Can Sup Forums solve this simple philosophical thought experiment?

Can Sup Forums solve this simple philosophical thought experiment?

It is the essence of a barn, so I'd guess yes?

>Niggers can't into architecture
>See: Africa

Henry is a nigger.

>Goldman
>nigger still sticking around for his son
Kek
also the answer is it doesn't matter if it's a barn or not , to him it is

This. Niggers don't know anything.

>unbeknownst
>he thinks all the barns are barns despite some of them not actually being barns
yes he "knows" its a barn regardless of whether hes correct or not

Yes, tools always know where they belong.

But does he know it is a barn? He's only accidentally right.

All he actually knows is that it has the appearance/presentation of a barn.

Whats the next question in this experiment? Where is this going?

You can't know that P is true unless P is actually true.

No Its not a barn but since the facade of a barn looks like a barn his kid will be able to recognize the front of a barn. I believe this is a metaphor for different perspectives and ways in which people view the World around Them yes?

Lol a nigger being involved in his sons life.

Good one.

It's about epistemology - what it means to know something. If you think that all it takes to have knowledge is to be correct about something, this challenges that intuition.

Henry has his own conception of what barns are and recognizes one, and this recognition is in line with his conception of what barns are which is independent of what barns in essence truly are.

Why the fuck does it matter? What sort of better understanding of the human condition do I get from a nigger pointing our farming tools/his ancestors?

WHY DO I CARE?

Topkek this, trick question! Close one OP, very subtle!

in this case p is true despite the other unrelated images that resemble p. only the p he is pointing at is relevant, he is correct, and therefore he "knows" it is a barn.

He knows that it looks like a barn, but he doesn't know that it is one.

Knowledge is true inasmuch as one can create a true statement about the world that matches fact in objective reality, whether one is aware of it or not.

It's possible to know a fact for the wrong reason.

Yes he does, knowledge is true belief. The "true knowledge" that philosophers keep bitching about is impossible to achieve. Thinking that the capitol of the US is named after the guy who invented peanut butter doesn't change the fact that Henry knows the capitol is Washington DC.

But does it make sense to say that he KNOWS it is a barn, when he might just as well have been wrong?

Here's another example.

> You leave the house
> A burglar breaks in
> He opens your fridge, takes a beer out, decides not to drink it and puts it back
> He leaves
> You get back

Do you KNOW there's a beer in your fridge? Or are you just accidentally right?

>it's set in 1976 but the nigger has a 2000s era car

Angles.

I'd hope he'd know what a barn is because that's where animals like him belong.

>what are picture books
yeah im pretty sure if the kid saw the support struts holding up a single face of an object, and saw a full fledged object with that face, the kid would say the full object is the thing. but assuming he didn't see it from other angles, does it really matter whether he thinks it's a barn or not when the kid can definitely know if it's a barn or not with more info? the situation doesn't really need you to be correct here.

Maybe the barn doors were open and the interior is housing livestock and farm wares, thus proving that it is indeed a barn

irrelevant, the beer is in the fridge therefore you "know" it is in there. regardless of the fact the beer was absent for a period of time, in the moment you go to get the beer you are correct in knowing there is some tasty peewater in there

He could smell the horse shit
Then again, he's a nigger so he'd probably smell that everywhere he goes

I find it funny that anybody would find that surprising. I mean... who doesn't know that you can be accidentally right about things... or come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

Also... TOP kek about the black father being involved with his son.

He observed a barn. If he pointed at any of the fake ones he still would have observed a barn.

But it doesn't seem like you really know the beer is there any more. You could just as well have been wrong, if the burglar had decided to drink the beer. It doesn't make sense to say you have knowledge if that knowledge could just as well be false.

Your knowledge of how that beer got there is false.

They are barns, so yes he knows theyre barns.

Does knowing = being correct about something?

But does he KNOW they are barns? Or was he just accidentally right?

the answer: because he's a nigger, his use of language is only superficial, like a parrot or a tape recording. no, he does not know what a barn, or anything else, is.

