“it obviously fails to capture how “knowledge” is in fact used in English.”
Is that really the goal, to capture ordinary usage? Isn't ordinary usage floppy to the point of uselessness?
Maybe it isn’t knowledge that needs defining, but justification.
I used to think that to know something is to be willing to take actions that depend on it for success. But we can act on the basis of a guess, too. And a guess is pretty much the opposite of knowledge. There are probably also instances where people are not willing to act on the basis of what they claim to know, though good example does not come to mind.
I disagree that the skeptical argument is “unserious.” I could see why someone might believe that all of our beliefs need reasons. It’s almost always seen as silly to believe something for no reason (and for good reason). The only cases where believing in something for no reason makes sense are these esoteric debates in philosophy, so I can see why someone might make this mistake using some epistemological empathy.
It’s a creative argument that takes creativity of counterexample creation to respond to. The idea of pain being foundational wasn’t an idea I would have known about had I not read you (assuming I hadn’t one day read it from some other philosopher).
“it obviously fails to capture how “knowledge” is in fact used in English.”
Is that really the goal, to capture ordinary usage? Isn't ordinary usage floppy to the point of uselessness?
Maybe it isn’t knowledge that needs defining, but justification.
I used to think that to know something is to be willing to take actions that depend on it for success. But we can act on the basis of a guess, too. And a guess is pretty much the opposite of knowledge. There are probably also instances where people are not willing to act on the basis of what they claim to know, though good example does not come to mind.
I disagree that the skeptical argument is “unserious.” I could see why someone might believe that all of our beliefs need reasons. It’s almost always seen as silly to believe something for no reason (and for good reason). The only cases where believing in something for no reason makes sense are these esoteric debates in philosophy, so I can see why someone might make this mistake using some epistemological empathy.
It’s a creative argument that takes creativity of counterexample creation to respond to. The idea of pain being foundational wasn’t an idea I would have known about had I not read you (assuming I hadn’t one day read it from some other philosopher).