No I’m not. I am not interested in academic study. I am interested in real world application. I am aware of justified true belief and that most people don’t apply it. My curiosity is in how people acnually think about the concept.

That is like the home owner’s application of the scientific method: test the hypothesis until you decide it is a pretty solid system

Your description makes belief sound like willful ignorance.

It sounds like the real challenge is knowing when you have enough information to convert your educated guess into full-blown knowledge

What about the ideas that can be neither confirmed nor denied like the existence of extraterrestrial life or a machine of 100% efficiency?

What if you should have some doubt (belief) but due to ignorance or hubris do not and so you elevate a concept to ‘knowledge’ that should not rightfully be there? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m genuinely curious about that gray area of misplaced confidence.

So, if we haven’t studied the underlying axioms or foundation of a conclusion, we cannot have knowledge of it? That seems to imply the only things we have knowledge of are the things we have invested significant time and energy into. It’s that correct?

If so much is contextual, is there no knowledge based on truth or fact?

So the stronger the feeling of identifying with a concept, the stronger the belief that it is true?

I’m 6 episodes in and loving it.

I predicted in about 10 years disclaimers at the beginning will include, ‘This show depicts murder. Neither the show’s creators producers or actors condone the taking of another human life.’

What if the claim were false?

What if she wasn’t from Pitcairn? No big deal other than her credibility comes into question.

What if Gengis Kahn did not exist? Nothing lost, we already doubt our historical record.

What if Jesus did not exist? Suddenly the largest religion’s foundation is gone.

What if God doesn’t exist? Many people lose their reason for existing…

That which has enormous impact should require proof of truthfulness.

I dislike Trump as much as the next sane, intelligent human, but context matters. The ways specifically talking about going to NBC and running a show. And there, yes, ratings are all that matters.

With God’s blessing.

I agree

First they would have to carry the head to the coast which is no easy task without a Toyota. You make it sound like crossing the Mediterranean is easy but storms are frequent and problematic. The ancient Israelites were not known for their seafaring prowess. In fact, they once got lost in the desert for 40 fucking years, so their ability to navigate by the stars is doubtful. Once they arrived in Italy, then, they would have had to cart that monstrosity hundreds of miles to Rome. And remember, this was before all road led there so, even more difficult. Finally, one should ask themselves why they would bother.

Also curious as to how it ended up it central Italy.

The Personal Confusion Fallacy or Personal Incredulously Fallacy - if I don’t understand it, it must be false.

Interesting choice of word. ‘Killed’ implies that there was a human action that caused the death. Considering that the boat was stolen, overloaded and that the parents were present, who does Al Jazeera hold responsible?

There is an old fable that tells of two Asian monks walking down a dirt road and they came to a stream. At the stream there is an imperious woman of noble birth waiting impatiently for her carriage to be freed frob the muddy bank so that she can continue on her journey. She turns to the the monks and shouts at them to carry her across the stream. The younger monk freezes in uncertainty because their vows forbid them to touch a woman. The older monk approaches the woman and offers to carry her on his back. The entire trip across the stream she is shouting orders and complaining about his efforts. When they reach the other side she turns from him, ignoring him completely and turns her attention to continuing on her way. The older monk continues on his journey and the younger monk follows. They are silent for hours, the younger monk becomes more and more enraged at their treatment by the noble woman. Finally, he says to his companion, “Aren’t you angry at that woman because of her treatment of you when you carried her across the stream?” The older monk replies without breaking his stride, “I put her down hours ago.”

“Tragically, his mother died shortly after arriving in the colony…”

There’s so much tragedy in the first 3 sentences but this is the one that is given the descriptor.