"See here Henry, this barn over here is a facade. So are many others here in the countryside. That said, are you sure what you told your son was a barn is really a barn? No? Well it was a barn. Did you know this though before I told you of the facades? I tell you Henry, you didn't, because that would mean that your knowledge of the facades destroyed your knowledge of whether what you beheld was a barn. Knowledge cannot destroy knowledge, so we must conclude you never knew it was a barn, you only carried a true belief, which is not the same as knowledge. We also know this because you're a nigger and niggers don't know shit.

>Your knowledge of how that beer got there is false.

And? It is still knowledge. Knowledge is the individual's representation of reality and not reality itself.

A person can believe you have an even number of hairs on your head, and it may be true, but regardless of whether it is true or not, a person cannot be said to know this.

"...***unbeknownst*** to Henry, there are a lot of barn facades in this part of the country."

"Does Henry ***know*** it is a barn?"

obviously fucking not. it explicitly states so in the text.

like i said the fact that he could be wrong is irrelevant. as long as he is correct in the situation (picking a barn that is real, having beer in the fridge" then he does in fact know.

Hugely underrated.

Okay, OP...

All these autists are going to stubbornly resist the conclusion that knowledge requires more than being right (since you can be accidentally right). SO do us a favor and explain what some real-world implications of this thought experiment are.

Philosophers are notorious for cranking their dicks about nothing all day. So bring your lesson to the real world now, or fuck off;) Are there any substantial, real-world implications to this? Are there any political views or psychological tendencies that should be re-evaluated in light of this? Or is it just a typical, philosophical wate of time?

He can not prove it, and it is irrational to claim to know what you can not prove. But he persists and claims he has an even number of hairs on his head. In this case he is right, he knew he had an even number of hairs on his head, even though his claim was irrational.

>is op a fag or just accidentally getting penetrated by men
you ask this like it's a deep fucking question, hurr durr do we actually know or is everything fake?!?!!?!?! *sips coffee*

philosophy is pure garbage, proponents have been armchair scientists for millennia and their only value to society was to get a bunch of rational people back in the day to say "well that's a crock of shit" and write a few books to shut the retards up

I'll answer typically what my professor said before I stopped taking psych. "I only make the mind work, you have to "apply it

No because he is black.

>knowledge requires more than being right
How so? Why does being correct for the wrong reason invalidate the your belief being correct?

The real answer is that the barn has the seemingness of a barn, as do the not-barns. To Henry, the seemingness is more important than the reality since he cannot tell the difference anyway. So even though it might not be a barn, to him looking like a barn is good enough. He doesn't know it's a barn any more than he knows what the not-barns are. But he believes it is.

He doesn't know it's a barn, he thinks it's a barn.

But it is a barn.

So you can then say that it's possible to know things that cannot and will never be proven true or even plausible.

From his perspective, yes

it quite clearly has depth as depicted in the image

Right, but he doesn't know that.

And from our perspective, we know he's right that it is a barn, but that he doesn't know it is a barn

So we are to debate the meaning of knowledge?

>And the normally recognizes these thing
>And the normally

Fuck barns, Henry needs a better proof reader

>he fell for the barn facade jew

The real philosophical question is: Why is OP such a fag? The reality is no matter what he's always more fag than we thought OP was before.

Defining knowledge like a gotcha is stupid.

He believes it to be a barn and is correct.

Read some pragmatic philosophy.

Why? He looks at the barn, it appears to be a barn, so he has a mental model of it as a barn. And it is a barn. Isn't that what knowing is?

Black fathers does not exist. Who's driving?

Yes. If you claim to know something and you are correct, you know it (regardless of the rationality of the claim).

Henry can't help it, he is a nigger.

Ah, but it is an observed property of the universe that OP is a colossal fag. Do we really need to know the mechanism to understand the effect?

I assume the real barn has cows and a real silo near it, so if he can identify the cows and silo which are real and then points out the barn next to it chances are that barn is legit?

It depends, was it the first barn he saw?

>unbeknownst to Henry
>barn facades
He knows it is a barn as he knows the facades to be barns.
He does not know the truth

kek

Henery knows it's a barn cause he broke in there last night

You're thinking about it too much. If he's in fake barn town, and he just happens to pick the real one, it's not because he knows which one was real, he just got lucky. Doesn't matter what he thinks.

