Gettiers in software engineering (2019)

Post by orbisvicis » Tue, Oct 15, 2024, 11:05 AM UTC

ninetyninenine wrote: post #94

orbisvicis wrote: post #78

I'm not sure I see the big deal. Justification is on a scale of 0 to 1, and at 1 you are onmiscient. We live in a complicated world; no one has time to be God so you just accept your 0.5 JTB and move on. Or for the belief part, well, "it's not a lie if you believe it". And as for the true bit, let's assume that there really is a cow, but before you can call someone over to verify your JTB, an alien abducts the cow an…

You're view is more inline with the philosophy of science which holds nothing an ever be justified. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popper read The problem of induction and demarcation: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Falsifiability Basically to some it all up because we aren't "omniscient" nothing can in actuallity ever be known.

Post by ndndjdjdn » Tue, Oct 15, 2024, 11:25 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #116

tucnak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often wonder if LLMs would have made Wittgenstein cry...

It's remarkable how LLMs have skipped any kind of philosophical grounding for "how do we know that this output is valid?" and just gone straight to "looks good to me". Very postmodernist. Also why LLMs are going to turn us into a low-trust society. A tool for filling the fields with papier-mache cows.

Post by mihaic » Tue, Oct 15, 2024, 11:29 AM UTC

dist-epoch wrote: post #122

mihaic wrote: post #113

After Godel published his landmark incompleteness proof, that a logical system can't be complete and also without any internal inconsistencies, I would have expected this to trickle into philosophical arguments of this type. I see no practical usefulness in all of these examples, except as instances of the rule that you can get correct results from incorrect reasoning.

Philosophy is quite far away from pure math for Godel's argument to really matter.

Post by ndndjdjdn » Tue, Oct 15, 2024, 11:35 AM UTC

SuchAnonMuchWow wrote: post #104

nmaley wrote: post #34

Gettier cases tell us something interesting about truth and knowledge. This is that a factual claim should depict the event that was the effective cause of the claim being made. Depiction is a picturing relationship: a correspondence between the words and a possible event (eg a cow in a field). Knowledge is when the depicted event was the effective cause of the belief. Since the paper mache cow was the cause of the b…

Mathematicians already explored exactly what you describe: this is the difference between classical logic and intuitionistic logic: In classical logic statements can be true in and of themselves even if there as no proof of it, but in intuitionistic logic statements are true only if there is a proof of it: the proof is the cause for the statement to be true. In intuitionistic logic, things are not as simple as "eithe…

Post by mistermann » Tue, Oct 15, 2024, 11:52 AM UTC

trashtester wrote: post #112

throw310822 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> False propositions are not knowledge, only true propositions are knowledge From my point of view, "to know" is a subjective feeling, an assessment on the degree of faith we put on a statement. "Knowledge" instead is an abstract concept, a corpus of statements, similar to "science". People "know" false stuff all the time (for some definition of "true" and "false", which may also vary).

Precisely, but I think the feeling of knowing may be defined differently for the person having the feeling and from the viewpoint of others. A flat-earther may feel they "know" the earth is flat. I feel that i "know" that their feeling isn't "true" knowledge. This is the simple case where we all (in this forum, or at least I hope so) agree. If we consider controversial beliefs, such as the existence of God, where Cov…