Jeff Cliff 🦝 on Nostr: > No, I said that we can't know if the data is true > I said nothing about if the ...
> No, I said that we can't know if the data is true
> I said nothing about if the data was consensus.
> And I just said consensus != true
oh ok i get you
but again: you're just saying right out of the gate whether the consensus is true or not, without data.
>I also go further and state we can't know anything.
This is where we clearly disagree.
> We can only suspect something to a high degree, and then that thing could still be a useful lie or a harmful truth or a fleeting falsehood. I am a programmer so my conceptions of things are not going to line up with a normal person
And at the same time, you know to check your memory to verify what the variables in your function are actually doing what you think they are doing.
> I have learned the hard way that a bit set to true may false when reexamined.
That doesn't mean you have a working model of what it is set to, and that you can be said to know whether bit b is 1 or 0 based on a reasonable assessment of its contents [for example]. Could you be wrong? sure - but it's justifiable for you to believe that it is 1 or 0, respectively, absent any defeating evidence. And don't get me wrong: i'm not prejudging you to define knowledge as justified true belief alone - but however you're defining your knowledge, as a programmer, if you *don't* use justification or something that is approximate to it you're going to live stuck without doing *any* programming at all. But clearly you aren't, so something's gotta give here.
> I said nothing about if the data was consensus.
> And I just said consensus != true
oh ok i get you
but again: you're just saying right out of the gate whether the consensus is true or not, without data.
>I also go further and state we can't know anything.
This is where we clearly disagree.
> We can only suspect something to a high degree, and then that thing could still be a useful lie or a harmful truth or a fleeting falsehood. I am a programmer so my conceptions of things are not going to line up with a normal person
And at the same time, you know to check your memory to verify what the variables in your function are actually doing what you think they are doing.
> I have learned the hard way that a bit set to true may false when reexamined.
That doesn't mean you have a working model of what it is set to, and that you can be said to know whether bit b is 1 or 0 based on a reasonable assessment of its contents [for example]. Could you be wrong? sure - but it's justifiable for you to believe that it is 1 or 0, respectively, absent any defeating evidence. And don't get me wrong: i'm not prejudging you to define knowledge as justified true belief alone - but however you're defining your knowledge, as a programmer, if you *don't* use justification or something that is approximate to it you're going to live stuck without doing *any* programming at all. But clearly you aren't, so something's gotta give here.