>unbeknownst
He doesn't know. If he's unaware that there are fake barns in the first place, then he will correctly assume, but not necessarily know, that some barns are real, because he believes that all barns are real.

changing my answer and position

he thinks he knows, but he doesn't know

...

He can see the broadsides

Well we're assuming he can't tell the difference, but we don't know that's so.

Anyway, if he can't tell the difference, then he knows that the not-barns are barns too. He's just wrong. But he also knows that the barn is a barn. And it is a barn.

>"hold up, Henry, didn't you know there are (((people))) who have been raising fake barns in these parts?"
>"I didn't. I guess I know now it may be a barn but it may not be a barn."
>"Shut the fuck up, Henry. I bet it's a real barn. You ain't my real dad."

What is the quality of Henry's new outlook? Has the introduction of new information made him more or less knowledgeable? Who is more knowledgeable now, Henry or his wife's son? Under your definition, can someone know something may or might be?

Less hair
More jew hat

This is actually quite good.

We make generalizations as a matter of efficiency and productivity. And, overall, our generalizations are great things that DO streamline our experience. But generalizations give us guidelines, and not knowledge. Knowledge can only be of particular things.

Driving down the road and saying "this is a barn" = using generalizations.

Getting out of the car, and examining the structure = acquiring knowledge.

This appears to be an analogy demonstrating the impossibility of true knowledge, because all 'knowledge' is ultimately based on induction. If some arbitrary number of experiences of barns is defined to be necessary for knowledge, then the nigger knows it's a barn, regardless of its truth, though in this case, "knowledge" is arbitrary (as it is in real life). If no such number is defined, then the nigger knows nothing nor does anyone in real life.

This is an illustration that true knowledge isn't possible. This brings back a memory of almost making my stupid bitch fat normie roommate cry because she didn't understand how a tree falling in a forest could possibly (regardless of how minute a possibility anyone thinks it is) not make a sound.

Based off of the available evidence, we only know he pointed to a real barn and correctly identified it as a barn. He may believe the facades are real barns or not, but since he made no indication, we cannot know for certain. We only know he knows this one barn he pointed to is a real barn.

>Anyway, if he can't tell the difference, then he knows that the not-barns are barns too.
No, he just thinks that. He hasn't checked.

Because when he continued driving, he saw that there was a side on the barn. He looked in his mirror as he got further away. He said
>Yup, that was a real one

So then you can also claim you may know anything.

>what are next week's lotto numbers?
>I might know.

He was driving down a road, meaning that at one point he would have saw the sides of it clearly.

He saw the others were fakes but saw no such thing on this barn since it had sides

This isn't even real philosophy, it's Talmudic sophistry. It isn't designed to find truth, but to muddle it until the kike who came up with the scheme gets one over on you. Fucking (((Goldman))) amd his ilk ruined the discipline, just like they ruin Art.

My nigga.

Oh yeah, this illustration also BTFOs retards who think evidence necessarily leads to truth.

its a fallacy because there is a father in this picture

A made-up story about a nigger and some fake barns BTFOs absolutely nobody.

This thought experiment is intended as a counterexample to one of the proposed solutions of the Gettier problem.

t. read epistemology book for uni entry exam

What does it mean "to know?" Define this and I'll tell you.

Essentially this.
OP's train of thought is merely a spiral into nihilism

Well he has more knowledge then since he now also knows that some barns are not-barns. And if this encourages him to inspect the barns more carefully to determine if they are barns or not-barns then he can both be more accurate and add even more to his accumulated knowledge. And of course people can know that they may have erroneous knowledge. Henry does, and you and I do.

You're an idiot if you think you can't be refuted by something simply because it's made-up. Kill yourself, retard. Go find some fucking "evidence"

Justified true belief, traditionally.

Stop being autistic, you know that's exactly how it works. A million people "know" (meaning they believe) the lotto numbers each week. Sometimes, a person is correct and wins the money. They knew what the numbers were going to be.

You're the idiot if you think what's logically true trumps what actually works.

At what point is something justified?