5:30 three theories of truth: correspondence, coherence, consensus. 06:25 correspondence. something is true when something you claim corresponds to the reality. e.g., well justified true belief is knowledge. 07:55 coherence. the reality is beyond our comprehension. the truth is about fitting our truth claims together in a coherent arrangement. e.g., two competing truths and you are more likely to choose the truth that fits into your current truth claims. 09:50 consensus. pragmatic view of truth (pragmatism). in the end what we decide is the truth is what works for the group. 12:05 We try to understand the world from three levels of analysis: empirical, analytical, and normative
Okay, what the heck? It's supposed to be the Correspondence Theory of Truth (inspired by Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century), Coherence Theory of Truth, which became wildly popular in the 20th century, especially with Quine, and Foundationalism, which has existed as early as Plato's writings, but was made very popular with Descartes' Meditations in First Philosophy. A fourth theory that almost never gets mentioned is Infinitism, but there are also many layers to add to some theories, such as pragmatism, anti-realism, deflationism, etc. This course is just getting so many things wrong. Whether a belief is "wacky" or not isn't how it's determined to be justified or true or not. And justified, true belief or the JTB model died when Edmund Gettier published his paper in 1963, "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" Philosophers generally agree that Gettier destroyed the JTB knowledge model. It's not that philosophers were arguing all the time and challenging the concept; before 1963, the JTB model was orthodoxy among epistemologists, and Gettier proved you could have a justified, true belief without it agreeing with what we think is "knowledge." If you want to read up on it, just look up a free PDF of "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" I get that this professor isn't a philosopher, but it's worth telling the people in the comments that if they really want an accurate depiction of what epistemology really is, this isn't the place for it.
Sure, Gettier undermined JTB and left us scrambling for a 4th piece that could give us a complete account of knowledge. But still, in most cases where there's a practical issue, JTB is more than enough, especially for a non-philosopher. @@jackalmighty3840
Great intro to epistemology, and what an effective heuristic using the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why journalists don’t confront politicians and powerful elites more regularly with such fundamental facts and demand straight answers, not digressions or evasions, is truly frustrating.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 I dont understand your comment, and it appears you didn't understand mine. Physics is substrate independent. It works the same whether the substrate is mind or matter
Thanks a lot for sharing it with us. I just fully recognized how examples could be extremely a powerful teaching tool. It's like don't tell me, show me.
What constitutes as "self-defense" is more or less up to interpretation, which is one reason why lawyers exist. So if the U.S.A had to stand up in front of the U.N and defends its case the representing lawyer ( a good one ) would just have to persuade the jury.
The truth will set/make you free thus enlighten your belief system, to come to the proof that which you see come out of what is unseen.... believing system is a love partner of spiritualism also a cheating partners of reality and TRUTH.
Way to use an objective discussion of the theory of knowledge to make your subjective political view appear to be justified. These are the questions you should ask, professor, if you want to get at the truth: has he used a gun to commit violence in the past ? Is he likely to do it again, unless restrained by force ? Should we wait until he decides to shoot someone else ? Are your laws against war keeping him from invading his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait), or, are they NOT working ? Pragmaticism 101 !
Can someone help me understand how the 'coherent truth' comes into play during 'The invasion on iraq was illegal' debate. Surely you work out that the the corresponding truth would show that by fact it was illegal and after thats been established why would the coherent truth come into play when we already know that its a fact that it was illegal? Just having some trouble getting my head around it, hope someone can help me out!
Knowledge literally cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the proposition is what knowledge attempts to justify. Knowledge is of the value of evidence for a proposition, not the truth of it. If the evidence is sufficient, that's knowledge. If it replicates, that's truth. If we agree, that's reality.
Something can be justified and also true but with the wrong premises. - E.g. if you see your friends car outside of the office and you believe he is there, and he is - but actually that was your boss' new car and your friend walked to work that day.
I'm never going to forget this now. Love the Three Cs and the example of the US invasion of Iraq, really illustrated and reinforced the points. Brilliant lecture. Brilliant teacher. Thank you for sharing!
