Odd but true.
Best friends don't always tell the truth.

The only thing for certain is that it appears that your best friends favorite food is steak or that your best friend has made the claim that his favorite food is steak and you believe him. (or her.)

How do you know that drinking a gallon of bleach will kill you?

You can claim to "know" it, and you may think you "know" it. And you may believe it very very strongly.

If you desire to truly 'know' it, then can we meet somewhere and I will watch you drink a gallon of bleach and if you die then I will agree that your belief is indeed true, and that the information about how a gallon of bleach can kill you is also true. I will write it down in my book of knowledge for future reference.

And then, as you take your dying breath, you can experience what 'knowing' is.

Only if a falsehood is called knowledge.



If the best friend's favorite food is not steak, then one does not have the knowledge that it is. Therefore your claim of having knowledge without knowing does not apply.

Because we know that drinking bleach kills animals, we also know that drinking antifreeze kills animals. We know this witout having to experience it.

Then how do you know you know? I mean, how do you know your knowledge/information is true?

You can believe it, but you can't know if your so-called(alleged) knowledge is true.

That was not my question.

How do you know that it will kill YOU?

p.s.

By "we" are you speaking about an agreement or a body of individuals who have determined and reached an agreement that drinking bleach kills animals?

What you are saying is that if knowledge is not true, then it is not knowledge. So how does one determine if that which is commonly called 'knowledge' is true?

How does one determine if second hand information which is commonly called "knowledge" is true?

If you cannot determine for certain that second information which is commonly called knowledge is true, then calling it 'knowledge' is pointless.

By knowing what constitutes knowledge.



Knowledge must be true.

I know that claims are true by looking to see if they match up to the way things are.



Why not?

I know that my cup is on the table. I know that I just got back from the store.

Logical inference from knowledge.

1. Bleach kills animals when they drink it.(a bit of knowledge)
2. creative is an animal.(an empirical fact)
C. Bleach would kill creative if he drank it.(a valid conclusion from 1,2)



We, as in we humans, know that bleach kills animals when they drink it.

What I am saying is that knowledge must be true. There is no such a thing as "knowledge which is not true."



Truth is not determined by people. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality.



That is another logical consequence stemming from a misunderstanding of truth.

I thought we had established that if it is personal truth, it is subjective and if scientific it is fact?

What else is there?



Knowledge follows these same rules by the way

Personal 'truth' amount to belief.

I came into the truth thread to reestablish that my truth is best and all knowing as you all should have understood the last time I posted in here.

My truth is the right truth no matter what those books and things tell you.

Creative

I realize you believe the above claim. You have repeated it over enough times.

But,that is an opinion not everyone shares.

What is fact/reality is actually determined (and decided) by people from their observation/perceptions. They also decide and agree on what is true.

That does not mean that they are always correct. People make mistakes, and facts are proven to be wrong. So you cannot say for certain if we (humans) know what is fact and what is reality in all cases. We think we know. We believe we know.

That is not to say that fact/reality does not exist separate from our perceptions of it. We have no way of knowing if it does or not because we (all humans) cannot remove ourselves from reality and then look back and observe it.

We think we know what is true. We think we know what is fact. We think it corresponds to reality. We believe it, we agree on it. Some people are certain of it.

Rubbish.



Incoherent. If the rubbish above were true, we could not make a mistake.

I suggest that you learn the differences between fact, opinion, reality, belief, knowledge, falsehood and truth. Until then, I've nothing further to say.

nope. you know that bleach and antifreeze KILLED animals. you don't know that bleach or antifreeze will kill the next animal to injest it. there was a time that men would attempt to fly and it resulted in great bodily harm or even death consistently. now we fly at near the speed of sound on a regular basis. we cannot know anything absolutely other than what we ourselves experience.

Calling something "rubbish" or "incoherent" does not an argument make.

So remove the two terms, the very last statement, and then focus upon the rest. That was the argument...

--



If this were true, then we could not make a mistake.

Bah.

Your claim would require my not knowing that my dog likes certain treats better than others.

Then I will reword the statement.

What we call "fact" and "reality" is determined and decided by people from their observations and perception.

We may not know actual fact. We only think and agree that we know.