0

When is it accurate to say that a person (P) knows that X is true/accurate?

  • This question seems to be answered by the idea/concept of 'Pragmatic Encroachment';

  • The basic idea/concept of 'Pragmatic Encroachment' is answered to a limited extent”;

The basis for when it is accurate to say that a person knows X seems to me like it would be the same as the basis for when X is accurate.

The fundamental basis for what makes X true/accurate seems to me like it would also be the basis for when is it accurate/true to say that a person (P) knows that X is true/accurate.

  • The fundamental basis for what makes X true/accurate appears like it would also be;

  • The basis for when is it accurate/true to say that a person (P) knows that X is true/accurate;

The basis for why something is accurate/true seems to me like it would be the same.

How is the basis for X being accurate different from the basis of when it is accurate to claim that someone knows X?

Asked differently, are there any examples for when the basis for what makes X accurate is not the same basis for when it is accurate to say that a person knows that X is accurate?

  • I just cannot think of any examples where the fundamental basis for X being accurate/true would be different from the fundamental basis for when it'd be accurate to say that a person knows X is accurate/true;

  • I can't think of any examples for how or when this is possible. i don't how there could be a different fundamental basis for each, and for the whole system/paradigm of any given theories to still then be consistent, coherent & stable;

  • And if there wasn't any difference, distinction, or significant difference, then i dont understand why 'Pragmatic Encroachment' exist or what purpose it'd serve;


Here's a quick, simple example to illustrate:

  • Say the basis for the earth going around the sun is the science of astronomy;

  • Then the basis to accurately say that a person knows that the earth is going around the sun would also have to be the science of astronomy;

  • Because the science of astronomy is what actually makes X (the earth going around the sun) accurate/true;

  • I dont know how anyone could claim any other basis for a person knowing X that is different from what actually makes X accurate/true;

3
  • Most of this question is either repeating your earlier, linked question or making appeals to ignorance or incredulity ("I just cannot think of any examples"). There are several examples in the answer to your earlier question. A good SE question might focus on some specific aspects of those examples that you're having trouble understanding.
    – Dan Hicks
    Jun 3 '19 at 19:34
  • we want to avoid excessive comments since stackex isn't designed well for productive discussions, and also in this format, they typically are not conducive to a good answer. this is said and also seen in the previous answer, where the answer was the only thing tha was productive, and that had relevance. question here is distinct from the previous, and if you dont think that, then i'd assume that you do not understand the question. this is much more specific than the previous. if you'd like to further discuss, do you know of a site or chat outside of stackex where that could take place? Jun 3 '19 at 22:30
  • @DanHicks if you feel that a small part of the previous answer actually answers the question here, then it'll be much more productive if you could answer the question asked here even with an example in the previous question. then at least i could clarify on anything that would be needed in the answer to the question here. this would be much more productive Jun 3 '19 at 22:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.