He based the war on a claim weather the U.S should go to war if it was lawful or not using the UN charter. There's politics involved when a country goes to war with another country hopefully with good intentions
Charles Martel unless there is a god that is not his, and that god only accepts true believers in order to be accepted into whatever version of heaven they believe in. therefore pascals wager is refuted
If the intention is to find Objective Truth- coherence with subjective Truths such as how the US as a society views itself, is irrelevant. Objective truth informs subjective truth not the other way around.
I have always considered that there are only two problems in philosophy; the big one, episte, and ethics. I have never had a clue what metaphysics was. Now I know. There is no such thing. Remnants of Plato's theory of forms (an ancient view of the world), the mind/body problem (might have been a problem with Hobbs and Descartes but it is the discipline of neorologists today rather than a philosophical problem) and causality (already solved by Hume). As you point out it is just the book that follows Aristotle's book on physics but has no new material problems. Kant also considered that there were only two problems; episte and ethics. What he termed pure and practical reason and he made a massive contribution to solving both. Both problems have now been solved. Popper has solved the episte problem and law making is not done by reference to Bentham or Kant but by parliament (with debate and scrutiny, consultation with stakeholders, first and second readings, ammendments and second chamber review). I am a big champion of discipline (every other enquiry is a discipline) as in going forward and standing on the shoulders of giants and seeing further. When someone mentions empiricism, rationalism, analytical, continental, ontology, existentialism, phenominology, posivitism and any number or other evolutionary dead-ends I want to scream. Its a discipline stupid. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further. If others think it is OK to mention seventeenth century empiricism then should we also include animism as a valid here and now talking point. No we should not. We go forward.
The epistemology of the Iraq war is fascinating….in group think, it was the worst mistake in modern history….yet we had the green revolution in 2011, no large scale terrosist attacks, and general pease in the Middle East since then…and the Arab world seems to be doing ok…since when was war ever legal?
The law we live by cannot be qualified as true knowledge. It is a concept which helps people to live peacefully, like a theory. In this case, this theory was proven wrong. The discussion if the invasion of Irak was lawful or not is irrelevant. True law yields the principles only if a legislator can defend or implement it. My conclusion is as fallow the UN council resolution cannot set norms for political or moral judgements as it is an imaginary concept and is not real. The invasion of Irak was true and nobody can deny it.
@@wendypavon5393truth becomes meaningless. Either it is a description of reality, or it ain’t. Someone’s misunderstanding something doesn’t make it true. That’s contradictory to the entire process of epistemology.
Hey guys, I believe that his purpose is to enlighten you to understand people's way of thinking hence being able to live more peacefully with the world. The same way I understand your arguments here. Let's be kind to the professor 😊😊
Why is it so hard, to simply distinguish between a fact or reality and this bizarre notion that because people believe it, it is true? As an agent moving through the world, I wanna know if something is not true, but people think it is. So why ever bother calling it true? Just say, X people think it is true. Calling it true because it ain’t popular seems…. Dumb. At the beginning, he said we want to know reality. The reality is, it’s not true, although many believe it to be. Saying it IS true is false.
He covered that in earlier lectures ^^ "noone is neutral" He realizes is but for the sake of his lecture and the goal (journalism, rather than philosophy) he forgets it. He also explicitly says he performed an argument near the end.
That seems a little short sighted, but I like the idea that no "things" exist without your perception of "things" as things are arbitrary boundaries. For example, you cannot walk without a floor, so hence the floor is walking just as much as you are. You're not really walking, the phenomenon of walking occurs and is dependent upon the phenomenon of legs and floor. Do you roughly get my point? (you should listen to some UA-cam videos of Alan Watts)
I'm not impressed with this class either when it comes to epistemology... I agree with his opinion on foreign affairs by the way.. but when it comes to epistimolgy it was very loosely correlated in the class.. This would be a good "ah ha" moment for a foreign affairs class.. How de we know the UN or the constitution should be our presuposition to justifying war.. who cares.. let's examine the processes we use in our mind to examine these things.. Still this is a tough class to teach and i'm not saying I could do it better, but i believe I could, at least according to my standard.. this is a fact, if the standard is set up to be solely conditional to the scope of my standard.. The class started out great though.. thanks for sharing Elina is not a moron in my opinion.. that is a fact/truth if the presuposition is based on my opinion..
