taking care of a cat. You might as
well say you're taking care of a dragon.
Except that in my metaphor, I also included reliabilism. IOW, I believe
there is a cat and that the food is actually getting eaten because the
same guy enabled my finding all those rings.
I don't know what that means - the food is, or isn't, getting eaten. It's
empirical. If you can't show the food's getting eaten (or the equivalent)
then you haven't justified that you're taking care of the cat. Perhaps
you're actually poisoning the cat. There's no "knowledge" by your
definition.
The "reliabilism" you cite doesn't even count, because it's based on a
different case. Even if I accepted a justification for reliabism based on
something like "I can say that I had knowledge that the bell would ring
when I hit it with a hammner because it did in fact ring (True), I
believed it would ring (Belief), and it rang every previous time I hit it
with the hammer (Justified via reliabalism)" nevertheless you can't then
say "therefore I know that this rock will ring when I hit it with a
hammer."
--s
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Insult Jamble
- From: Micha Berger
- Re: Insult Jamble
- References:
- Re: Insult Jamble
- From: moshes
- Re: Insult Jamble
- From: Micha Berger
- Re: Insult Jamble
- From: Steve Goldfarb
- Re: Insult Jamble
- From: Micha Berger
- Re: Insult Jamble
- Prev by Date: Re: ADL Condemns Shooting of American Soldiers at Army Recruiting
- Next by Date: Re: Insult Jamble
- Previous by thread: Re: Insult Jamble
- Next by thread: Re: Insult Jamble
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading