View Single Post
Old 03-27-2011, 06:08 PM   #22
spellbanisher
Guru
spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.spellbanisher ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
spellbanisher's Avatar
 
Posts: 826
Karma: 6566849
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bay Area
Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
This thread is ploughing forward as if there is an agreed definition of "knowledge" - which of course there isn't. Consequently the contributors are simply talking past each other. So, here's an attempted definition of knowledge: knowledge is justified true belief. Now, there are all sorts of contested terms in there - "justified", "true" and "belief" - but maybe tackling the meanings of those terms we can come to some agreement as to what knowledge is.
Dangit TGS, you're defining one difficult term to define with three equally difficult terms to define!

But what you say is just. I did jump the gun by defining didactic fictions as knowledge without giving a concrete definition of knowledge. I have begged the question. The purpose of this thread was to define knowledge through discussion, yet I labeled certain works "knowledge" works before knowledge was even defined. I was hasty in making this thread, and perhaps it is futile to debate the meaning of knowledge.

Perhaps a better direction of this thread would be to discuss the nature and purposes of various kinds of information, and what kinds of information should be privileged either by laws or public funds.

Now, I am uniformly against censorship of any kind. What I am suggesting is that there be a discussion over whether there are certain kinds of information that we should as a society encourage the dissemination of, versus kinds of information that we merely let be.

Specifically, I write this in response to the belief to two opposing beliefs; one is that "information wants to be free." But what does that mean? Is all information equal? Should our libraries offer pornography?

The other is that information is a form of property whose creator has a right to perpetually own. If so, should patents be perpetual? Should we even consider a balance between benefits to society, versus notions of property rights?

I didn't ask this, however, because I did not want this to be a copyright thread, for reasons that I have already stated. Plus, "What is knowledge" is a sexier title than anything else I could come up with.
spellbanisher is offline   Reply With Quote