Elena Ellena I'm in complete agreement with you. Along with learning about epistemology the class received an indoctrination on his view of the invasion of Iraq. Granted I was against the invasion myself however if he wasn't attempting to indoctrinate he would have presented multiple viewpoints and not his only.
Actually, his tone and the spirit of enquiry is exactly what he is supposed to be doing. People do get upset when intelligent people speak in academic environment about politics especially when the speaker is correct.
1stly this isn't about Epistemology, it's a journalism course that touches on epitemology but spent a tremendous mount of time on law. When you offered up truth as correspondence, correlation, and consensus it all required knowledge and belief, absolute truth need neither belief or knowledge much less correspondence, correlation, or consensus. Please note, in relation to the consensus regarding subject war, you only factored in one side of the war, resulting in an incomplete data pool
However I realize that no one can be argued into believing! But like I said if you're truly seeking truth and not some man-made religion or some goofy , dead philosophy, you'll find it! I studied philosophy, and lived many years in unbelief, but I came to a point in which I realized that I couldn't save myself and needed a savior! If you " call " on Christ, he will save you. Romans 10:13☺️
Facts. Yes. Jesus Christ is God and God is Love as stated in John 4:8. After all, we can survive on Love alone - if humans weren't so greedy (Eve eating the forbidden fruit) etc. GB
How can you call it living if you don't know what happens when you die? So how do you know it's not subconscious death to be ignorant of the inevitable? If you shut your eyes and then you open them, mortality is still a fact for us humans. If you wanna go as far as making fun of us who have something you don't, a belief in God, as to call it "pretend", then sure - I'd rather choose the rational over the ignorant path. Similarly to my story, I found Jesus when I did research on daesh and some deeper research on Islam about three years ago. It was not easy and I had to do alot of praying from time to time. Basically I came to the conclusion that the most "authentic" divine scriptures were in the Bible, not the Quran and not the Talmud or other mythological books of Asia. It was only one God who actually died for the sins of His creation - not allah akber or buddha krishna nor dalai lama - Jesus Christ was sent for US in the Purest form of flesh and blood. But you wanna neglect that fact because it is not "in" to believe in God - considering we all have a free will to choose our afterlife I can only say: to each his own. God Bless you and may you find the light in the dark world that which - is the Mighty name of Jesus Christ.
He speaks of the U.N. charter being law, and as a treaty is affirmed by the U.S. Constitution. It's a poor example in reality. In the event that a NATO member was invaded by Russia, you would then have conflicting obligations. As a NATO member the treaty obliges the defence of the invaded nation, but Russia would block any motion by the U.N. security council. In like manner, treaties are signed between the U.S. and a multitude of other nations assuring their defence. If China were to invade Japanese territory would it then become illegal for the U.S. To come to Japan's defence, despite her obligation to do so under standing treaty to do so? China would assuredly block any motion in the U.N. I was never in favour of the invasion of Iraq, finding a far greater threat from Iran at the time. However, that's not the issue here, the issue is the example given is more agenda driven, and demonstrates clear political bias on the lecturer's part.
This is incorrect. Epistemology is not limited to a search for a theory of knowledge. We already know that knowledge is an energy, not a theory. D minus. This is an example of sophism.
@christopherhamilton3621 sophistry is a mimicry of wisdom. Wisdom is hidden knowledge. It's obscured by energetic effect. It is metaphysical substance. Your etymology needs work.
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
5:30 three theories of truth: correspondence, coherence, consensus.
06:25 correspondence. something is true when something you claim corresponds to the reality. e.g., well justified true belief is knowledge.
07:55 coherence. the reality is beyond our comprehension. the truth is about fitting our truth claims together in a coherent arrangement. e.g., two competing truths and you are more likely to choose the truth that fits into your current truth claims.
09:50 consensus. pragmatic view of truth (pragmatism). in the end what we decide is the truth is what works for the group.
12:05 We try to understand the world from three levels of analysis:
empirical, analytical, and normative
you make it easier for me
thank you, dear
great summary，thank you.
Okay, what the heck? It's supposed to be the Correspondence Theory of Truth (inspired by Charles Sanders Peirce in the 19th century), Coherence Theory of Truth, which became wildly popular in the 20th century, especially with Quine, and Foundationalism, which has existed as early as Plato's writings, but was made very popular with Descartes' Meditations in First Philosophy. A fourth theory that almost never gets mentioned is Infinitism, but there are also many layers to add to some theories, such as pragmatism, anti-realism, deflationism, etc.
