What does it mean to "know" something? To have knowledge?

[Silent3]

At the risk of wading deep into "tl;dnr" territory (but still brief compared to weightier tomes an the subject of epistemology)...

Like many words, "knowledge" has a variety of meanings and usages. I think if you look at how this word is typically used, however, the core concept is possession of objective truth, possession of factual information. Experience, perception, deduction, intuition, and raw information do not become "knowledge" in any deep sense of that word until they are subjected to some form of objective verification.

I know many people love to treat the notion of objective knowledge as if it were merely "one side of the coin", or worse, some oh-so-terribly limiting and blinding obstacle to supposedly "greater knowledge" and "greater truth", but do those objections stand up well to critical examination, if one strives for a consistent and clear idea of what "knowledge" means?

What happens when you try to get past the promotion of vagueness as a virtue, past carelessly or deliberately slippery word usage, or confusing the flexibility of words with flexibility of the meanings and intents behind those words?

Consider the common phrase, "I thought I knew". When is that phrase used?

Generally it is used when we have taken a statement or idea to be factually true, then that statement or idea is later held up to scrutiny, and under scrutiny the idea fails. We do not treat the failed idea as something which once was knowledge, but no longer is knowledge, we treat it as something which we had mistakenly classified as knowledge, but never was actual knowledge.

Does this distinction which nearly all of us commonly make between real, actual knowledge and mistaken knowledge make sense by any other light than the light of objective evidence? How else can that which is once thought to be knowledge lose that status unless there exists, at least hypothetically if not always in actual practice, a standard by which information can be tested and, when appropriate, falsified?

To the extent that we treat some fairly trivial ideas, thoughts, and claims as knowledge, even when they haven't been subjected to objective verification, when they may in fact not be particularly amenable to objective verification, is in my opinion less an expansion of the domain of knowledge and more a practical concession to the difficulty of obtaining solid verification in some matters, especially when the cost/benefit ratio is too high for verification to be worthwhile or important. It is not an abandonment of the core idea of objective truth.

If knowledge is possession of facts, then what makes a fact a fact? I would suggest that, in hypothetical form, a "fact" is something which is considered definitely and universally true. Facts are things which are not matters of opinion -- even when opinions differ on what is a fact or isn't. For practical purposes, facts can be regarded as statements or claims which can be objectively proven true to whatever degree of proof is appropriate, given the possible consequences of making an error in fact.

One can have knowledge of subjective feelings and experiences. I believe, however, the core meaning of the concept of "knowledge" leaves individual subjective experiences one step removed from being knowledge per se, but rather knowledge that -- knowledge that person X experienced sensation Y.

For example, Alice thinks the room she is in is cold. Bob, in the same room with Alice, thinks the room is warm. The difference in perception is not a difference in fact. A factual accounting of the situation simply requires recognition of the differing perceptions, and recognition of the inexact meanings of words like "cold" and "warm". Given that in most situations there would be little reason for Alice and Bob to falsely or erroneously state their own perceptions, given that each person can generally be regarded as reliable sources of information about their own perceptions, and given that nothing of great importance is likely to hinge on the truth of these matters, provisionally regarding such matters as facts, therefore matters of knowledge, is a completely reasonably thing to do, requiring no concession at all to mystical, non-objective notions about knowledge.

A clear distinction must be made between perception and interpretation of perception. Take for example a common optical illusion. A general inclination to treat a person as a reliable authority on their own perceptions, for instance that one line seems longer than the other, is not the same as a general inclination to believe that one line is actually longer than the other simply because that is what someone claims to perceive.

What about knowledge of logic and mathematics? I won't pretend that this isn't a tricky area of epistemology (people still argue over whether mathematical concepts are invented or discovered) but these subjects still can be said to be objective in that the rules and conclusions of logic and mathematics stand up to rigorous methods of proof that do not depend on anyone's personal subjective opinions or perceptions. You can play around with postulates and premises and get different results, but there are still objective conclusions which derive from well-defined postulates and premises.

I've seen intuition, mysticism, and religious revelation put forth as "ways of knowing", but these are at best sources of raw information which cannot be considered actual knowledge until the information provided is objectively validated. Whether or not such information is compelling and convincing to the individual who receives it is hardly a good reason to water down the core concept of knowledge to include such information, except perhaps in the once-removed sense of acknowledging the personal importance that information has to the individual.

The weakest concept of knowledge, while ironically also the one that can be most compelling to an individual, is that knowledge is simply that which you feel strongly must be true: you know something because, damn it, you KNOW it!

The main thing that I see intuition, mysticism, religious revelation, and "just knowing" have going for them as supposedly reliable sources of knowledge is a "count the hits, ignore the misses" accounting of their success. Intuitions that don't turn out weren't real intuitions. Failed religious revelations weren't real revelations.

Then there is also the fact that much religious and mystical so-called knowledge is carefully designed to be beyond the reach of proof or verification, answering only to the very low standard of "you can't prove me wrong!".

Based on what I've written above, I see no reason to treat an emphasis on a scientific approach to knowledge, and strong doubts concerning the validity of any other approaches, as some sort of terribly unfair limitation or prejudice. Simply expand the idea of the scientific approach to include the logic and mathematics which are the language of science, which certainly takes science beyond the "if you can't see it, hear it, taste it, touch it or smell it" caricature some people seem to love as a favorite straw man, and the scientific approach becomes the only approach that leads to a concept of "knowledge" which is consistent with deep, clear, and meaningful usage of that word.

[geckosfeet]

1. Whuuut?

Consider for a moment.

Our 'understanding' of math, physics, science etc, is a cognitive way of modeling, communicating and understanding our world. They rest on statistical and experimental data for validation. Consider the recent blow up around neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light.

In my mind, mysticism, theism, religion, spirituality are no more or less valid views of the world. Certainly very different systems, but I can't prove one way or the other whether these people have it all wrong or right - although my gut tells me that taking any religious beliefs in a literal sense is a mistake to begin with. I tend to side with Joseph Campbell and see them as mythological systems that help us understand the universe.

[skepticscott]

7. It is certainly one function of myth

to help humans relate to the rest of the universe, and to define their place in it. But as mythologists like Campbell will tell you, mature beings and mature cultures move beyond the taking of myths as literal or historical truth. Doing so does not render the myths of no value, but does require that they be kept in their proper perspective, something fundamentalists refuse to do.

[Silent3]

22. There's a difference between a path to knowledge and knowledge itself

You may gain important perspectives on the human condition by reading Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean a real Macbeth had a real Banquot murdered.

I can't prove one way or the other whether these people have it all wrong or right

What does that have to do with consistent use of the word "knowledge", and the reliability and track record of "other ways of knowing"? Further, that a thing cannot be absolutely proven right or wrong is so common that it's hardly worth mentioning. It certainly doesn't make the rightness or wrongness of everything beyond complete proof a 50/50 proposition.

