you really do have problems reading what i say, don't you. try this soul;

i think that ONLY experience is sufficient for knowledge.
read exactly what i say, read nothing that i don't say and perhaps, just perhaps, we will finally find ourselves in a fair exchange of viewpoints. i think with my mind, don't feel. feeling i do with my sense of touch. i form conclusions which are sometimes in error, not beliefs that many folks i know hold as absolutely error free. and finally, I KNOW ONLY WHAT I EXPERIENCE AND NOTHING ELSE. sheesh.

Plausibility is based upon what is already known/believed to be true.



Claiming that one believes nothing because there are many degrees of belief is invalid. It does not follow from "there are many degrees of belief" that one can believe nothing.



You believe that this accurately describes the case at hand. Therefore, you believe that this set of statements is true. Surely you'll agree.



Notion, smotion...

So what? The fact the one thinks in terms of possibility, probability, and plausibility does not absolve one from believing that X is plausible, probable, and/or possible based upon Y. Y is held to be true.

I have problems making sense of what you say, jrbogie. For instance, I cannot see how the response above is considered to be an appropriate answer to the question being asked. It is a perfectly legitimate question following from the statements you've made here.



Yes, I understand that already, hence it is the reason why I asked if you felt(thought) that all experience is sufficient for knowledge.



How can a conclusion be in error? How is that significantly different from holding a false belief about the way things are?



So, what is the difference between forming erroneous conclusions about experience and knowing what you experience? What separates the two? What makes the conclusion about experience in error, but experience known?

What sits in between a statement being true or false?

I'm asking for your justification, the reasoning behind those thoughts. It has not been forthcoming.

Why must anyone need to justify the reason for their thoughts to anyone else?

When a statement is made, must a person decide right away if they believe it is true or false?

What is the alternative?

I have an imaginary gauge that is like a gas gauge. When someone tells me something, that gauge moves. On the one side it reads "true" and on the other side it reads "False."

If the gauge reaches one side or another a bell goes off. "Ding ding!" if true, and "bong." if false.

This process takes place in my mind even before I check out any facts about the story or statement.

Sometimes the gauge just hangs out somewhere in between true and false. This means that some of that is false and some of it is true. That requires some investigation or thought to sort out the true stuff from the false stuff.

Is the gauge ever wrong? That is a tough question to answer, because the gauge is only engaged when my mind actually asks the question "Should I believe that?" My mind will not always ask that question of things that are apparent or obvious.

So when someone asks me why I believe something there are occasions where I just have to say... because it does not ring "true." In fact, it rang "Dong." (False)

I usually go with the gauge if I don't have time to investigate.

How else do you justify your thoughts? That's how it works. Justification is public. Do you feel the same way about those who are in power?

When a person makes a statement, they already believe it is true, or most likely true if you prefer. There is no difference between the two other than the former is about the claim itself being true and the latter is about the ground being true.

Both are about being true.



If you're asking about another's claim, one alternative is asking them to give their reasons.

No, my question is, when one person makes a claim, does the other person who hears the claim have to decide right away whether they believe it is true or false?

What is the alternative?

I don't feel obligated to justify my thoughts to others.

Who do you think are those who are in power and how is that relevant?

I just want to interject my opinion (and will likely ignore any attempt to turn it into a conversation, in this thread).

That statement is nonsensical, and its also evidence of personal wisdom.

Most of what I believe is false. I know that many specific beliefs that I have are false.

i need not justify my thoughts. to even suggest that i must is absurd. now you have my thoughts on justification too, huh?

This is a philosophy forum.

A careful reading would have gleaned the fact that I never mentioned that you "must" justify your statements(thoughts/beliefs) jrbogie - at least not to me.

Knowledge cannot be false. One cannot know that the moon is made of cheese, because it is not. One can believe it though. That is the difference between knowledge and belief. Belief presupposes truth, and knowledge is belief that is justified in the right kind of way and true.

True.

In philosophical discourse, it is well-known that a claimant takes on the burden of justifying their own statements. Knowledge claims voluntarily enter one into an obligation to back up what they say - that's just how it is done. Keeping in the forefront of our minds that we are discussing claims/statements and not the authors making them is a necessity.

This is not about the authors, this is about belief.