So tell me if I’m overthinking this or not I looked up the definition of “Possible”. Which is the ability to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something. So then I asked myself, is knowledge able to be done ? Still not satisfied, I turned to the definition of “Do”, which is to perform an action. I then asked myself, Is knowledge able to perform an action? The logical answer I have for that is No. since I view knowledge as (Some) part of our thought process, knowledge is able to determine action, but not perform it. Paused at 3:32
Interesting question. Curriculum development likely falls more properly under the philosophy of education. It is the difference between research and education. Epistemology is the method for finding out what is known, education is the process of conveying that knowledge to others. So epistemology's influence on curriculum development happens at the front end in determining what we can know certainly enough to teach to others.
I suggest you the book "Evidence and Inquiry" by Susan Haack. Btw, do you know the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? There, you can find a lot of sources for further studies (sorry for my english. I'm not fluent, yet). plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
Epistemology is important because it deals with what we can know, what we can prove. Even if you have a true belief, if you can't prove it, it is not knowledge, and no one else will believe you.
It can. Sorry if my tree is unclear. Both Rationalists and Empiricists can be either Internalists or Externalists. You can think that justification is based on mental factors (e.g. you have a web of justifying beliefs), but think you gain knowledge either only through sense experience (internalist empiricist) or sometimes through some other means (internalist rationalist). You can think that justification is based on external factors (e.g. you have a properly functioning brain), but think you gain knowledge either only through sense experience (externalist empiricist) or sometimes through some other means (externalist rationalist). They are independent concepts.
Hi Carneades, I am having some difficulty understanding the differences between the following: word, concept, term. I read that the 'term' expresses *objectively* what is known subjectively as a 'concept' (Kreet, Socratic Logic, p40). Is a term, 'objectively' real? If there are no human minds, will 'terms' continue to exist without us?
@@kalidesu Thank you for your reply. My understanding of the perfect forms is not developed enough to answer your question. So, I'm not sure. Are any of the following objectively real: terms, essences, universals? I was thinking that light is objectively real, and we evolved a sense organ to sense it (retina) and call it vision, odorants are real and we evolved receptors to detect them and call it smell or olfaction. And so, perhaps terms are objectively real within the synapses of other brains, and we evolved the ability to detect these through language processing centers. But, that objective reality is a little different than what seems to be 'terms' (or perfect forms, or even essences) because if humans went extinct, it would be like the last photon dying, light would stop existing. I get the feeling that when 'terms' are being used, that they're suggested to be different in that they would exist - even without us? I don't see how that could be possible. Or perhaps 'objectively real' and 'subjective experience' has a different meaning in philosophy than in 'sciences'?
@@mweibleii No, language is a human construct. Matter is a mental construct, it doesn't exist out there. It's hard to tell what there would be without consciousness.
@@johncart07 That was a really poorly worded answer. Language exists because it's a human invention. Okay, and? Humans are animals. We evolved to have an eye. We evolved to have a language. Eyes sense photons. What about the neocortex with regards to language?
@@mweibleii That was a really poorly worded response. What about the neocortex? What are we talking about? Neuronal firing patterns or qualia? Psychological phenomena and archetypes? Or simply objectivity vs subjectivity? Apriori interpretive structures?
The terms Philosopher and Scientist i.e. Natural Philosophers, have been used for those who seek Knowledge of Truth.. I also think "Epistemologist" should be used as a synonym for the two. Philosophy is the root, Science is the fruit. Without Epistemology, Knowledge could not be defined, and Truth claims could never be justified. I hold Epistemology as the highest and most important Philosophy branch.
Academic skeptics would say that all things are just more or less strongly held beliefs. We may be closer or further from the truth, but we'll never know how close or far, just degrees of confidence
There are largely two kinds of skeptics, academic skeptics that believe knowledge is not possible (even knowledge of the claim that knowledge is impossible), and Pyrrhonian skeptics who lack all beliefs and don't claim to know if knowledge is possible or not. My skepticism is in the later camp.
@leopardsbasketball I would say that such a viewpoint would be more in line with a kind of Bayesian epistemology (th-cam.com/video/YRz8deiJ57E/w-d-xo.html). Academic skeptics (at least under the standard framework) believe that knowledge is impossible, they just don't think that their belief (or any beliefs for that matter) can be justified.
“Is knowledge possible?” What does that even mean? Google says knowledge is facts, info etc. Fire is hot. Thats a fact... how can it be not possible? Am i missing something? Should i watch another video maybe read something?