[geckosfeet]

27. Debating the correctness of other ways of knowing, comes down to, in the end,

a question of my beliefs (knowledge) vs the knowledge of someone else. What I believe may offend many others. And what I believe may be a subjective belief, or in fact it may be what I consider to be an objective belief well founded on observation. My knowledge is different than the knowledge of those others. Does it make me right and them wrong? I don't know. But I do know that we have a difference in experiential knowledge.

[Silent3]

29. Why "(knowledge)" parenthetically after the word "beliefs"?

The whole point of my OP is that you can't meaningfully equate those two words.

My knowledge is different than the knowledge of those others.

You certainly possess different knowledge than other people possess. If you're striving for clarity, however, not for "let's just all get along" diplomacy, none of that leads to any good reason to ditch objective criteria for knowledge.

Does it make me right and them wrong?

Why so binary, so black/white? What it means as that you're probably both right about some things, both wrong about some things, and that in some matters one of you is right where the other is wrong. In any case, where your two opinions about what is true contradict each other, either one of you is wrong, or both of you are wrong. Any clear and consistent meaning of "knowledge" falls apart if two contradictory things are taken to both be true at the same time.

When I say contradictory, I mean contradictory at a deep level, once all terminology and word usage has been thoroughly clarified. As I mentioned in my OP, Alice saying a room is cold and Bob saying the same room is warm is not a contradiction in any deep sense that requires a fuzzy definition of "knowledge" to accommodate.

[geckosfeet]

48. You are right. At the root, contradiction is the only truth.

Our knowledge can only be based on our experience, including spiritual and mystical experience, reading and studying the work of others etc. That fact that we all have different experiences means that we never all share in the same knowledge. Therefore, Alice and Bob have different knowledge, and experience the same room in different ways.

Or, do you suspect that knowledge is inherent, genetic if you will?

[Silent3]

56. That's different perception, not different knowledge.

Perhaps the word "knowledge" can be, and sometimes is, used that way, but the whole point of the OP is to zero in on a specific clear meaning of "knowledge", and to try to focus on that. If you completely blur knowledge with individual perception, why bother having separate words for the two concepts at all?

And why you're asking about inherent or genetic knowledge, I haven't a clue. That question is coming completely out of left field as far as I'm concerned.

[geckosfeet]

61. Because individual knowledge is completely dependent upon perception.

They are intimately bound. Cultural or academic knowledge is a more static body, changing slowly over time, but still dependent upon collective perception.

I am not blurring the nature of knowledge, the blurring is part of it's own nature. My view is that knowledge exists on a spectrum, from lets say, absolute scientific objectivity (which IMO is still subject to perceptual influences) through completely psychological perception based only on ones brain activity unrelated to external stimuli - as in dreaming or hallucination.

Genetic vs environmental nature of knowledge points at the meaning of knowledge in the sense that it provides a fundamental source of knowledge. Is our knowledge a collection of our perceptions and experiences - beginning from within the womb, or are we born with some form of knowing, some way of acknowledging and reacting to/with our experience, being and environment. Or both.

IMO - "zeroing on a specific clear meaning of knowledge" is the timeless question for all philosophers. Can you do it? Yes. Is it the final word? No.

[Silent3]

66. I hardly expect to reach "the final word"

I do think I've got a useful angle on increasing the clarity on discussion about the idea of knowledge, however. If people don't agree -- well, that's why there's a "Reply" feature.

Yes, knowledge and perception are intimately bound, but my point is that the concept of knowledge -- the core concept when you're trying to avoid blurring the idea with individual perception -- hinges on objective verification, whether that objective verification is actually done, or is at least theoretically possible.

When you attempt to communicate with another person, what is required to do that? Although completely unprovable, the act of communication relies on the assumption that there is a difference between "self" and "other", that this difference is not absolute, but mediated by common ground which is external to either individual. If you want to escape the philosophical dead end of solipsism and communicate meaningfully with others, you have to assume there are touchstones of common meaning "out there" beyond the confines of your own private world of personal perception.

I'd have to go on for many paragraphs to relate the above back to "knowledge", and I can already hear in my mind the insistence on the "deeply personal knowledge" of "spirituality", but suffice to say for now that I have already thought about that, and the short answer is that anything so deeply personal that you can find no objective basis for it whatsoever would also be solipsistic. It would add nothing to the usefulness of the word "knowledge" to speak of such solipsistic perceptions as "other ways of knowing".

[rrneck]

70. How does one obtain

objective verification of a concept?

[Silent3]

81. It's a social process

Any concept you can discuss with others, a concept that isn't condemned to forever be restricted to a personal, solipsistic bubble, any concept that's worth attempting to communicate and share, is going to require some basis in common experience between two or more people. Whether done in a very formal way for important scientific and philosophical concepts, or much more casually for more mundane matters, the back-and-forth process of communication between people by which they reach some level of assurance that when one person says "X" another person is envisioning more or less the same "X" constitutes a form of objective verification.

[rrneck]

83. Can that experience be measured empirically? nt

[Silent3]

84. What do you mean by "measuring" an experience?

If you're simply trying to get at the fact that none of us really knows what an experience is like for another person, I can agree with that, but then I'd also say, "so what?" I'm not setting out to solve every single epistemological conundrum, just trying to beat a path to a fairly clear and consistent meaning behind the word "knowledge".

What dilemma of personal experience bothers you, and does muddying up the meaning of "knowledge" help at all in solving that dilemma?

[rrneck]

85. The term "knowledge" seems quite simple to me.

If you know something, it's knowledge. I think the effort to confine the term to one's personal understanding of it allows it to get muddied for you because so many other people understand it differently.

The lexical canon we call a dictionary is little more than a public opinion poll. Any effort to impose one's personal opinion about the meaning of a word will always be overwhelmed by the way people choose to use it.

Damn phone.

[Silent3]

86. "If you know something, it's knowledge" is uselessly circular.

You then have to define "know", and if I tried to define "know", I'd go through the same process I went through in the OP.

Any effort to impose one's personal opinion about the meaning of a word will always be overwhelmed by the way people choose to use it.

There's a difference between focusing on a single meaning of a word for the scope of a particular discussion, and "imposing one's personal opinion". Further, my presentation leaves plenty of room for others to argue why my proposed meaning of "knowledge" for the scope of this discussion is wrong or inadequate, and why it should be changed, and how it should be changed.

If you want to insist that all in-use meanings for all words must be kept alive and acknowledged at all times, that's a recipe for miscommunication and confusion. A lot of people refer to dolphins as "fish". Would that be a good reason to conduct a discussion of marine biology as if dolphins being fish was a reasonable point of view that had to be accommodated throughout that discussion?

[rrneck]

89. Why did you post the OP? nt

[Silent3]

90. In response to much talk over time in R/T...

...about "other ways of knowing", and deciding that it might be interesting to approach that subject again, but starting with an attempt to clarify at least what I meant by "knowing" and "knowledge" when I'm seeking to clarify that idea, and why I think standards of objective verification aren't merely some arbitrary and unfair burden to apply to the concept of knowledge.

