You look at a clock
It's broken
But you don't know it's broken
It says two o’clock
It is two o’clock
Do you know the time?
you don't know but you correctly believe
>>1029571
Does this debunk the JTB or even the No False Lemmas + JTB definition of knowledge?
>>1029568
Yes, you do.
Your grandma goes to the hospital.
You receive a text send by another guy to a wrong number (yours) saying "grandma is in the hospital".
Do you know that your grandma is in the hospital?
Yes. You do.
>>1029584
No, you rightly believe that your grandma is in the hospital, but you don't know she is.
If you got that text from a stranger, then texted your Dad to confirm it but your dad doesn't know yet, he would disprove that.
A strangers text isn't fact.
>>1029584
A text from a stranger wouldn't have a name, you would just say "Oh, wrong number"
>>1029590
>>1029592
Dudes, forget about irrelevant accessory stuff like that.
>but if you ask your friend which time is it and it happens to be a watchmaker and he says to you this clock is broken then...
That is you right now.
You know that your grandma is in the hospital because:
>is in the hospital
>you know it
It's that simple.
>>1029584
You don't have knowledge if, sufficient investigation would lead sooner or later to the ideal final opinion (Learning the clock is broken)
>>1029580
With no false lemmas, you need to logically justifiy that inference from sensory data does not count as a justified belief unless he consciously or unconsciously considers the possibilities of deception and self-deception
You look at a clock
It isn't broken
You know it isn't broken
It says two o’clock
You spend microseconds to understand this
Not it isn't perfectly two o’clock
Do you know the time?
>>1029568
Thank you for reminding me of why I dislike so much of Philosophy
>>1029568
You would be correct but you don't have knowledge.
>>1029610
It's the same opinion: It's two o'clock.
He didn't asked if you know if the clock is broken, he asked if you know that it's two o'clock.
>>1029609
But you don't know your Grandma is in hospital, you believe it but it's not justified, so when you go to the hospital only then do you know beacuse your unjustified belief is confirmed, If no one knew about your Grandma but her and a career then no one could text, if you asked someone "Who texted me?" and no one says they did, you would realize you never had knowledge until you met your grandmother, so you don;t have knowledge.
>>1029621
You have a justified belief, and you KNOW it works, so you do have knowledge just by knowing it works, you may also have to have knowledge that the clock is accurately set, if you have all this knowledge you do know the time, but if you don't know all of these accuracy conditions, you don't really have knowledge of the time until it gets externally get confirmed by others.
>>1029628
But what if you just see a clock, then you check if you should believe, and see it's broken, then you would stop trusting it like you did without further investigation.
>>1029629
Yes, you do.
You have a knowledge: grandma is in the hospital. It could be true or false. Since she is in the hospital your knowledge is true.
>>1029626
Why?
>>1029642
But you believe it, just belief isn't knowledge.
JTB and similar variants need more than that, you need to be justified or have a reliable source, and a stranger isn't s a reliable justification.
>>1029584
Add onto this that you know the doctor (whose number you don't know) will text you so you're expecting a text from a stranger.
>>1029642
I'm holding up one or two fingers. Say a number, one or two. If you say correct, is it right to say that you know how many fingers I'm holding up?
>>1029650
How did the Doctor get your number?
Why did the family member text you?
Why are you expecting a number stranger?
If you expect it's from a stranger, then it would be the same as getting it from family and changing the Gettier case.
>>1029638
Yes you wold, and then (drumroll) you would be wronger for mistrusting the broken clock, because:
-before mistrusting the clock: it's two o'clock and you think it's two o'clock
-after mistrusting the clock: it's two o'clock, but you think you don't know which time is it
You are righter about which time is it in the former one.
>>1029653
You have a true belief about a random number, but no justification.
Yes because I already knew it was two O'clock, Therefore I know what the time is when asked. That grammar is aids.
>>1029649
If you are right it is knowledge.
>>1029657
No, just because you're right doesn't mean you know
You get better knowledge from learning the clock does or doesn't work, at least then it confirms if you have the time or not.
>>1029663
Being right doesn't just mean knowledge.
If I say a load of possible truths, and believe all of them, and one is right, I don't have knowledge (Think of the Epicurean Hypothesis)
>>1029653
No, I wouldn't know how many fingers you have while responding, even if you have as many as I say.
I have no info that gives me no knowledge, so I can have no knowledge.
But in the clock example I do have info, which gives me knowledge. That makes this two examples to be examples of different things.
>>1029672
But they're both lucky guesses, so you can't have knowledge of either, just because you're right doesn't mean you know
>>1029664
But we are not talking about knowledge about the clock, but about if it's two o'clock.
You would get better knowledge about the clock, and less about if it's two o'clock or not.
>>1029677
The clock one is not a guess. When you look at the broken clock you are not guessing more about which time is it more that when you look at a working clock.
>>1029682
But you don't know it's two o'clock, you think it is, and you're right but you don't know you're right.