Knowledge (according to the people who study it, philosophers) is generally thought of as true, justified, belief (th-cam.com/video/cxWxGYVVFJ0/w-d-xo.html). How could the statement "Fire is hot" not be knowledge? In several ways. If you had never encountered or learned about fire, you might not have the belief that fire is hot. If you don't believe it, then you can't know it. It might also be the case that your belief is unjustified, and therefore is not knowledge. You might believe that there is a little leprechaun on your shoulder who can only speak the truth. This leprechaun tells you all sorts of false information and you believe it. If you only believed that fire was hot because the leprechaun told you, we wouldn't think that you know it, since your belief is unjustified. Finally it might not actually be the case that fire is hot. We can imagine a possible world where such reactions are endothermic not exothermic. If it is possible that we are in an elaborate deception (a la the matrix) and in reality fire is cold, but in the deception it appears hot, then our belief that fire is hot is false and therefore not knowledge. Furthermore, it might be the case that you are actually a psych patient who has the delusion that fire is hot, when everyone else knows it is cold. If the statement is false, then it is not known.
What is hot? Is it your nerves firing rapidly? How do your nerves distinguish between one sensation or the next? Do our perceptions fail us? Of course they do.
U are as clear as it needs to be, your notes, voice and animation. Nice vibe.
Dude, how could i not found you sooner, the stuff is absolute fire
So tell me if I’m overthinking this or not
I looked up the definition of “Possible”. Which is the ability to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something. So then I asked myself, is knowledge able to be done ? Still not satisfied, I turned to the definition of “Do”, which is to perform an action. I then asked myself, Is knowledge able to perform an action? The logical answer I have for that is No. since I view knowledge as (Some) part of our thought process, knowledge is able to determine action, but not perform it.
Paused at 3:32
Sir what is the role of epistemology in curriculum development? Please explain with some examples.
Interesting question. Curriculum development likely falls more properly under the philosophy of education. It is the difference between research and education. Epistemology is the method for finding out what is known, education is the process of conveying that knowledge to others. So epistemology's influence on curriculum development happens at the front end in determining what we can know certainly enough to teach to others.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene thank you so much
Watched this for 5 seconds and knew you are an awesome TH-camr guy.
Damn do I even need to do a degree if I can learn from people like this guy
only if you seek others approval.
@@captaincurd2681 well you don't need others approval if no one is there or no one cares
Degrees give credibility to knowledge learned.
Just curious, what is your objection to contextualism?
What's the best book on epistemology and standards of evidence?
I suggest you the book "Evidence and Inquiry" by Susan Haack. Btw, do you know the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? There, you can find a lot of sources for further studies (sorry for my english. I'm not fluent, yet).
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
How do we know that we know we know?
hi, what is the importance of epistemology as a philosophical principle?
Epistemology is important because it deals with what we can know, what we can prove. Even if you have a true belief, if you can't prove it, it is not knowledge, and no one else will believe you.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene okay thank you so much!
Love. I follow pyrrho as well!!! Have you attained ataraxia?
I don't know, but I am trying. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene it's just getting to the point for me where I don't even know if I don't know 😁🙃
Does justifying through the means of empiricism fall under internalism?
It can. Sorry if my tree is unclear. Both Rationalists and Empiricists can be either Internalists or Externalists. You can think that justification is based on mental factors (e.g. you have a web of justifying beliefs), but think you gain knowledge either only through sense experience (internalist empiricist) or sometimes through some other means (internalist rationalist). You can think that justification is based on external factors (e.g. you have a properly functioning brain), but think you gain knowledge either only through sense experience (externalist empiricist) or sometimes through some other means (externalist rationalist). They are independent concepts.
Superb video, Thank you! Is a shame I can't like it again.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed.
Hi Carneades,
I am having some difficulty understanding the differences between the following: word, concept, term. I read that the 'term' expresses *objectively* what is known subjectively as a 'concept' (Kreet, Socratic Logic, p40). Is a term, 'objectively' real? If there are no human minds, will 'terms' continue to exist without us?
Without us? In Plato's perfect world of forms?
@@kalidesu Thank you for your reply. My understanding of the perfect forms is not developed enough to answer your question. So, I'm not sure. Are any of the following objectively real: terms, essences, universals?
I was thinking that light is objectively real, and we evolved a sense organ to sense it (retina) and call it vision, odorants are real and we evolved receptors to detect them and call it smell or olfaction. And so, perhaps terms are objectively real within the synapses of other brains, and we evolved the ability to detect these through language processing centers.
But, that objective reality is a little different than what seems to be 'terms' (or perfect forms, or even essences) because if humans went extinct, it would be like the last photon dying, light would stop existing. I get the feeling that when 'terms' are being used, that they're suggested to be different in that they would exist - even without us?