[rrneck]

91. Why did you decide it would be interesting? nt

[Silent3]

92. Am I going to get billed for this?

I feel like you're now wandering into trying to psychoanalyze me and well off the thread topic. If this is leading somewhere on-topic by a not-too-long or circuitous path, I'll considering entertaining such questions a bit longer, but otherwise, it's not a game I care to play.

[geckosfeet]

96. Good. This is walking the fine between sohphism and nonsense.

[rrneck]

97. You intrepret your feelings correctly.

The fundamentalist Christians and their ilk have developed an ideology that has become pretty far removed from the everyday experience of almost anybody that has ever read a newspaper or, god forbid, a book with footnotes. This business of claiming that the earth is six thousand years old and all the rest is just an effort to disregard anything their ideology can't take into consideration. For them, their way of thinking has become more important than the the reality around them that everybody knows is there. There is a gigantic body of evidence developed by science that simply flies in the face of what they claim. It's real, it's there, and it's incontrovertible.

So, lets look at your objective. "I'm not attempting to champion a broad umbrella definition of "knowledge" that encompasses the way every single person uses the word, I'm trying to extract from common usage the most useful common elements which point to a core meaning, something that deliberately isn't as slippery and vague as many people would like the meaning to be."(#65) Do you really think everybody in the United States, if not the entire English speaking world, would like the term "knowledge" to be "slippery and vague"? Do you actually perceive that agenda? Why would you want to attempt this "extraction"? I assume that it's because you care pretty passionately about what qualifies as knowledge and are willing to devote a fair amount of thought to try to understand what actually does qualify. There's nothing wrong with that, and if that's what you want to do more power to you. Unfortunately, what you would like the word to mean isn't what it means to the rest of the English speaking world. Everybody else seems to be applying the word to a lot of stuff what you think doesn't qualify as "knowledge". It appears that what you are attempting to do is to disregard the experience of millions of people to conform to an ideology that requires that knowledge only refer to empirically obtained information.

If I use the sentence, "If your know something, it's knowledge" almost anyone (who doesn't have some sort of linguistic agenda) would understand it. You simply have to acknowledge the reality that people engage in a continuous introspective process that develops information about which they know which results in knowledge about themselves. It's real, it's there, and it's incontrovertible. The fact that it cannot be empirically measured doesn't mean it does not, in fact, exist. And unless you're a Turing machine, you can accumulate a mountain of evidence of exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, you can't avoid it. Some call it being human.

The efforts of religious organizations to encroach on areas of study that lie beyond the scope of their methods of investigation has been a foolish attempt for a very long time. It results in an effort to disregard anything their ideology cannot explain. It is equally foolish to attempt to use the scientific method to encroach on an area of the human experience that lies beyond the empirical proof that is the stock and trade of science because it causes us to disregard and then deligitimize whole great swaths of the human experience. We all know this phenomena is there, and we use words like knowledge to acknowledge its existence.

If I bill you, think I could get any money out of you? Just sayin'.

[Silent3]

98. A "bat" can be a flying mammal or a thing you hit a baseball with

A conversation in which it's not clear which meaning of "bat" is in play would be very confusing. Selecting one meaning and determining that's the one in play before proceeding is not an oppressive denial of the other meaning.

Various meanings of "knowledge" might be a lot closer than those two meanings for "bat", but the same principle applies. I'm merely selecting and focusing on one meaning, not denying all other meanings.

Until you understand that, replying to the rest is pointless (if it isn't pointless no matter what).

[rrneck]

99. So you disregard information

not empirically obtained. A fine example if my point.


What if we're talking about the bats in one's belfry?

[Silent3]

100. Huh?

What on earth did the message you replied to have to do whether information is empirically obtained or not? At this point, I'm quite ready to write you off as someone who is both too dull to understand the plain words right in front of his face, and deliberately obnoxious on top of that.

[rrneck]

101. Whatever you want to do.

Do you understand the phrase "bats in your belfry" and the phenomenon it describes? Most of the people reading this sub thread will.

How, exactly would you define the term "knowledge"?

[Silent3]

102. Somehow, according to a heated PM conversation I've been given leave...

...to reference here if I wish, responding to this:

Do you understand the phrase "bats in your belfry" and the phenomenon it describes? Most of the people reading this sub thread will.

How, exactly would you define the term "knowledge"?

...would somehow be the same as responding to this:

George Lakoff would call "setting aside for the scope of a discussion" framing. And since the ongoing discussion in several threads has been what the term "knowledge" would include, "setting aside" everything you think it doesn't include is, at best, manipulative and at worst, mendacious.

I'll respond to the latter rather than the former. It must not make any difference if somehow they're both the same.

Looking up George Lakoff, I see his discussion about "framing" is mainly in reference to political spin, the way Republicans, for example, refer to the top 1% as the "job creators", or they way they'll take a question about taxing the rich and respond with something like, "We don't want to see taxes raised on the American people", as if the rich and "the American people" in general were all in the same boat together.

That is an entirely and utterly different thing than what I did in my OP by trying to focus on a specific meaning of "knowledge". First of all, in the mendacious form of framing, no one carefully spells out the steps they are taking to create the "frame". In political spin, politicians attempt to quietly slip their framing past their audience, aiming especially at "low information" voters whom they want to deceive with their framing.

Political framing is specifically designed to say one thing while meaning something very different, often to mask what is effectively a lie behind what can loosely be referred to as truth, but only when parsed in a dully literal way while unaware of code words, dog whistles, and unspoken agendas. Spin doctors applying political framing techniques don't want words to have single clear meanings, they want words to be taken as meaning whatever they have to mean to produce the greatest persuasive effect in any given individual who interprets those words his or her own way.

The purpose of my OP is entirely the opposite of that. It's an attempt to make sure that within the scope of the thread the word "knowledge" has as clear a meaning as I can create, that nothing is hidden about what I intend to convey, and that the position I'm arguing for is fully exposed. If you want to call my OP a form of "framing", that framing is completely out in the open for anyone to criticize as they see fit.

Sadly, I also happen to lack the ability to spend billions of dollars in order to dominate media outlets with my particular "framing".

All in all, referencing George Lakoff in response to the presentation of my argument in this thread is ludicrous at best, bordering on paranoid at worse, and hugely insulting either way.

Do I have a point I'm trying to make? Yes. Guilty as charged. If it makes you happy to think of that point as an "agenda" to make my thread seem more ominous, be my guest.

Am I trying to "control" the discussion? To the extent that I'm trying to avoid the confusion that comes when people use the same word to mean different things, but that they aren't taking into account that difference in meaning so they're speaking past each other instead of to each other, once again, guilty as charged. Oh, what a terribly controlling and manipulative thing to do!

I'm also quite deliberately trying to reduce "wiggle room". How tyrannical of me! My attempt to do so, of course, doesn't mean people can't wiggle all they want to anyway (I have no power to impose anything here) either in this thread or in the lives of people beyond this thread.