If the clock worked and you checked it, you would have better knowledge but if it didn't work and you check you would have more knowledge than if you didn't check, not checking gives no knowledge, checking gives you knowledge that your clock is broken.
>>1029692
But it could have been an hour out, and you would get no knowledge, you were guessing that the clock would give the correct time when it wasn't so if you didn't you wouldn't have the right time
>>1029692
You have knowledge of the time only if, you know the clock works and is set to the right time.
If it's not, then you investigate those factors and you don't know the time.
Without investigation you don't have knowledge, virtue epistemology would say, to know the time is a skill so you need to check your knowledge, reading the clock without checking gives no knowledge.
>>1029693
The fact that you don't know if you are right doesn't make you to be less right. And by the way you don't know if you are right in a bigger amount with a broken clock than with a working one, because you have the same doubt about them both.
But the question is not if you know if the clock works, but if you know if it's two o'clock.
>>1029719
But to know it's two o' clock, you need to know if the clock works.
Being right does not mean knowledge.
>>1029719
Having doubts about both strengthens your belief in the working clock and takes out things that aren't knowledge for the broken clock,
>>1029698
But the question is not "if a broken clock marks two o'clock but it's three o clock because it's an hour out, would you know it's two o'clock?"
You wouldn't, but that's another question different for the one we are talking about.
>>1029735
If you're cat said it was two o'clock when it was, would you know?
If a random proposition machine said it was two o'clock when it was, would you know?
If you asked a stranger for the time and they didn't know so they guessed the time (based on no outside information, purely a guess) and they were right, would you know the time?
>>1029568
why don't you just check time on your cell phone?
>>1029748
Well for purposes of this thought experiment, you can only get the time from this clock, maybe your cell phone is dead.
>>1029626
This, thinking hurts.
>>1029644
Arguing about the finer points of these concepts is a cute distraction at best and at worst a pedantic and grating illustration of the obvious limits of philosophy
>>1029746
If a fountainhead of info throws some info, and that info gives you a knowledge, and that knowledge is the truth, then you have a knowledge of the truth because that info of that fountainhead, independently of the nature of the fountainhead, which is a different subject than the one about which you have been given knowledge through that info.
>>1029729
But you are not comparing between two clocks. You are in front of a clock which works or doesn't, and since you don't know if does, in both cases you have the same amount of doubt about it.
>>1029848
But thats only if you trust the fountainhead, because of investigation, you need to see if there's good justification for it.
>>1029726
No, what you need to know it's if it's two o'clock. And you do, and it is.
>>1029857
In the question of this thread you trust it, without investigation, because in it you see that marks two o'clock and the effect on you is that you assume it's two o'clock.
>>1029845
>cute distraction
Doing philosophy can improve critical thinking, argument making, forming solid logic, considering others point of views and understanding theories better, like ethics and metaphysics and when do we have knowledge, what does that mean?
>limits of philosophy
As humans we will always be limited, but that doesn't mean we have the most understanding, we need to do philosophy to gain more and better understanding, and we need to be pedantic to get past the specifics of what we believe in philosophy.
Also, you need good philosophers to create new theories.
>>1029867
Yeah, and because there was no investigation, there is no knowledge, just a true belief that happens to be right.
>>1029881
Knowledge comes from info, and you do have info.
The only reason investigation gives you knowledge it's because it gives you info, but it's the info that the investigation gives the producer of your knowledge, not the investigation.
So, since you have info, from an investigation (of what hour the clock marks) you have the knowledge that comes from that info, which is: it's two o'clock.
>>1029568
You never "know" anything
>>1029902
You look at the clock, but I don't think you have the knowledge of time without having a good reason to trust the clock, so investigating the time of a broken clock doesn't give you the time because if you did investigate further you would learn you didn't have grounds to gain that info.
But when a clock is right you could investigate the clock to get grounds to trust it, but you don't necessarily need to investigate in that case because you could investigate to be proven correct.
Now some might say "you could have the investigatory power to check the broken clock but you don't" First, it's the brokenness of the clock that removes knowledge because possible investigation would remove knowledge.
>>1029924
To put it simply, a clock that works can be confirmed to get the ideal final opinion, but you can't do that with a broken clock.
>>1029924
>You look at the clock, but I don't think you have the knowledge of time without having a good reason to trust the clock
Why?
>so investigating the time of a broken clock doesn't give you the time because if you did investigate further you would learn you didn't have grounds to gain that info.
Ironically, if you investigated the clock and discovered that it's broken, you would be wronger about which time it is. >>1029657
>>1029933
>wronger about which time it is
This isn't about being right about the time, it's about your knowledge of the time, you don't know the time but you are right.
>You look at the clock, but I don't think you have the knowledge of time without having a good reason to trust the clock - But why?
