# Actually Thinking YouTube Videos

**URL:** <https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/actually-thinking-youtube-videos/2035>\
**Category:** Unbounded\
**Created:** [April 12, 2025, 4:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/actually-thinking-youtube-videos/2035 "2025-04-12T16:12:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 43

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2025, 12:41am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/actually-thinking-youtube-videos/2035/43 "2025-04-26T00:41:58Z")

</div>

> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > What’s wrong or vague about “to possess knowledge” then? That should be sufficient given you have a definition of knowledge.
> 
> “To know something is to possess knowledge.”  
> But what is knowledge?  
> “Knowledge is what you know.”
> 
> It’s circular and doesn’t clarify anything.

ActiveMind clearly never defined knowledge in that way. This seems like such bad faith.

He suggested a few definitions to do with information:

> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> I think it’s safe to assume @Elliot thinks “to know” means to possess knowledge. And according to him knowledge is:
> 
> > roughly, useful information. It is information that’s adapted to a purpose. It is good explanations, and it is solutions to problems people had.

> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> A recent definition from [Deutsch](https://youtu.be/rpP9sqbQzjs?si=Z0PtnJL8-jFLUalV&t=3613) was (stutters and filler words edited out):
> 
> > Knowledge is a type of information. It’s a subset of information and it’s specifically the kind of information that can have causal effect

You seem to be seeing arguments that aren’t there, in order to dismiss them as being basic logical fallacies. That’s what I think you did over in the [Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024) discussion:

> [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/41):
>
> I read what actually\_thinking wrote here (bold added):
> 
> > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/5):
> >
> > A is A, or a thing is itself, is as true as one can get. Of course, because I am fallible, I could possibly misidentify something as being what it is not (which would be a contradiction) **but just because I can always make a mistake does not mean that I always do make a mistake.**
> 
> As implying that CR (or Elliot, in characterising CR) had made this very argument (which I disagreed they did). And I read it as actually\_thinking pointing out a logical error in an argument that no one was making.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/actually-thinking-youtube-videos/2035)._