[rrneck]

103. *sigh*

http://books.google.com/books?id=zbJ1oxHC9a0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"That is what framing is about. Framing is about getting language that fits your world view. It is not just language. The ideas are primary - and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas."

George Lakoff
Don't Think of an Elephant
(Page 4)

So what ideas are you trying to evoke?

"Like many words, "knowledge" has a variety of meanings and usages. I think if you look at how this word is typically used, however, the core concept is possession of objective truth, possession of factual information. Experience, perception, deduction, intuition, and raw information do not become "knowledge" in any deep sense of that word until they are subjected to some form of objective verification."

"...and the scientific approach becomes the only approach that leads to a concept of "knowledge" which is consistent with deep, clear, and meaningful usage of that word."

"the core concept when you're trying to avoid blurring the idea with individual perception"

"I'm trying to extract from common usage the most useful common elements which point to a core meaning..."

And against that frame that surrounds the blurry, fuzzy, emotionally evocative words like "core", "deep" and "clear" you set people's responses using language like this:

that a thing cannot be absolutely proven right or wrong is so common that it's hardly worth mentioning

What does that have to do with consistent use of the word "knowledge"

"When I say contradictory, I mean contradictory at a deep level..."

As for "substance and depth", for now I'll just define that idea in the negative.

So much for framing. Like I said, it's not really central to the error of your OP. It's just truculent window dressing.

You have yet to grace us with something that might be confused for a concise definition of the term knowledge. I gather it has something to do with the need for any concept to be, one way or another, objectively verified. Failing to produce any concept, feeling, hunch, emotion, brain fart or heebie geebie that is not communicated to another person is to "forever be restricted to a personal, solipsistic bubble" because apparently it's not "worth attempting to communicate and share". I don't think it's hard to imagine someone having an interior dialogue, perhaps even with the bats in their belfry, while accepting the existence of a world around them. Of course, if they don't divulge to you the nature of what they are thinking about you are hardly in a position to evaluate whether or not it is worth sharing, are you? With that attitude I'm surprised anybody is willing to tell you anything.

There is nothing new here. You establish a criteria for what you declare to be the "true", "deep", "clear", "core" meaning of the word "knowledge" is then sit back and wait for others to present their ideas for your regal thumbs down. They are caught in a linguistic bind. If they don't tell you, it's not worth saying. And if they do tell you all you have to do is to fall back on your vague literary devices and liberal helpings of arrogant sarcasm. And apparently, if they ask you uncomfortable questions you send emails laced with profanity and invective.

Look. It's late and I'm tired. Why don't you produce a definition of knowledge that is a better description than that used by the entire English speaking world. Can you do that?

[Silent3]

104. Considering that whole books are written on the subject of epistemology...

...I'd say the OP counts as fairly concise when it come to trying to define knowledge.

Why don't you produce a definition of knowledge that is a better description than that used by the entire English speaking world.

"Better" has nothing to do with it. I'm aiming at something clearer for the purpose of this particular thread, and I think toward something more central to the range of meanings that the word "knowledge" has, but not toward anything which is in some general sense "better". If I try to make it clear when I say "bat" that I'm talking about a small flying mammal, and not a piece of sporting equipment, there is no value judgment there regarding which is the "better" definition.

If you're starting off with the attitude that I'm trying to say all other meanings and usages are inferior, then you're already way off on the wrong track.

Nevertheless, I'll try to go with something shorter than the OP as a working definition, but in this short form there's a lot of room for further clarification. If the wording is a bit odd in this context, it's because I'm copying and pasting from another post:

I first establish a hypothetical, not-directly-obtainable concept of knowledge as an awareness of facts, with facts being items of information which are definitely and universally true. The concept of verifiability comes second, as something I believe is revealed by looking carefully into the way the word "knowledge" is typically used, searching for the core concept with greatest integrity, clarity, and utility.

The first part of this definition isn't about objective verification, it's an unattainable hypothetical. Objective verification only comes in when trying to take a practical approach to approximating that ideal. All of this is a bit too brief for the subject matter at hand, so, for more clarification, I'll just refer you back to the OP rather than reiterating the same stuff over again.

Most of the rest of what I might respond to in your post falls apart as a tangled mass of misunderstandings which follows from your primary misunderstanding, so it doesn't make much sense to try to reply to any of that before I see if any progress has been made on the first count.

I get the strong impression, particulars of your objections aside, that it bothers you simply that I'd try to lead the discussion in the thread in a particular direction. News flash! That's what you do when you're trying to create a PERSUASIVE argument.

Do you have something against persuasive argument in general? Would you like to persuade me that I shouldn't try to persuade?

Here's how this works: I'm trying to PERSUADE. In the process of doing so, OF COURSE I try to limit and box in and preemptively cut off disagreement. But only through reasoning, not by any forceful imposition. If someone accepts my reasoning, and finds that doing so leaves them little wiggle room for an opposing view, then GOOD! Then I've done my job.

If someone doesn't accept my reasoning, then it's their turn to try to PERSUADE me. To poke holes in my argument. To find inconsistencies. To offer alternatives.

You can't even get to that point because you seem to be all hung up that I'd even dare to promote a point of view (gasp!) to the (horror, oh horror!) detriment or exclusion of conflicting views. You respond as I'm forcefully depriving or denying people their fundamental right to have a different opinion, or to use a word in a different way than I'm using it here in this particular context. It's ludicrous.

Framing! Oh, God! Framing! :eyes:

[rrneck]

105. So how can individual introspection be universally true? nt

[Silent3]

106. What part of individual introspection?

That it happens?

What such introspection reveals?

Let me be more specific about what I mean by universally true in case that's a problem. Let's take it as fact, for sake of argument, that Alice finds spiders frightening. (Not really what I'd call an introspection -- feel free to provide an example of an instance of introspection if you wish -- but still a matter of internal personal perception, and hopefully good enough as an example for now.)

What would it mean for that to be universally true? Certainly not that spiders are inherently frightening. It simply means that "Alice finds spiders frightening" is a fact for Alice, "Alice finds spiders frightening" is a fact for Bob, "Alice finds spiders frightening" is a fact for Carol, etc. Each person's own feelings about spiders has no bearing on Alice's feelings. Each person does not have to be aware of Alice's feelings for the fact to be true.

Anything that isn't a flat-out logical contradiction is a candidate for being something that's universally true. Whether that thing should be accepted as true is another matter, with the need for proof and degree of proof depending on the scope, importance, and ramifications of accepting or not accepting it to be true.

[rrneck]

107. Should individual introspection be considered universally true?

You found a way to use an example that can be empiracally measured (spiders and others recognition of whatshernames fear). You know what I'm talking about. When one reflects on one's own internal existence, can that be a universal truth?

[Silent3]

108. Again, I have to ask, that it occurs...

...or what is revealed by it, or something else? Can you provide a clearer example?

