I do not easily fit into the main muppet demographics. I have zero attention to detail, and yet when I’m forming my arguments they usually become almost mathematical logical statements. Hopefully my rationality pulls through and the below is not me making a fool of myself.
I had previously thought the definition of “know” was to have absolute certainty, which didn’t work with me, since we had already unanimously decided that objective truth is unreachable. I thought the whole discussion was misguided under that definition, since knowledge couldn’t exist without the certainty we can never have.
Knowledge could mean 100% justified (objectively true) information, and therefor likely not exist.
Justifying true belief in this way is troubling, because nothing can be fully justified, and everything is at least somewhat justified. With this definition any justification on a believed idea equals knowledge. Thus any opinion is knowledge, as some level of justification must exist to support belief. If limited to a single person, rather than common opinion, the definition becomes even more useless.
Someone brought up the idea of knowledge being collective partially justified belief. This immediately struck me as being almost the definition of popular opinion. I originally didn’t like this because, like the previous, it reduces knowledge so it need have nothing to do with truth to exist, but I’ve dispelled that view. Truth is unreachable, and thus irrelevant, as sad as that may seem. it fits the purpose of practicality, in ever building circles (or triangles perhaps) of knowledge.
Knowledge could any mean 0.001% justified (objectively true) information, and therefore be the equal of opinion with self-imposed justification.
Knowledge could mean mutually agreed upon, 0.001% justified (subjectively true) information, and therefore be the equal of popular opinion, containing each person’s self-imposed justification.
I’m viewing knowledge as a very mushy grey area, and agreed upon knowledge even more so. If we aim between my first and second example (so there must be considerable justification but not 100%) we have no clear boundaries, and thus no real definition.
Knowledge could mean an undecided amount of justification on an idea, and therefore have no true definition.
So the answer is likely one of the above possibilities. Which one is up to whoever is defining the word. I personally believe arguing about the pointless. Rather than finding a word we don’t understand and trying to find the one true meaning behind it, why not take things we do understand and attach words to them? We know what we believe, we know (I think) what the massed beliefs are, and we know (kind of) that there is no reachable objective truth. I think this problem is caught up more in linguistics and differed opinions than an actual problem. Maybe I’m wrong.
Also, not done yet, the question of innate or experienced knowledge has to stop. I don’t know if it’s even a question still in the air, but this and the natures versus nurture debates are just the silliest arguments. It’s like if a bunch of philosophers sat down and tried to puzzle out, “are all people men, or are all people women?” (We’ll forget about the outliers here)
There’s evidence for both sides, so therefore people have to fight it out until one side reigns dominant. Something are innate, something need to be experienced. I have just ended the nature versus nurture debate. You’re welcome.
Also I just said a lot of things that might be wrong. If I said something you think is wrong, comment and tell me ok?