This course is just getting so many things wrong. Whether a belief is "wacky" or not isn't how it's determined to be justified or true or not. And justified, true belief or the JTB model died when Edmund Gettier published his paper in 1963, "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" Philosophers generally agree that Gettier destroyed the JTB knowledge model. It's not that philosophers were arguing all the time and challenging the concept; before 1963, the JTB model was orthodoxy among epistemologists, and Gettier proved you could have a justified, true belief without it agreeing with what we think is "knowledge." If you want to read up on it, just look up a free PDF of "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?"
I get that this professor isn't a philosopher, but it's worth telling the people in the comments that if they really want an accurate depiction of what epistemology really is, this isn't the place for it.
smashoid.com/epistemology-and-the-boundaries-of-human-comprehension-27009
Sure, Gettier undermined JTB and left us scrambling for a 4th piece that could give us a complete account of knowledge. But still, in most cases where there's a practical issue, JTB is more than enough, especially for a non-philosopher. @@jackalmighty3840
Great intro to epistemology, and what an effective heuristic using the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Why journalists don’t confront politicians and powerful elites more regularly with such fundamental facts and demand straight answers, not digressions or evasions, is truly frustrating.
Outstanding. Thank you for posting.
Fantastic lecture! Thank you...
Please add more for humanity!
The best lecture on "Epistemology". It can't be explained in much simpler words than this.
Such a brilliant lecture on the topic. Some of the most difficult ideas explained so well with beautifully comprehensive examples. Thanks a tonne!
Kshitij Dhyani i know lecture is great.i like metaphysics,epistemology and ontology
which difficult ideas? the us invasion of Iraq?
Brilliant as long as you arre not interested in the truth or wisdom!
outstanding thank you for posting
Good lecture.. thanks professor 🛑
Wish it hadn't cut off at the end...it's a fascinating lecture.
You're awesome! Please keep it up.
Overtime, pragmatism has begun to make the most sense to me. If it works, then it's true enough.
😂 Haha
How did you decide that it was true that it works ?
Thats what physics is.. it works, so it's good enough
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Beliefs and theories aren't true because they work, rather they work because they are true.
@@alwaysgreatusa223
I dont understand your comment, and it appears you didn't understand mine.
Physics is substrate independent. It works the same whether the substrate is mind or matter
Mr. Jensen - Thank you, for well defining a difficult word "Epistemology" in your enjoyable/informative lecture.
Great lecture! Would have enjoyed hearing the final conclusion though.
Justification is a rabbit hole that leads to the wonderland known as epistemology.
"knowledge justify true belief"
Keep up the good work sir
To me this iecture ,his critical exploration ,investigation, arguements with reason on epistemology I.e belief vs knowledge is inspired .
Wonderful presentation and quite easy to follow. Only for the cutting!
Very good talk.
amazing lecture
Excelente, invite a escribir a sus alumnos sus propias aplicaciones en la vida diaria y laboral
Thank you professor
Thanks a lot for sharing it with us. I just fully recognized how examples could be extremely a powerful teaching tool. It's like don't tell me, show me.
Thank u Teacher❤️❤️❤️
Good attempt.
Thank you ❤️
what book did you use for this lecture, btw this was amazing
Thank you. It's a good lecture.
best lecture
Thank you sir
Excellent do you have any refereneces for this?
Subscribed!
Does anyone know where to locate the rest of the lecture? The part that goes into the journalism part of the lecture? Thank you!
www.youtube.com/@robertwilliamjensen
Belief is the black hole of epistemology.
Well! you learn something every day. I thought Epistemology was the study of the effect of alcohol on male undergraduate students.
THE BELIEF THAT IT IS ALL COMPLICATED IS JUST ANOTHER BELIEF.
What constitutes as "self-defense" is more or less up to interpretation, which is one reason why lawyers exist. So if the U.S.A had to stand up in front of the U.N and defends its case the representing lawyer ( a good one ) would just have to persuade the jury.
That bulge analogy caught me off guard 😂
Every theory of truth begs the question.
Sir please send me the complete details of epistemology.
Good show. Where is this being taught at?