In case it's the simple idea that individual introspection occurs, then I'd say yes. That we have the word "introspection" available to us to use in this conversation and that it is by no means a controversial word is a good indication that introspection exists, that it is a phenomenon that occurs. People can describe what it means to them to engage in introspection and find a lot of common ground with other people describing the same act with similar results.

[rrneck]

109. Nope. You got out again.

I didn't say anything about describing the experience to find common ground. You're just trying to sneak your way back to objective verification.

The question was: Should individual introspection be considered universally true?

[Silent3]

110. I didn't "get out", I honestly can't figure out...

...what you're trying to get at. Your bolding of the word "individual" leaves me more confused, not less, about what you're driving at.

There is common ground in the idea of introspection, it's how we can use that word and more or less (in this case, I'd say less!) understand what the other person means. I understand that the particular thoughts and feelings revealed to a person through introspection might be very uncommon, shared by few if any other people. Those details, however, aren't introspection itself, they are products of introspection.

If you're just going to ask me again if individual introspection should be considered true, you might as well ask me if "green" or "up" should be considered true. I can't make heads or tails of your question without knowing what about introspection you want me to consider for its truth.

[rrneck]

111. Maybe this will help.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/introspection
in·tro·spec·tion
noun \ˌin-trə-ˈspek-shən\
Definition of INTROSPECTION
: a reflective looking inward : an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings

[Silent3]

112. I know the meaning of the word.

I still need an "about". What about introspection, individual or otherwise, are you asking is true?

Let's try it both true and false:

"a reflective looking inward : an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings" is true.

"a reflective looking inward : an examination of one's own thoughts and feelings" is false.

If I told you introspection was true, false, or questionable, I'd have no idea what I was telling you.

[rrneck]

113. LOL!

Hell man, make one up. Anybody can do it, and everybody does. But don't tell me what it is. Remember, it's introspection, not communication.

[Silent3]

114. If I make up *an* introspection, a particular instance of introspection...

...then that particular introspection could easily be true on the level, "Silent3 experienced introspection X". Whether X is true, X being the result or product of my introspection, would have to be decided on the merits of X.

They way you phrased the original question, however impenetrable its exact meaning to me, I can at least say it seemed to take the form of a generalized question about the truth of introspection, not about any specific example of introspection, so having me make one up seems utterly beside the point.

[rrneck]

115. Is your intorspection universally true? nt

[Silent3]

116. That I engage in introspection is likely true.

That I have particular feelings and thoughts while engaged in introspection can likely be regarded as true. If while I'm introspecting I decide "I'm content", since contentment is an internal state for which I'm the only direct observer, that particular result of introspection would stand a good chance of being true, although, since admitting unhappiness can be a difficult thing, there exists a chance that I'm lying to myself that would have to be given consideration.

Of course, whether it's my introspection, your introspection, or introspection in general, I'm still looking for a "about" that you either don't understand or are highly reluctant to provide.

[rrneck]

117. Did your introspection actually occur?

And if it did, is it universally true? If not, why would it not be universally true?

[Silent3]

118. As an event in time?

Sure, that's a highly likely candidate for something that's true. It's hard to prove, of course, but also not important enough to warrant a huge investment in effort to prove.

This is one place where common ground comes in. While any particular instance of my own introspection is difficult, practically impossible to prove to anyone else, the fact that many people report that phenomena, and the fact that introspection makes sense in light of our general understanding of human psychology and neurophysiology, claiming that I have engaged in introspection is a wholly unremarkable claim. Add to that the lack of any likely motive for misrepresentation, the difficulty of even conceiving of how someone could make an error in deciding whether or not they had engaged in introspection, and the incredibly low price of being wrong about this, that my introspection has actually occurred is a pretty reasonable provisional fact.

[rrneck]

119. Then what make your candidate true?

What would it take to make it a universal truth?

[Silent3]

120. Nothing absolutely makes it true.

It is only provisionally true. I already gave the reasons treating the issue as a provisional fact. I don't know of any way of reaching absolute certainty.

Universality is simply part of the definition of "fact" that I provided earlier. Why make that part of the definition? I think the idea of truth being personal rather than universal generally comes from nothing more than casual word usage and sloppy thinking. Take pretty much anything someone might claim is true for one person, but not true for another, and you can eliminate the apparent conflict by simply being more explicit about these supposedly personal differences in truth.

Chocolate is delicious.
Chocolate tastes terrible.

The apparent conflict only exists because these statements are under-qualified, and because it's an error to treat "delicious" as an absolute property. Simply expand such statements with necessary qualifiers like "Sam thinks" or "according to some people", and the supposed conflict disappears.

[rrneck]

121. Well, I guess I was wrong.

You aren't human. You are a unit that can only be defined by the commonalities you share with other units.

[Silent3]

123. So, what were you digging for?

Some glorious contradiction, some bold unfounded assertion of personal truth, some impenetrable fuzziness, some cloying sentimentality that you consider the shining hallmark of humanity, without which we are mere "units"?

[rrneck]

124. I'm not digging at all.

Neither are you apparently. All that work to produce this clear, precise, accurate meaning of knowledge and you can't even use it to verify your own self awareness to yourself.

[Silent3]

125. Can you verify your own self awareness to anyone but yourself?

Self awareness and introspection aren't exactly the same thing, even if they're closely related. Instead of asking awkwardly-worded questions like "Is introspection true?", instead of refusing to add an "about" when I asked for an "about", why didn't you go directly to "self awareness"?

You apparently resort to clear wording not even as a last resort, but one step beyond a last resort, once you're claiming to have given up.

Within my own mind, "I think, therefore I am" works pretty well. That can't be proven to anyone else, however, it can only be provisionally accepted by other people. In my own mind, my own self existence is probably the only thing I can put directly into the abstract, hypothetical of sense of knowledge I described earlier, before getting to the concept of objective verification, because "I think, therefore I am" is something of a necessary bootstrap to deal with any existential issue.

"Cogito ergo sum", however, can't get you beyond the isolation of your own mind. It could be true that nothing at all can do this -- you can't prove solipsism false. Since solipsism is a boring philosophical dead end, however, that turns communication into an illusion, if you're going to escape solipsism and act as if your communication with others is something more than a little game played out only within your own mind, you need to postulate a reality external to yourself, and for reasons that would take paragraph after paragraph to explicate, that makes a whole lot more sense when you consider yourself an entity that exists within that external reality, using objective standards to differentiate what's real and what's merely a figment of your own imagination.

If you want to continue you this discussion, you can't expect me to do all of the work. Stop be so lazy with terse questions and flip remarks and show some of what you're thinking and have thought through yourself.

[rrneck]

126. My thoughts are my own

and require no external verification unless I seek it. As a compassionate and fair person I give to you that same option. You are at liberty to develop knowledge and to act on any part of that knowledge in any way you see fit. Some call it free will.