I don't see how that could be possible. Or perhaps 'objectively real' and 'subjective experience' has a different meaning in philosophy than in 'sciences'?
@@mweibleii No, language is a human construct. Matter is a mental construct, it doesn't exist out there. It's hard to tell what there would be without consciousness.
@@johncart07
That was a really poorly worded answer. Language exists because it's a human invention. Okay, and? Humans are animals. We evolved to have an eye. We evolved to have a language. Eyes sense photons. What about the neocortex with regards to language?
@@mweibleii That was a really poorly worded response. What about the neocortex? What are we talking about? Neuronal firing patterns or qualia? Psychological phenomena and archetypes? Or simply objectivity vs subjectivity? Apriori interpretive structures?
Ah, the sweet, lonely life of an unrelenting contextualist.
Foundatinalism falls under epistemology?
Foundationalism is a type of epistemology yes.
The terms Philosopher and Scientist i.e. Natural Philosophers, have been used for those who seek Knowledge of Truth.. I also think "Epistemologist" should be used as a synonym for the two. Philosophy is the root, Science is the fruit. Without Epistemology, Knowledge could not be defined, and Truth claims could never be justified. I hold Epistemology as the highest and most important Philosophy branch.
A true belief alone is knowledge. Justification is not necessary.
Someone with a mental illness who has hallucinations which seem real to them then knows for certain that their hallucinations comprise reality?
Jesus christ, why did u explaine this better then my professor? I am in my second year history bachelor.
Thanks! I'm glad to help. :)
epistemology has such an easier understanding than ontology
Ontology take some understanding, but it is not too rough (th-cam.com/video/FN2zwqE_Qo0/w-d-xo.html)
Excellent thanks
Jay dyer be that psycho interrogating you on your beliefs. Healthy for the mind to think on these things tho
Based on this video I am a Contextual Internal Coherentist…
Who ended up here after listening to a Steve Millar band song?
Is knowledge possible?
"No"
Well how do you know that?
Academic skeptics would say that all things are just more or less strongly held beliefs. We may be closer or further from the truth, but we'll never know how close or far, just degrees of confidence
There are largely two kinds of skeptics, academic skeptics that believe knowledge is not possible (even knowledge of the claim that knowledge is impossible), and Pyrrhonian skeptics who lack all beliefs and don't claim to know if knowledge is possible or not. My skepticism is in the later camp.
@leopardsbasketball I would say that such a viewpoint would be more in line with a kind of Bayesian epistemology (th-cam.com/video/YRz8deiJ57E/w-d-xo.html). Academic skeptics (at least under the standard framework) believe that knowledge is impossible, they just don't think that their belief (or any beliefs for that matter) can be justified.
Plato specifically denies that knowledge is a justified true belief and wrote a whole book Theaetetus about how it’s not.
super dope
“Is knowledge possible?” What does that even mean? Google says knowledge is facts, info etc. Fire is hot. Thats a fact... how can it be not possible? Am i missing something? Should i watch another video maybe read something?
I think it relates back to philosophical skepticism
Knowledge (according to the people who study it, philosophers) is generally thought of as true, justified, belief (th-cam.com/video/cxWxGYVVFJ0/w-d-xo.html).
How could the statement "Fire is hot" not be knowledge? In several ways. If you had never encountered or learned about fire, you might not have the belief that fire is hot. If you don't believe it, then you can't know it.
It might also be the case that your belief is unjustified, and therefore is not knowledge. You might believe that there is a little leprechaun on your shoulder who can only speak the truth. This leprechaun tells you all sorts of false information and you believe it. If you only believed that fire was hot because the leprechaun told you, we wouldn't think that you know it, since your belief is unjustified.
Finally it might not actually be the case that fire is hot. We can imagine a possible world where such reactions are endothermic not exothermic. If it is possible that we are in an elaborate deception (a la the matrix) and in reality fire is cold, but in the deception it appears hot, then our belief that fire is hot is false and therefore not knowledge. Furthermore, it might be the case that you are actually a psych patient who has the delusion that fire is hot, when everyone else knows it is cold. If the statement is false, then it is not known.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene How very interesting. Thank you for taking the time. I understand now.
What is hot? Is it your nerves firing rapidly? How do your nerves distinguish between one sensation or the next? Do our perceptions fail us? Of course they do.
"Atheist Toadbag"
sex is good, but what is good?
BUT WHAT IS SEX? IS IT A BLOWJOB? A HANDJOB? CONDOM OR NO CONDOM?
Based on our social behavior I can say that one mate for life works best. Also couples that stay together report having great sex.
Socrates