The reason I say "Knowledge isn't just what's right" is because you need to have a good reason. A computer that creates propositions, that could be either true or false, can make truths, but that doesn't mean reading it's propositions gives you any knowledge of the true ones, you need further justification like you can get with further investigation.
The question is why does this question matter in any way
>>1029947
To see what knowledge is so you can understand what epistemology talks about.
Also delving into philosophy in interesting and can help you see how you think and how others think, this helps get better reasoning in other areas.
>>1029951
But the clock doesn't give info that is knowledge, just what is right.
>>1029947
Pajeet pls
>>1029943
>This isn't about being right about the time, it's about your knowledge of the time, you don't know the time but you are right.
You have the idea that it's two o'clock and it's, son you know which time it is.
-it's two o'clock
-you know it
You know which time it is.
>about the machine
If you believe every proposition that the machine does, you know the truth every time the machine is right.
>>1029960
Yea but my example wasn't great since no one had a justification to believe one finger over two finger, while Gettier cases means it seems that you have justified true beliefs that doesn't result in knowledge.
>>1029980
You don't know that's the time, you think you know, you have a true belief, but you don't know.
You think it's two o'clock, but you don't know it's two o'clock.
>every time the machine is right.
But you have the same justification to believe the false ones, you have true beliefs but you don't know which are which, so you don't know the true ones, so you don't know
>>1029981
JTB is individually necessary but not individually sufficient, because Gettier cases exist, unless you can point out how a Gettier case was unjustified.
>>1029955
Ah.
>It's fun
As good reason as any.
>>1030025
It's fun and it gives you a wider understanding of different ideas and how others think.
>>1030025
I posted this thread to see what others thought about this question
>>1029568
Yes, you know the time.
It doesn't matter what time it actually is, as long as the clock is your only source of information, you know the time, even if it's wrong.
>>1030564
>It doesn't matter what time it actually is
Yes it does, reading a clock that says 2 o' clock when it's 3 o' clock means you don't know the time.
>you know the time, even if it's wrong
No you don't.
>>1030599
This is a stupid and pointless debate. I suspect that there may be some incompatible, mutually exclusive words in the premise that makes it impossible to get anywhere with this if you disagree with me.
>>1029568
>It is two o’clock
The narrator has already told me that I know the time. Unless you are willing to distrust the narrator in which case you might as well distrust the clock is broken in the first place.
>>1030624
>may be some incompatible, mutually exclusive words in the premise
Like?
>>1030631
It's the meaning of the word "know". Imo, it relates to the perspective of the "knower". If you bring in outside perspectives as well, and have these two points disagree, you get a situation that is impossible to resolve because you have two premises that directly contradict eachother.
>>1030649
All I'm saying is, by reading this clock, you think you have the right time, but you don't know the time because it came from the broken clock, which with further investigation you would find you can't trust the clock.
So, you can't get knowledge from somewhere that doesn't create knowledge, like a broken clock doesn't
>>1030658
So we are completely ignoring the perspective of the observer, then. In my opinion, that doesn't fit very well with how the word "know" is used. But I guess this works too. But in the end, it's a completely pointless debate about the semantics of the word "know", with no potential for anything interesting coming out of it. At least outside linguistics, and by extension, human mind. And for a discussion abut that, the question is poorly phrased and doesn't lead in the right direction at all.
>>1029568
No one clock will let you know what time it is. You need a second one to compare. But which one is right if they both show a different time. You need a third clock. But what if one of those gets broken? You need a spare.
You need 4 clocks to tell the time
>>1030701
Yeah, Ok, I realize this won't go too far, but it can go far, like you said with a discussion about linguistics or the human mind.
What does know mean?
Also, how did I "completely ignoring the perspective of the observer"?
The observer could observe that the clock is working, but in this case all they observed was the face of the clock which couldn't give them any knowledge because of the possible investigation (knowledge) of it's brokenness.
>>1030726
Yeah, you do need a way of comparing the time. like others who will tell you the time or different clocks, but that would be further investigation, which might lead to learning the clock is broken.
It's 26 past 7 you prick
>>1030740
What if you read the broken clock, then check another clock that works, it would just confirm that the first clock works.
>>1030756
You need to investigate the broken clock, because there is something that can disregard the first clock (the possible knowledge of its brokenness) you can't gain knowledge from it,
>>1029568
Yes, look at the sun you faggot.
>>1029626
>I don't like to think
>>1030772
But looking at the sun is a way of checking your clock, which may or may not negate your clock, especially if 4pm looks like 3pm
>Not driving a stick into the ground and wait
12hr clock right there
>>1030822
12hr clock m8
Also im pretty sure if you try hard enough you can tell the time by looking at certain stars.
>>1030832
Please tell me how.
>>1030859
By logic go out one night and look for a bright star, Clock it every hour, and try to remember where it is during certain times.
>>1030883
But this changes over the year, how would you account for that?
>>1030888
I don't know, measure it twice a year?
>>1030911
Ok, but this question asks about just using a clock that is broken, and just that.
