If we know everything we experience, then all experience is knowledge. Knowledge cannot be false. Thus, because we do arrive at false beliefs stemming from direct experience, all experience cannot be knowledge. Experiencing X does not amount to knowing X.

Ah but so much so-called "knowledge" is false.

What name would you give to so-called "knowledge" if it is based on false information?

Just like fake diamonds. They look so real, they may even be flawless and weigh the same.... so what is the difference?

If "so called" knowledge is false, then it's falsity is why it is "so-called".

The point stands.

Knowledge must be true.

If someone makes the claim that they have "knowledge" and they are not aware that their "knowledge" is derived from faulty information, then they are delusional or grossly misinformed. (Mistaken.)

So how can anyone be sure their knowledge is true?

To know if knowledge is true or not you would have to have god-like powers and the ability to know all information about the so-called knowledge.

So how can you prove your statement above?

Knowledge is accrued. We need not be infallible in our thought/belief to hold that knowledge must be true. Look at the contrary. If knowledge can be false, then we could know things are not true...

"I know that the capital of the USA is Seattle Washington."

"I know that I am a lobster."

"I know that the earth is made out of red vinegar."

What else do you need for "proof"?

What if I told you I had knowledge of something that you did not believe?

What then would you say about 'knowledge?"

Who is claiming that we can know, or that we need to know, with absolute certainty, that our justified beliefs are true?

Omniscience is not necessary to hold that knowledge must be true.

Think of it this way...

If knowledge could be false, then we would never be wrong. We could not hold false beliefs. All belief would be true belief.

Sorry you lost me on that one.

I guess I don't know what you mean by knowledge.

If you told me that you had knowledge of something that I did not believe, then I would ask you to state your belief, and then justify it(reasonably explain how it is that you've come to hold it).

Okay, suppose I told you that a magician made an elephant disappear because I saw him do it. Suppose I then claimed to hold the knowledge that he had some kind of talent or magical power to make an elephant appear and disappear.

Suppose you tell me that it was just a trick, but you can't figure out how he did the trick.

Suppose the magician convinced me he did it with his mind or that he hypnotized me into seeing an elephant that was not really there and his explanation was more convincing than yours.

Ah...

Knowledge is justified true belief(with very, very few exceptions). We cannot be absolutely certain that that which we are calling knowledge is true, as history has shown us time and time again. However, it is the fact that what was once called knowledge has later been found to be false, that disqualifies it as knowledge. IOW, once it is found to be false, we no longer call it knowledge.

So then knowledge cannot really be known (determined) for certain?

If you make a claim to knowledge, you voluntarily take on the burden of proof. The onus is on you to explain how the elephant disappeared and re-appeared. If you cannot explain how, then how could you claim knowledge of his talent or ability?

We're cross-posting...

I would not go as far as to say that we cannot be certain. I am certain of what my name is and the name of the country where I live. I am certain that the lanai that I am sitting on is drab green.

Just because I don't know how to do what he did, does not mean I don't have knowledge of what he apparently did.

I once painted a portrait of my nephew while his parents watched. They asked me how I did that. I said "I don't really know."

But they still had knowledge that I could do it. I had knowledge that I could do it. I also had the knowledge to actually do it, but I could not explain how I did it.

Then you do not question reality as deeply as I do.

You seem to have contradicted your very own premises here.

You state as your premises:

1. we know everything we experience
2. all experience is knowledge
3. Knowledge cannot be false

I'm with you up to that point without a problem.

But then you say,...

4. Thus, because we do arrive at false beliefs stemming from direct experience, all experience cannot be knowledge.

How can you say that we arrive at false beliefs stemming from direct experience in light of your previous premises?

I would disagree. No one arrives at false beliefs stemming from direct experience. But rather how they end up with false beliefs is by jumping to conclusions that simply weren't warranted by their actual direct experience.

It's the jumping to unwarranted conclusions that causes false beliefs, not the direct experiences.

It's the false assumption that we tend to think that we can know more than we can actually know from our direct experience that gets us into trouble and causes use to have false beliefs.

~~~~

Since we're discussing this in the religion forums I think a religious example is appropriate:

Someone has an experience that, from there vantage point, appears to have been "miraculous". So they emotionally jump to the conclusion that "There must be a God", and then further jump to the totally erroneous conclusion that this means that the mainstream popular religion is probably true, so they run off supporting those religious beliefs based on their "experience" that they had judged to have been involved in a "miracle", when in fact, it might have been nothing more than pure coincidence. Or possibly even a misconception of the actual experience that they had.

For example, someone might be driving home. They just happen to run out of gas before they quite get to their driveway. Then to their utter shock and amazement their house explodes because of a gas leak.

They fall to their knees and thank "God" for having saved them from making it home in time to be blown to smithereens.

That's an experience. But are the conclusions they have drawn from that experience an actual result of the experience? Or are the conclusions that are drawn to obtain "beliefs" something totally different? Like mere speculation?

If I drove home and ran out of gas just before I got home and my house blew up I'd believe it was just pure coincidence. But not everyone would.

So two people having the exact same experience can come away from the experience with totally different beliefs based on the very same experience.

Experience is only knowledge.

In the case I presented, the only experience is that a car ran out of gas and a house blew up from a gas leak. That's the only "experience". To draw any further conclusions beyond about miracles or whatnot is pure unwarranted speculation and has nothing at all to do with the actual experience.

If you do not know exactly what he did, then how can you know what it was that he did rather than seemed to do?



I know the feeling. But you do know how to do it. You just do not know how to say how it is that you do it.



All knowledge boils down to 'know-how'. Whether that be knowing how to explain the know-how or not.

I was showing the error in another's premiss James.

What can we know from direct experience?