The only work you have been doing is engineering as many circuitous exits as possible for your own definition of knowledge. The incessant conditional waffling to fairly simple and direct questions are painfully obvious in the above sub thread. I have been trying, and failing, to get you to admit you're human. You are human now among all the rest of us, and you would be human if you were stranded on a desert island with only a volleyball for a friend.

If you have a thought, and you are aware of that thought, that's knowledge. If you are aware of that knowledge, that's knowledge too. And nothing that goes on inside your head has to be communicated to to anyone else for objective verification or subjected to empirical scrutiny to be any less so. And you know that inside your own head (some would say heart) to be true. Were it not so you would be a completely transparent human being spending every waking moment securing independent verification of every conscious thought that flies through your head.

While this has been an interesting and entertaining intellectual exercise, the cultural implications of the understanding of knowledge that you propose are terrifying. You would have nothing be real unless it is verified by another. And who would that other be? It doesn't take long to figure that one out. We have watched it play out right here in your truculent, dismissive, arrogant attitude to the opinions of others and when you started to feel cornered your angry emails to me to try to bully me into leaving you alone. Do I really need to quote your posts above or your correspondence to me?

People can think, feel, dream, believe, and imagine anything they want. All of that stuff is knowledge. People also need to eat every day, sleep warm and dry, and make more people. That's why they have to take at least some of that knowledge and verify it in the world outside their heads. When they try to use the world around them to validate their beliefs without independent verification they have to recreate a world to conform to those beliefs that simply does not exist. And by the same token, when someone tries to demand that all of the thoughts, feelings, dreams, beliefs and imaginings of others be subjected to their own independent validation, they strip others of their humanity and create people who have become dehumanized. Both approaches have led ultimately to some of the most horrifying outrages against humanity imaginable.

[Silent3]

127. Thoughts that are yours and yours alone don't have much impact

If you don't care for your thoughts to have impact or meaning beyond your own private little world, fine. If you don't care for them to be validated, fine. That's your business. Rock on.

The incessant conditional waffling...

What in your book counts as "waffling"? You think when you asked questions to me that made no sense that my requests for clarification constituted "waffling"? That it would have been more direct and forthright to just make up an answer to a question that I didn't understand? Do you simply think I'm lying that the questions didn't make sense to me, that I lied to avoid answering?

If you have a thought, and you are aware of that thought, that's knowledge.

No, it's just a thought. Sure, if you want to, you can make the two words synonyms. Knock yourself out. Call a bicycle a tuba and call green orange if that tickles your fancy. But why bother with two different words "thought" and "knowledge" then? Why do the sentences "I think that's right" and "I know that's right" have such different meanings?

You could say that you know you had a thought, that you thought that you knew, that you know that you think. All of those phrases have subtlety different meanings, at least in my book. You're free, of course, to lump all that together into an incoherent mush, but I'm also free to think that's foolish and needlessly confusing.

If someone is thinking to themselves that Millard Fillmore was the first man to set foot on the moon, what kind of "knowledge" would that thought be? If you insist on calling an erroneous thought like that "knowledge", what other words or phrases would you use to distinguish that "knowledge" from correct "knowledge"?

Or do you perhaps think such notions as "correct" and "incorrect" are too terribly oppressive, and you would instead generously grant anyone who desires it their own private reality where Millard Fillmore has strolled upon the lunar surface? It's not like anyone can take that private delusion away from a person who's convinced it's true anyway, but I don't see how respecting compassion and fairness and free will obligate any of the rest of us to gingerly and diplomatically call such a thought "knowledge", or maybe an "equally valid reality" if that's your squishy wording of your choice.

...and when you started to feel cornered...

Cornered? Dicked around with, yes, cornered, not at all.

Do I really need to quote your posts above or your correspondence to me?

It was only not wanting to see the thread locked that lead me to voice my justified anger in a private message. I have no problem at all with anyone else knowing I called you an *ssh*le, without the asterisks, as well as a few other choice words. I still feel you richly deserved it. Question me all you like, just don't be a dick about it and I won't get so pissed.

Of course, you're free to indulge in the fantasy that you had me "cornered" if you like, and then the horrendous beast of my oppressive drive to dominate the very deepest thoughts of humanity turned savagely upon you, the brave champion of free will and compassion, who nobly sought to thwart my Campaign of Knowledge Terror! :eyes:

People can think, feel, dream, believe, and imagine anything they want. All of that stuff is knowledge.

Some of that I'd call knowledge. Much of it only fits into the Millard-Fillmore-on-the-moon category of knowledge, however.

...when someone tries to demand that all of the thoughts, feelings, dreams, beliefs and imaginings...

My only "demands" (which are purely rhetorical demands, nothing in the slightest bit forced) are when people state their own thoughts is ways which have ramifications beyond themselves. When they expect me to respect the validity and correctness of those thoughts -- not their mere right to have those thoughts, not the fact that, yes, they indeed had those thoughts -- it's perfectly reasonable for me to apply standards of evidence.

[rrneck]

128. Does a thought have to be communicated to another

to be considered knowledge?

[Silent3]

129. Answer a few of my questions first...

...and then I'll take a stab at yours. Millard Fillmore would be a good place to start.

[rrneck]

130. Feeling cornered again?

It's your OP and your theory. I am testing it. Are you not able to support your assertion?

[Silent3]

131. You're just being lazy now.

Call it a "test" if you like. It's still supposedly a conversation, which needs some back and forth. Hold up your end. I'm not your performing monkey.

[rrneck]

132. Can't do it huh? nt

[Silent3]

133. I just had a thought...

...that I can answer the question, so I must know that I can answer the question, and unless you simply accept this fact without oppressively demanding proof, you won't be compassionately respecting my free will, Mr. Fillmore.

[rrneck]

134. Okay. nt

[Silent3]

135. Now we all understand

[rrneck]

136. Gah! I love it! And I have knowledge of a funny image. nt

[postatomic]

2. Awareness

Knowledge on a spiritual level isn't the quite the same as conventional science and 'normal' truths. Since it is very personal the word 'knowledge' is difficult to apply.

Awareness is knowledge.

Just my distorted view of the world I live in.

[Silent3]

15. If the word "knowledge" is difficult to apply, then why apply it?

As for "awareness is knowledge", knowledge of what? Or awareness is knowledge in and of itself?

Does it really help clarify anything to, say, view knowledge that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen as a form of "awareness"? If you feel "aware" of someone looking at you, but turn around and there's not anyone there, what were you "aware" of other than a sensation? Where is the knowledge?

[postatomic]

54. You were the one applying the word 'knowledge'

What do you see when you look at water? Hydrogen and Oxygen? And 'awareness' isn't paranoia or fear. By drawing upon that assumption it would imply that you have fixed ideas that are uniquely 'you'.

I feel sad for you. When we all become inanimate robots that digest information like a computer it will be time for me to die. Not a world I want to live in.

[Silent3]

55. Yes, I applied the word "knowledge"...

...but I did not equate it to awareness. You did that, and have yet to justify it.

And 'awareness' isn't paranoia or fear.

