The Carvaka or Lokayata school reject inference as a legitimate source of knowledge as I remember. I think they give a very early kind of Gettier case involving seeing what you think is smoke (but is really just mist) and inferring that there is a fire there. The inference is bad because it isn't smoke, but there just does happen to be a fire there. The Carvaka were also materialists and quasi atheistic I think so thats cool.
I’m not sure that he adequately clarified the difference between internalist and externalist beliefs. As I understand it, externalism takes it to be the case that there might be some fact of the matter beyond a subject’s internal awareness that stands as a basis for knowing it to be the case. For example, there might be some expert knowledge about what distinguishes an ash tree from an elm tree. I might go through life with an internally justified belief that the tree is an elm, whereas it is in fact an ash tree. This comports with the slogan “meanings aren’t just in the head.“ The thing that might be confusing in the initial explanation is that in order for the subjects to know it at all, it must eventually be internalized. It must become part of the sum of the subject’s mental states to use the verbiage here. The radical thing to say if you are an externalist is that knowledge need not depend upon anyone’s states of mind, that there is something that ultimately makes a thing what it is Apart from anyone’s mind, which opens the way to essentialism.
Not everyone agrees with the two things you say everyone agrees about. For example, Murray, Sytsma, and I (along with historical antecedents) deny that belief is required for knowledge. And recently, Turri and Buckwalter have argued that truth is not required.
But if I am color blind and you are not then the external world satisfy 1. MY belief "the color of the shirt is white and black" which is equally true as 2. YOUR belief "the color of the shirt is white and pink. Does that mean there's actually TWO DIFFERENT TRUTHS FLOATING AROUND IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD? Or do you think there's only ONE truth "the color of the shirt is 'perceived by me' as white/black and 'perceived by you' as white/pink"..which would..make the argument about "reliable perception"..at least little bit vague..again.
Your comment is quite old, but I thought it deserved further attention. No. In the example you described, there would be only one truth, because there was only one reliable perception (the one from he or she who had full capability to perceive the spectrum of color). This is why we have standardized measurements and units--to add reliability to our perceptions, and to have an unchanging standard against which we can test them.
@@flyingphoenix113 the colour of the shirt is equally red for you as it is red for you for me. The fact that the colour is experienced as red by you doesn't change when I evaluate your experience of it. But those cases aren't ceteris paribus equal. And because they aren't equal they are different things (facts) with "similarities".
you are a great teacher. thank you for all of these videos
Thank you! this was very informational since I am doing a paper on Epistemology!
Thank you so much, this helped me a lot.
What a good voice for a teacher
That is clear and concise AS HELL!
The Carvaka or Lokayata school reject inference as a legitimate source of knowledge as I remember. I think they give a very early kind of Gettier case involving seeing what you think is smoke (but is really just mist) and inferring that there is a fire there. The inference is bad because it isn't smoke, but there just does happen to be a fire there. The Carvaka were also materialists and quasi atheistic I think so thats cool.
thank you for the video. I was so confused about externalism before watching this video.
💞💞💞
Good deal!
Very detailed
Thanks
I’m not sure that he adequately clarified the difference between internalist and externalist beliefs. As I understand it, externalism takes it to be the case that there might be some fact of the matter beyond a subject’s internal awareness that stands as a basis for knowing it to be the case. For example, there might be some expert knowledge about what distinguishes an ash tree from an elm tree. I might go through life with an internally justified belief that the tree is an elm, whereas it is in fact an ash tree. This comports with the slogan “meanings aren’t just in the head.“ The thing that might be confusing in the initial explanation is that in order for the subjects to know it at all, it must eventually be internalized. It must become part of the sum of the subject’s mental states to use the verbiage here. The radical thing to say if you are an externalist is that knowledge need not depend upon anyone’s states of mind, that there is something that ultimately makes a thing what it is Apart from anyone’s mind, which opens the way to essentialism.
Did you just debunk Gettier?
That piano music in the intro is you playing isn't it professor? Well done if so sir, sounded great.
I wrote the music-that’s the intro to a song I wrote-but it’s actually my late band mate Rich Harney playing piano. I was on bass that day.
Nozick apparently would have to reconcile contradictory religous beliefs to justify his 2nd premise about truth.
Not everyone agrees with the two things you say everyone agrees about. For example, Murray, Sytsma, and I (along with historical antecedents) deny that belief is required for knowledge. And recently, Turri and Buckwalter have argued that truth is not required.
how is internalism any different to coherence theory?
But if I am color blind and you are not then the external world satisfy 1. MY belief "the color of the shirt is white and black" which is equally true as 2. YOUR belief "the color of the shirt is white and pink.
Does that mean there's actually TWO DIFFERENT TRUTHS FLOATING AROUND IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD?
Or do you think there's only ONE truth "the color of the shirt is 'perceived by me' as white/black and 'perceived by you' as white/pink"..which would..make the argument about "reliable perception"..at least little bit vague..again.
yep,, my thoughts exactly... my father is color blind and can't distinguish certain colors for the life of him.
Your comment is quite old, but I thought it deserved further attention.
No. In the example you described, there would be only one truth, because there was only one reliable perception (the one from he or she who had full capability to perceive the spectrum of color). This is why we have standardized measurements and units--to add reliability to our perceptions, and to have an unchanging standard against which we can test them.
@@flyingphoenix113 the colour of the shirt is equally red for you as it is red for you for me. The fact that the colour is experienced as red by you doesn't change when I evaluate your experience of it.
But those cases aren't ceteris paribus equal. And because they aren't equal they are different things (facts) with "similarities".
But what is truth and why are we assuming that truth is a sort of monotheistic entity?