View Full Version : KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW-AND WHAT YOU DON'T
This came up as a result of my last post.
If you want to have an experience of gravity, you can experience it quite easily.
If you want to make sure the North Pole really exists, you can go there.
If you want to see if the world really is round, you can do experiments and learn to measure it for yourself.
That is the difference between actually KNOWING something and just accepting the testimony of others.
Practically, we except many theories and concepts but don't actually KNOW them for ourselves. I don't see anything wrong with this in and of itself.
Where it goes wrong is that we start to ACCEPT and BELIEVE WE KNOW things that we simply don't know.
This leads to the path of self-delusion.
I have no problem admitting that I do not know if Abraham Lincoln really existed. I have no problem admitting that I can't say for sure the world is round.
If I wanted to, I could test for the second thing myself until I was convinced one way or the other.
I think a fundamental error both sides are making (atheists vs relgious folk) is in their assumptions about basic knowledge.
g
bearly
10-31-2005, 04:00 PM
hi, i won't take much of your time here, but there are several ways of knowing---or the way "to know" is used. you know you are eating an orange because you are acquainted w/ oranges. but, if you are working an equation in any logical system that is consistent and complete you know that the results of your efforts (assuming you know how to apply the system properly) are correct (others may use true or valid). now, this is something you know that you can't really see, but if the results of formal reasoning (which are analytic by nature) aren't among the things you know, then, there is a problem..................b
theweatherman
10-31-2005, 04:52 PM
Your idea that experience leads to knowledge is dubious. An insane person "knows" they are Napoleon Bonaparte because they can see it for themselves in the mirror. They are still suffering from delusions though.
J. Stew
10-31-2005, 05:13 PM
Yeah, believing concepts to be reality is delusional thinking.
"An insane person "knows" they are Napoleon Bonaparte because they can see it for themselves in the mirror."
Have you ever thought you were Napolean Bonaparte?
If not, or if you have not experienced something similar, than that example doesn't work. You don't KNOW what an insane person sees.
Give me a better example.
g
theweatherman
10-31-2005, 06:10 PM
Question one: Where do you start to test reality. You claim to be able to prove the worldis round. Whats round?
Question two: How do you know you are not limited in your ability to test reality?
Ex. There are 3 prime colors (Red, blue, yellow, none of that cyan magenta crap) in the visible spectrum, every other color is a combination of these three. If you were unable to percieve 'blue' then your knowledge of the world is fundementally flawed.
[ QUOTE ]
Question one: Where do you start to test reality. You claim to be able to prove the worldis round. Whats round?
[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know
[ QUOTE ]
Question two: How do you know you are not limited in your ability to test reality?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am limited in my ability. I simply do the best I can. The things that I have experienced I take to be true until something suggests otherwise. Which is a step up from making claims on other people's knowledge.
[ QUOTE ]
If you were unable to percieve 'blue' then your knowledge of the world is fundementally flawed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, my knowledge of the world IS fundamentally flawed. It is just that my ability to recognize this at a basic levels means I am a step ahead of those who DO NOT recognize this.
g
Your criteria for knowledge are too strict. I do know that Abraham Lincoln existed, I just don't know it with certainty, but that is ok because we can't know any empirical truths with certainty.
[ QUOTE ]
"An insane person "knows" they are Napoleon Bonaparte because they can see it for themselves in the mirror."
Have you ever thought you were Napolean Bonaparte?
If not, or if you have not experienced something similar, than that example doesn't work. You don't KNOW what an insane person sees.
Give me a better example.
g
[/ QUOTE ]
The insane person does not know that he is Napoleon, he only thinks that he is Napoleon, but wrongly so. To know that one is Napoleon one must be Napoleon.
I still think you make a leap by insisting you have an idea what an insane person sees or thinks he sees.
Speak for yourself. Where are you so completely off base in your own experience that you rely on somebody else's interpretation? I would like someone to give me an example from their own life.
This probably won't happen because of the implicit obviousness of what i am saying.