And this is apropos to what? I get the impression that you're conversing with your own private demons, of which my words were only a reminder.

I feel sad for you. When we all become inanimate robots that digest information like a computer it will be time for me to die. Not a world I want to live in.

More private demons of yours, it would seem.

[postatomic]

87. You make many assumptions

And you like to wander off the trail. I'm not sure what you are trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' with your words.

Perhaps we can go back to an unanswered question. I'll repeat it.. "what to you see when you look at water?"

[Silent3]

88. "You make many assumptions"

Oh, really? I'm sure I've made a few. We all do, all the time. Point out what those assumptions are, and what's wrong with them, otherwise simply saying "you make many assumptions" is nothing but a lazy, unfounded dismissal.

And you like to wander off the trail.

Which trail would the trail be? A not-very-clearly stated trail that you expect me to follow for as-yet undisclosed reasons?

I'll repeat it.. "what to you see when you look at water?"

That's a pretty damned open-ended question to answer without a clear idea of what you're trying to get at. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try.

At the lowest level, I don't see water at all. I see patterns of light that my brain associates with water. Since finding water is an important biological imperative, I'd guess that, at least at some level within my brain, there is some sort of innate concept of water, and some low-level neurological wiring to associate the visual patterns of light created by water with that possible innate concept of water.

As an intelligent social creature, I "see", in a sense at least, more than just a visual pattern, but a complex chain of thoughts and associations which immediately come to mind, invoked by the visual patterns produced by water. If I see clear water in a bottle or a glass, I might see something I'd want to drink. If I see water a foot deep in my basement, I see trouble. If I see what looks like water in a situation like a chemical laboratory, I see a potential danger and a need to make sure that what looks like water is indeed water before I make any potentially harmful assumptions. In a poetic mood, I might see a metaphor for life or the flow of time.

What are the patterns that I see? That varies depending on the volume and purity of the water. Reflection and refraction are fairly common features, and seeing those things is a matter of seeing distorted and/or oddly positioned views of other objects, such that water doesn't have much of an appearance of its own, rather water is an inferred agency explaining changes in the appearance of other visual stimuli.

[cleanhippie]

3. What an utterly FANTASTIC post! Heads are exploding right now!

You nailed it! Well done. Knowledge is something provable, objectively provable.

And not one exams of any "knowledge" has ever been gained from some "other way of knowing.".

Well done!

[skepticscott]

4. As interesting as all of this is

It has never really been in dispute that there is a distinction between subjective feelings and objective knowledge. Let's not forget that the touting of "other ways of knowing" stems from attempts by the religionists here to argue that their objective claims (e.g. the actual existence of god) should be exempt from the usual strictures of evidence-based rational inquiry, because they have "other ways of knowing" that such things are objectively true. No one has ever argued that faith doesn't exist or that many individuals haven't convinced themselves of the tenets of their religion in spite of a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary, but none of that is really relevant to where this is coming from. Needless to say, examples of the "other ways of knowing" that meet the requirements that they claim for them have yet to be introduced.

[MarkCharles]

5. Very well stated. I was wondering where you had found that, but I

see it is really your own work and your own thoughts.

Quite commendable.

Of course, those who are believers in a god will not agree.

[humblebum]

6. The major problem here is that graduate courses in "other ways of knowing" are

being taught across the nation in both public and private colleges and universities, without any emphasis on religion. Go figure.

[Silent3]

9. That is a major problem.

All of that wasted tuition money! :D

Care to name some of the course titles that apply?

[humblebum]

11. What it proves is that your opinion is definitely not universally accepted. Here's one:

"IDS 802: Ways of Knowing in Comparative Perspective", but goes by several different titles.

[skepticscott]

13. Calling something

a "way of knowing" doesn't make it so, nor does it guarantee that you come away "knowing" anything.

[humblebum]

14. And listening to someone swear up and down it ain't so, in spite of

the opinions of many, many scholars, doesn't mean it ain't so.

[MarkCharles]

17. OPINIONS? I thought the topic was "knowledge", not opinion.

Please point to where skeptics have "sworn up and down" that lack of evidence is anything else but lack of evidence.

In science, as in tho courtroom, (I think I covered the courtroom the other day),.....
Opinions are not "evidence"! Nor are the knowledge. Opinions are just opinions.

[humblebum]

18. I am referring to the "opinions" or "convictions" or "understandings" (whatever

term you feel most comfortable with)of scholars who recognize and accept that there are indeed different ways of knowing and differnt types of knowledge. But I sometimes forget that you cannot be taught anything else.

[MarkCharles]

25. I am usually quite amenable to respecting "opinions" or "understandings" that can be

backed up with facts.

A great number of people have and some today may continue to be of the "opinion" or "conviction" or "understanding" that Astrology is an accurate model and body of "knowledge". There are ZERO facts to support that "conviction" or "opinion".

We are all waiting for one single, solitary fact that has come out of these "other ways of knowing", and so far, just like with Astrology, I have not yet seen any fact in support of that "conviction" that there are "other ways of knowing".


Not one fact to show me, (ever so stupid and ever so un-teachable as you claim I am), wrong!

[rrneck]

43. Did you type that post? nt

[humblebum]

46. You don't see because you don't want to see. And you are the one who claimed

that you couldn't be taught anything new.

[Silent3]

20. If either you or Jodie Wear-Leiker would like to elaborate...

...be my guest. But the mere existence of a course hardly validates the material contained therein. You can get whole degrees in "scientific" literal Biblical creationism.

Besides, it could well be that a study of the material in the course demonstrates that mathematical and scientific knowledge are far more reliable and well-defined that the other supposed ways of knowing covered in that course and similar courses.

Why don't you try the approach of providing a clear and consistent definition of knowledge that keeps that word as a clear and useful word, while embracing specific "other ways of knowing"? Or do you prefer to stick with the "a million Elvis fans can't be wrong" approach, with essentially nothing more to say than, "How dare I not take these other people seriously?"?

[humblebum]

23. Who? nt

[Silent3]

24. She's the one who apparently teaches that course...

...or at least one just like it with the same title and course number.

Now, after that pathetic delay tactic, how about some substance?

[humblebum]

28. How much more substance do you need? There are many institutions

with similar courses listed, and I'm sure just as many or more scholars teaching them. If you wish to maintain your narrowly focused, very contingent approach to the subject of knowledge, be my guest. But yours, again, is far from universally accepted.

[Silent3]

30. What do I care about universal acceptance?

You're again making an appeal to popularity. That's the low ground. Where's your high ground?

[humblebum]

45. Have fun on your island. nt

[Silent3]

57. Once again...

...challenged to produce substance and depth, you retreat into a sophmoric quip. You don't think others aren't catching on to this pattern? If you want to leave the impression that there's no there there with you, you're doing an excellent job of it.

[humblebum]

59. You have now resorted to using buzz words in an attempt to appear

like you are hot on the trail of something. What the heck are "substance and depth"? The substance is that not everyone thinks like you. The depth is that many of those don't think like you.