U. Texas, Austin
Great lecture
*Sniff*
"mKayy"
The truth will set/make you free thus enlighten your belief system, to come to the proof that which you see come out of what is unseen.... believing system is a love partner of spiritualism also a cheating partners of reality and TRUTH.
no, it's not complicated ;)
good lecture on epistemology
Way to use an objective discussion of the theory of knowledge to make your subjective political view appear to be justified. These are the questions you should ask, professor, if you want to get at the truth: has he used a gun to commit violence in the past ? Is he likely to do it again, unless restrained by force ? Should we wait until he decides to shoot someone else ? Are your laws against war keeping him from invading his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait), or, are they NOT working ? Pragmaticism 101 !
Can someone help me understand how the 'coherent truth' comes into play during 'The invasion on iraq was illegal' debate. Surely you work out that the the corresponding truth would show that by fact it was illegal and after thats been established why would the coherent truth come into play when we already know that its a fact that it was illegal? Just having some trouble getting my head around it, hope someone can help me out!
it's a terrible example
WQ[complex] excellstheory/statementY:input arbit //nd.D
Knowledge literally cannot be justified true belief because the truth of the proposition is what knowledge attempts to justify. Knowledge is of the value of evidence for a proposition, not the truth of it. If the evidence is sufficient, that's knowledge. If it replicates, that's truth. If we agree, that's reality.
Something can be justified and also true but with the wrong premises. - E.g. if you see your friends car outside of the office and you believe he is there, and he is - but actually that was your boss' new car and your friend walked to work that day.
Ok
Appears that truth corresponds with power. Who's right? The one with the *might?*
Fantastic talk; highly impressed
I'm never going to forget this now. Love the Three Cs and the example of the US invasion of Iraq, really illustrated and reinforced the points. Brilliant lecture. Brilliant teacher. Thank you for sharing!
Brilliant as long as you arre not interested in the truth or wisdom!
WQ[complex] excellstheory/statementY:input arbit voiddnet//nd.D
He based the war on a claim weather the U.S should go to war if it was lawful or not using the UN charter. There's politics involved when a country goes to war with another country hopefully with good intentions
WQ[complex] excellstheory/statementY:input arbit voiddnet:research:net//nd.D
mi maestro de social sciences me envio esto lo cual verdaderamente no me dice nada sobre epistemolohy
What is with this crowd? I would be jumping about going omg LAW OOMG I KNOW I KNOW! Nice Lect.
Lol. That's funny. True though. If a believer is wrong , he absolutely has nothing to lose!
Charles Martel unless there is a god that is not his, and that god only accepts true believers in order to be accepted into whatever version of heaven they believe in. therefore pascals wager is refuted
Gunsong1
Lol. Remember God with a small "g" is Satan! (2 Corinthians 4:4)😩
***** oh right my bad i meant to say i do not belive in the deity the christians call goat :) the god dellusion chapter 2 XD
Gunsong1
Unbelief is the only unforgivable sin😔
Charles Martel and what is sin?
2024
WQ[complex] theory //nd.D
If the intention is to find Objective Truth- coherence with subjective Truths such as how the US as a society views itself, is irrelevant.
Objective truth informs subjective truth not the other way around.
Germs named Kevin
premisset korrosponderer med data og resultatet
Excellent speech.
Mathematician Morris Kline said; "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence."
But what is mathematics, except the logic of numerical expression ?
In love and in politics, truth is agreement...
I have always considered that there are only two problems in
philosophy; the big one, episte, and ethics. I have never had a clue
what metaphysics was. Now I know. There is no such thing. Remnants of
Plato's theory of forms (an ancient view of the world), the mind/body
problem (might have been a problem with Hobbs and Descartes but it is
the discipline of neorologists today rather than a philosophical
problem) and causality (already solved by Hume). As you point out it
is just the book that follows Aristotle's book on physics but has no
new material problems.
Kant also considered that there were only two problems; episte and
ethics. What he termed pure and practical reason and he made a massive
contribution to solving both.
Both problems have now been solved. Popper has solved the episte
problem and law making is not done by reference to Bentham or Kant but
by parliament (with debate and scrutiny, consultation with
stakeholders, first and second readings, ammendments and second
chamber review).
