/lit/ - Literature

Look up 'deductive reasoning', then look up 'inductive reasoning'.

Just use e-prime.

>>3626560
I know what deductive and inductive reasoning are, but am I not right in that even deductive reasoning needs inference? It can't require a priori knowledge because a priori knowledge doesn't exist. So that means it that knowledge only becomes knowledge after you apply a priori belief?

>>3626562
But that doesn't affect this situation much, does it?
This is frustrating as fuck...

just ask jeeves.

JTB
is fine with me

Knowledge is human understanding. How we get the new information is through interactions. Do we gain knowledge from outside(external) or inside(internal)? Or from both(combination of both)? Or neither(we don't have any knowledge)? Or None of the 4 above?

>>3626554
Sounds like you have way too much free time on your hands.

While we're on this topic, scientifically, how many gallons of semen do you think philosophers have spilled thus far?

>>3626566
>a priori knowledge doesn't exist

I mean it's not reliable or absolute truth in that the premises are usually based on induction or common sense but yeah it works so y not.

>>3626582
I laughed out loud internally

Justified True Belief.

>>3628576
Diogenes alone has spilled enough on the floor

>>3628576
>Sounds like you have way too much free time on your hands.
Thanks, you've just dissolved every philosopher in a vat of your own shallowness.

>>3626566
>>3628681
>a priori knowledge doesn't exist

Fucking liberal arts majors.

OK. I'll make this so simple a dead baby could understand it.

There's a mathematically proven best way to learn. Dumbed down, it's called Bayesian induction. Where's the a-priori knowledge? You use a mathematical artifact called a universal prior, which is exactly what it sounds like. Then you adjust the prior after the fact of learning new evidence.

We call the result "the scientific method." If you want to learn some details, check out the application of Kolmogorov complexity to AIXI.

logic justifies logic. it can only explain itself. science requires constants and variables whether they're measurable or not. like it was said earlier, e-prime is the only way to fly against science (if you insist on confronting something that can only explain itself).

>>3628709

Somebody discovered LessWrong, congratulations!

You sound pretentious. Like, really pretentious. Also, your post isn't entirely right.

Knoweldge = expirence
Just reading shit = gathering information that may or may not be useful to you, it must be applied either way to be of any worth.

If you read about milking cows, you only have fragments of information regarding extracting milk from cows, meaning you don't know shit until actually start milking cows.

Knowledge is the visible excitation of understanding, just as flame is to fire.

It is the extent with which we're able to reason with language.

Really, though, your definition for knowledge will depend on your definitions for related concepts. Language has a much greater need for context than specificity.

>>3628719
>Lesswrong
It looks like a self-help cult. Care to justify your bullshit?

>>3628709

fucking hard science majors.

I'll make this so simple a dead baby could understand it.

In this thread, we are not discussing how to do science or learning, niether of which is not concerned with reality or objective truth.

We are ultimately discussing the possibility of knowing what is real or not. Science can't help you do that, and the OP is right in that logic alone cannot get you to knowledge in the sense he is trying to conceive of it.

Where he is confusing himself is that he's looking for a definition of knowledge that fits perspectivism, when perspectivism essentially holds knowledge to be a meaningless concept.

>>3628731

Not really. It's focused around rationality, not really self-help BS.

>>3628753
oh fuck me. I meant to say "neither of which is concerned"