That is what it seemed like the implied definition was. I was wrong to imply it in that way. It was due to “information” being a synonym to knowledge. You said that “to know” meant both “to possess knowledge” and “to possess information”. Then “knowledge is useful information” is like saying “knowledge is useful knowledge.” This is circular. Am I wrong here?
I was wrong here. There was no need to lump @Dface or anyone else into the conversation.
My accusation of evasion was to the context of defining words. I don’t know why the word “roughly”, for example, should be included in a definition. It is purposely imprecise. And why be purposely imprecise? Maybe I am wrong, but intentionally being imprecise and refusing to be precise seems like evasion, which I said. I leave the door open to it not being evasion with the addition of “seems like”. I hope you can clear this up.
@Elliot “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.”
What is information when it is not useful then? Or does your definition mean that all information is useful? For example, I know that the Ming dynasty preceded the Qing dynasty. I have never “adapted (this) to a purpose” or used it as a solution to a problem I had. Is this knowledge?
The argument is that certainty cannot be attained because of fallibilism. I contend that not being certain about simple things means that I can always be mistaken. Sometimes I don’t make a mistake, and this is certain. “I am myself” and “people use blankets” and “Tiger Woods plays golf” etc, etc are examples when I think it is irrational to lack absolute certainty. So if I do not always make a mistake then the door should not be opened to the interpretation that I possibly could have made a mistake when I did not. (I use the word “I” here but, of course, it applies to everyone.)
To be clear and precise, I will give my definitions here.
Knowledge: facts about reality
Facts: things that are true
To know: to be certain
In true Objectivist form, I assert that knowledge is not justified true belief, it is facts about reality derived from perception and validated using reason. Knowledge has nothing to do with the usefulness of the information either. Lots of knowledge is useful but the usefulness is not a requirement on it being knowledge.
I assure you all that there is no bad faith here. I crave clarity and become a bit impatient when my questions are left unanswered. I hope you all understand.