I am a big champion of discipline (every other enquiry is a
discipline) as in going forward and standing on the shoulders of
giants and seeing further. When someone mentions empiricism,
rationalism, analytical, continental, ontology, existentialism,
phenominology, posivitism and any number or other evolutionary
dead-ends I want to scream. Its a discipline stupid. We stand on the
shoulders of giants and see further. If others think it is OK to
mention seventeenth century empiricism then should we also include
animism as a valid here and now talking point. No we should not. We go
forward.
Uhhh this is about journalism ….?
example to explain three different concept is very good.
The epistemology of the Iraq war is fascinating….in group think, it was the worst mistake in modern history….yet we had the green revolution in 2011, no large scale terrosist attacks, and general pease in the Middle East since then…and the Arab world seems to be doing ok…since when was war ever legal?
Fascinating but I yawn srry
The law we live by cannot be qualified as true knowledge. It is a concept which helps people to live peacefully, like a theory. In this case, this theory was proven wrong. The discussion if the invasion of Irak was lawful or not is irrelevant. True law yields the principles only if a legislator can defend or implement it. My conclusion is as fallow the UN council resolution cannot set norms for political or moral judgements as it is an imaginary concept and is not real. The invasion of Irak was true and nobody can deny it.
Did the U.N. legalize war ?
1:44
Too right. “Truth” is driving me crazy.
Lost me in the devil wears prada .
Basicaly, epistemology according to this dude is the result of manipulating public opinion to confirm whatever you want to be the truth.
Winnow H. That’s what I understood as well
So basically nothing matters as long people agree
@@wendypavon5393truth becomes meaningless. Either it is a description of reality, or it ain’t. Someone’s misunderstanding something doesn’t make it true. That’s contradictory to the entire process of epistemology.
Hey guys, I believe that his purpose is to enlighten you to understand people's way of thinking hence being able to live more peacefully with the world. The same way I understand your arguments here. Let's be kind to the professor 😊😊
i think that the truth is a part the definition of the study of epistemology but not the entire picture
Oh balls! That’s what you got out of this? 😂😂😂
When my head is buzzed I rub it too!... wait.. what were we talking about?
Super lecture on epitomilogy. But later deviated into politics i felt
Why is it so hard, to simply distinguish between a fact or reality and this bizarre notion that because people believe it, it is true?
As an agent moving through the world, I wanna know if something is not true, but people think it is. So why ever bother calling it true?
Just say, X people think it is true. Calling it true because it ain’t popular seems…. Dumb.
At the beginning, he said we want to know reality. The reality is, it’s not true, although many believe it to be. Saying it IS true is false.
argumentum ad populum
😂😂😂😂
time 7:12 - there is no reality that is independent of your perceptions (at least not to you)
are you talking about solipsism?
He covered that in earlier lectures ^^
"noone is neutral"
He realizes is but for the sake of his lecture and the goal (journalism, rather than philosophy) he forgets it. He also explicitly says he performed an argument near the end.
That seems a little short sighted, but I like the idea that no "things" exist without your perception of "things" as things are arbitrary boundaries. For example, you cannot walk without a floor, so hence the floor is walking just as much as you are. You're not really walking, the phenomenon of walking occurs and is dependent upon the phenomenon of legs and floor. Do you roughly get my point? (you should listen to some UA-cam videos of Alan Watts)
Actually, reality exists totally independent of your perceptions. It’s matter over mind.
@@Ottomastiff empiricism, phenomenological epistemology, subjectivism all agree
Next time when y name a video eepistemology do speak about epistemology not usa foreign affairs
Elena Ellena you are clearly a moron, and THAT is a statement of justifiable truth.
I'm not impressed with this class either when it comes to epistemology...
I agree with his opinion on foreign affairs by the way.. but when it comes to epistimolgy it was very loosely correlated in the class..
This would be a good "ah ha" moment for a foreign affairs class..
How de we know the UN or the constitution should be our presuposition to justifying war.. who cares.. let's examine the processes we use in our mind to examine these things..
Still this is a tough class to teach and i'm not saying I could do it better, but i believe I could, at least according to my standard.. this is a fact, if the standard is set up to be solely conditional to the scope of my standard..
The class started out great though.. thanks for sharing
Elina is not a moron in my opinion.. that is a fact/truth if the presuposition is based on my opinion..