People will continue to use examples of madmen claiming to be Napoleon or maniacs who dont believe in gravity jumping out of windows.
g
theweatherman
10-31-2005, 06:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The insane person does not know that he is Napoleon, he only thinks that he is Napoleon, but wrongly so. To know that one is Napoleon one must be Napoleon.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is wrong. He knows he is napoleon as much as I know I am christopher.
theweatherman
10-31-2005, 06:47 PM
there is almost no way you can rely on other's experiences as everything passes through the lense of your own mind. In this sense you are correct.
[ QUOTE ]
I think a fundamental error both sides are making (atheists vs relgious folk) is in their assumptions about basic knowledge.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bzzzz. Wrong. And I say this with the notion in my head that it's wrong for both sides, generally speaking.
bearly
10-31-2005, 08:03 PM
say what? concepts are really concepts. nightmares are really nightmares. they are all part of 'reality'......b
bearly
10-31-2005, 08:05 PM
and, their delusions are real delusions.........b
bearly
10-31-2005, 08:13 PM
fundamentally flawed? come on. thats absurd. i'm not sure you know what knowledge of the world is. i wouldn't know what such a thing might be. i know bits and pieces about things that are found on this earth. i surmise others. and i dream............b
bearly
10-31-2005, 08:15 PM
who told you that? do you understand what logical certainty is? you think that's it as far as certainty goes?.................................b
theweatherman
10-31-2005, 08:31 PM
bearly, your last four posts have made no sense. Quote the posts you are refering to, it might help make sense.
[ QUOTE ]
who told you that? do you understand what logical certainty is? you think that's it as far as certainty goes?.................................b
[/ QUOTE ]
Who told whom what? I assume you're addressing what I said about empirical beliefs and the distinction between certainty and knowledge.
I think that it is always possible that we are mistaken about a given empirical belief, hence we can never be certain about our empirical beliefs. But I don't think knowledge requires certainty, so I can know that Abraham Lincoln existed although I can never be certain of it.
bearly
10-31-2005, 10:14 PM
sorry, who told you that we cannot know any empirical truths w/ certainty? you say empirical truth, substitute it w/ empirical certainty. or, equate knowledge w/ truth. you don't state what kind of truth you are referring to. i'm confused by the failure to pin down what you mean by key terms. and yes, who ever told you that, and why did you believe it?.........................b
theweatherman
10-31-2005, 10:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, who told you that we cannot know any empirical truths w/ certainty? you say empirical truth, substitute it w/ empirical certainty. or, equate knowledge w/ truth. you don't state what kind of truth you are referring to. i'm confused by the failure to pin down what you mean by key terms. and yes, who ever told you that, and why did you believe it?.........................b
[/ QUOTE ]
What I got from this sloppy post was that you believe that empirical truth exists. Right? So things like gravity and cause and effect relationships are logical truths?
I just dropped my pencil; it fell to the floor. What proof do you have that the next time I drop my pencil it will fall to the floor?
Lestat
10-31-2005, 11:12 PM
"I think that it is always possible that we are mistaken about a given empirical belief, hence we can never be certain about our empirical beliefs. But I don't think knowledge requires certainty, so I can form a rational belief that Abraham Lincoln existed although I can never be certain of it."
FYP
It's a rough-and-ready distinction, but the distinction traditionally is between empirical facts--or facts *about the world*--and other sorts of facts, like truths of logic or mathematics. One way to get at the distinction is to understand that the contrary of an empirical truth does not involve a contradiction, whereas the contrary of, say, a logical truth does.
For example, it is a contradiction to believe (1) p, and (2) if p, then q, but not to believe (3) q. It is absurd in the face of reason to claim such a thing, whereas my belief that Abraham Lincoln really did exist could turn out to be false and that possibility, although admittedly highly improbable, does not involve a contradiction in reason. And the way I understand certainty, I take it that the possibility that any empirical belief could turn out to be false means that we cannot have certainty with respect to our empirical beliefs (to have certainty then would mean that I could not possibly be wrong).
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.