Can we have knowledge of the future?

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what skeptics claim. Induction can support beliefs, one question is can it support knowledge. Even if you allow that induction can support knowledge then thats not enough to make knowledge possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand what you mean by this.

Im simply saying if you think induction cannot justify knowledge, then you are commited to saying we only know very few present tense things. People who used this rationale when answering no to the OP must also believe we cannot know anything about past events either. Any justification for a past event requires induction. I claim this a defect in the rationale.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what skeptics claim. Induction can support beliefs, one question is can it support knowledge. Even if you allow that induction can support knowledge then thats not enough to make knowledge possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand what you mean by this.

Im simply saying if you think induction cannot justify knowledge, then you are commited to saying we only know very few present tense things. People who used this rationale when answering no to the OP must also believe we cannot know anything about past events either. Any justification for a past event requires induction. I claim this a defect in the rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's much debate about whether/why induction suuports rational beliefs. I don't think I've ever heard an argument that shows that induction supports knowledge in the sense meant by skeptics.

Of course your right about past events, skeptics clearly don't believe you can have knowledge of past events (nor present ones for that matter).

You claim there's a defect in the rational, fire away.

chez

[Bork]

I guess I wasnt clear. The defect is simply that if you claim that it is impossible to justify knowledge through induction, which I am guessing all the 'no' answer people are doing then they are commited to saying that we know almost nothing. They dont know that Bush is president, they don't know that that the earth isnt resting on a turtles back, they dont know that dinosaurs existed, or JFK existed, etc. If you define knowledge in that sort of cartesian (must be proven deductively to be true) sense then you are going to know almost nill. Even when you think you have proven something deductively doubts will still creep in about error of inference or memory and with them inductive reasoning creeps in. Induction is not something that can be dismissed if we want to have knowledge beyond things like I am having a monitor like sensation right now, or the a priori necessary truths that were mentioned earlier.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I wasnt clear. The defect is simply that if you claim that it is impossible to justify knowledge through induction, which I am guessing all the 'no' answer people are doing then they are commited to saying that we know almost nothing. They dont know that Bush is president, they don't know that that the earth isnt resting on a turtles back, they dont know that dinosaurs existed, or JFK existed, etc. If you define knowledge in that sort of cartesian (must be proven deductively to be true) sense then you are going to know almost nill. Even when you think you have proven something deductively doubts will still creep in about error of inference or memory and with them inductive reasoning creeps in. Induction is not something that can be dismissed if we want to have knowledge beyond things like I am having a monitor like sensation right now, or the a priori necessary truths that were mentioned earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you basically agree with the skeptics but wish to you the word knowledge to means something weaker and attainable. Us skeptics have no problem with that but we would like our word back.

I think what you say about deduction isn't quite correct. Skeptics are saying there is a problem in knowing anything about the world even in principle. If there was in principle a method for gaining knowledge then the fact that you might make a mistake when putting it into practice is a very minor issue.

chez

[Bork]

Yep chez, thats right. The only reason I bring it up is i suspect many of the people who said no probably think they know they have hands or that they know what they ate for lunch this afternoon.

If they dont think those things, and really are through and through consistent skeptics, fine; but I suspect many are just inconsistently rejecting induction when it pertains to future events but not present or past events.