Elena Ellena I'm in complete agreement with you. Along with learning about epistemology the class received an indoctrination on his view of the invasion of Iraq. Granted I was against the invasion myself however if he wasn't attempting to indoctrinate he would have presented multiple viewpoints and not his only.
Actually, his tone and the spirit of enquiry is exactly what he is supposed to be doing. People do get upset when intelligent people speak in academic environment about politics especially when the speaker is correct.
1stly this isn't about Epistemology, it's a journalism course that touches on epitemology but spent a tremendous mount of time on law.
When you offered up truth as correspondence, correlation, and consensus it all required knowledge and belief, absolute truth need neither belief or knowledge much less correspondence, correlation, or consensus.
Please note, in relation to the consensus regarding subject war, you only factored in one side of the war, resulting in an incomplete data pool
Barely touched on epistemology. Almost entirely and unnecessarily political.
the example is laughably bad
I don't think you understand what actual truth is. It can't be debated.
You still have to investigate if something IS true…😢
This was ridiculously bad
However I realize that no one can be argued into believing! But like I said if you're truly seeking truth and not some man-made religion or some goofy , dead philosophy, you'll find it!
I studied philosophy, and lived many years in unbelief, but I came to a point in which I realized that I couldn't save myself and needed a savior! If you " call " on Christ, he will save you.
Romans 10:13☺️
Facts. Yes.
Jesus Christ is God and God is Love as stated in John 4:8.
After all, we can survive on Love alone - if humans weren't so greedy (Eve eating the forbidden fruit) etc.
GB
How can you call it living if you don't know what happens when you die?
So how do you know it's not subconscious death to be ignorant of the inevitable?
If you shut your eyes and then you open them, mortality is still a fact for us humans.
If you wanna go as far as making fun of us who have something you don't, a belief in God, as to call it "pretend", then sure - I'd rather choose the rational over the ignorant path.
Similarly to my story, I found Jesus when I did research on daesh and some deeper research on Islam about three years ago.
It was not easy and I had to do alot of praying from time to time.
Basically I came to the conclusion that the most "authentic" divine scriptures were in the Bible, not the Quran and not the Talmud or other mythological books of Asia.
It was only one God who actually died for the sins of His creation - not allah akber or buddha krishna nor dalai lama - Jesus Christ was sent for US in the Purest form of flesh and blood.
But you wanna neglect that fact because it is not "in" to believe in God - considering we all have a free will to choose our afterlife I can only say:
to each his own.
God Bless you and may you find the light in the dark world that which - is the Mighty name of Jesus Christ.
The Truth I am agree with you
Way too much time wasted on stuff that has nothing ro do with teaching epistemology. Teacher wants to deal with his grudge about the Iraq war. 🤬
It’s a good example, you don’t have to agree (as he said) or get all offended about it. It’s a lesson for journalism after all. Jeez!
He speaks of the U.N. charter being law, and as a treaty is affirmed by the U.S. Constitution. It's a poor example in reality. In the event that a NATO member was invaded by Russia, you would then have conflicting obligations. As a NATO member the treaty obliges the defence of the invaded nation, but Russia would block any motion by the U.N. security council. In like manner, treaties are signed between the U.S. and a multitude of other nations assuring their defence. If China were to invade Japanese territory would it then become illegal for the U.S. To come to Japan's defence, despite her obligation to do so under standing treaty to do so? China would assuredly block any motion in the U.N.
I was never in favour of the invasion of Iraq, finding a far greater threat from Iran at the time. However, that's not the issue here, the issue is the example given is more agenda driven, and demonstrates clear political bias on the lecturer's part.
Started out very informative on the subject matter. Unfortunately by the 15 minute mark moved into a more politically motivated opinion piece.
This is incorrect. Epistemology is not limited to a search for a theory of knowledge. We already know that knowledge is an energy, not a theory. D minus.
This is an example of sophism.
Oh balls! Knowledge is an energy? 😂😂😂 you’re the one engaging in sophistry…😢
@christopherhamilton3621 sophistry is a mimicry of wisdom. Wisdom is hidden knowledge. It's obscured by energetic effect. It is metaphysical substance. Your etymology needs work.
WQ[complex] theory/statementY:input //nd.D