[Silent3]

65. Of course many people don't think like me.

For instance, some people think that we should not only keep the Bush tax cuts, but lower tax rates still further on the wealthiest Americans, and make capital gains tax free. How do you accommodate such different thinking? By going along with it? By disagreeing, but calling it equally valid to your own thinking?

I have opinions. So do you. And you clearly don't mind, often in scathing terms, making it clear that you think that those who disagree with you are wrong.

So why even bother mentioning that other people don't think like me? I'm not attempting to champion a broad umbrella definition of "knowledge" that encompasses the way every single person uses the word, I'm trying to extract from common usage the most useful common elements which point to a core meaning, something that deliberately isn't as slippery and vague as many people would like the meaning to be.

As for "substance and depth", for now I'll just define that idea in the negative. It's not short sarcastic quips. It's not always avoiding clearly stating your own views. It's not always looking for tangential things to criticize while not answering direct questions. It's not telling people to look up elsewhere what you could at least briefly summarize yourself, and thus demonstrate your own personal understanding of an issue.

[humblebum]

69. Over the past few weeks, you and others have been supplied

with examples, references, websites, and definitions, all of which contributed to an understanding (one level of knowledge) of ways of knowing, by several different posters. And yet you still say that no direct questions have been answered.

[Silent3]

71. Again, you refer elsewhere and don't speak for yourself

Apart from once again using an avoidance tactic and not speaking for yourself and your own views...

The problem I had with the material refer to is that I saw nothing which didn't rely on either a vague idea of knowledge, or wasn't merely talking about sources of information which could possibly lead to knowledge (like intuition), but which are not, in-and-of-themselves, knowledge or "ways of knowing".

[humblebum]

72. You are showing that you have seen, but rejected the information you

have been given by myself and others on the subject. And that is YOUR method of avoidance. Nothing has been avoided. The problem is that the answers you receive don't match your cozy little paradigm of knowledge.

[Silent3]

73. Then tell me what IN YOUR OPINION, with YOUR OWN analysis...

...is wrong with that "cozy little paradigm". Go on, give it a try.

[humblebum]

74. That "cozy little paradigm" rejects any method, or epistemology, or any

kind of subjective evidence that fails to result in attaining near 100% objective level of "proof" or unable to be verified or falsified. BTW, this has been stated repeatedly, also.

[Silent3]

79. My OP clearly denies your claim about "near 100% objective proof".

On the contrary, the OP proposes a variable scale of proof for provisional acceptance of claims, depending on the scope, importance, and ramifications of those claims.

BTW, this has been stated repeatedly, also.

Yes, that straw man has been repeatedly deployed, ad nauseum.

Setting aside your "near 100%" wild exaggeration, it is true that I reject some methods and epistemologies. I'm guilty of the terrible crime of having some standards that I apply about what's reasonable -- you know, just like everyone else, including yourself.

Care to go around in a circle again about how all this stuff you think I should accept has been stated before, or can you actually provide something better than an ad populum argument to point out a flaw in the standards I apply or the way I'm applying them?

[MarkCharles]

82. An excellent summary of what has, and has NOT been presented as...

examples and proof of "other ways of knowing" and of the behaviors of certain posters.

[MarkCharles]

80. An excellent statement of what is going on here, well done! n/t

[cleanhippie]

21. From THIS school? Professors in philosophy of religion?

And you wonder why no one takes this seriously.

http://www.fhsu.edu/philosophy/faculty-and-staff/

And I found this: http://www.myedu.com/Ids-802-Ways-Of-Knowing-In-Comparative-Perspective/course/s/1494156


That course description sounds an AWFUL lot like the nonsense you spew here. Did you take this? Do you TEACH this?

[humblebum]

26. If it was only one institution or one person teaching courses like this,

or if it was restricted to religion or math or whatever, you would have a case. But there are no such restrictions. The principles can be applied to virtually every subject. And, I am retired. If I wasn't I sure wouldn't have time to hang around here.

[skepticscott]

12. Sure there are

Just like these:

http://www.ivaindia.com/

[bananas]

8. There are several threads about this - why start a new one?

Why not reply in one of the other threads?
This is just spamming.

[laconicsax]

10. So alert.

[bananas]

19. There's a double-standard at play. nt

[laconicsax]

44. Then take it to ATA. n/t

[MarkCharles]

16. You are free not to read or participate, if the topic doesn't interest you, or

is too challenging to your world view.

Why do you have a need to question and object to the thoughts of others engaging in open discussion from several viewpoints?

Could it be an attempt to censor critical thinking?

[Silent3]

31. No existing thread on this subject used the particular approach...

...of trying to start with an explication what is meant by "knowledge" and "knowing". I thought it was worth while to try that approach in a new, separate thread, rather than burying such an admittedly long-winded post as the OP deep within an old thread.

Does that really bother you so much?

[MarkCharles]

32. I am so glad you did, and appreciate the incredibly valiant effort.

You did a masterful job of explaining your viewpoint, and stated it very clearly for anyone to follow, agree, or disagree with.

In contrast to people who cherry pick from Wikipedia to make their weak points, you are to be commended for your efforts.

[Silent3]

33. There must be quite a few people quietly annoyed by my OP...

...judging by the number of unrecs which must be weighing against the recs I imagine have come along with the favorable responses.

[MarkCharles]

34. Lots of people seem to object to logical analysis when it comes to their

religious beliefs, which so often defy logic.

For the record, I'm one of those who gave you a plus rec.

[Jim__]

35. Did the Ptolemaic system constitute knowledge?

[MarkCharles]

36. Did it later get confirmed by others working independently of Ptolemy?

Was there peer review? Where is the independent verification peer review in those "other ways of knowing"?

[rug]

37. One day in the future people will be amused at our quaint notions of quantum physics.

[MarkCharles]

38. Are we "amused" by Newton's "quaint" notions of gravity, and momentum?

If we are, I fail to see it. Although many of Newton's ideas and theories and "insights" didn't bear the scrutiny of science, we have forgotten about Newton's fascination over alchemy as a way to "make" gold.

The differences in the dynamics of scientific theories between the days of Newton, and the days of quantum physics, (which is about 90 years old now, as a tested "theory").. is that Newton worked largely alone, with few if any peer reviewers in his nation, indeed in his area of the world, western Europe. If Newton had an idea, (an hypothesis) he would conduct his own experiments to "verify" or falsify his hypothesis, and publish a paper, which might be read by 1000 people in the first year, 5000 in 10 years, and find two or three peers to duplicate and verify his observations.

By contrast, since 1930's, and even more now, any new "hypothesis" having to do with the theories of quantum physics are verified or falsified within a year or possibly two or three, and hundreds of thousands of well-trained scientists worldwide read about and critique any hypothesis, theory, or finding. Our scientific process has sped up to the speed of light, (or internet) compared to the speed of pony express or daily post of the 16th and 17th centuries.

[rug]

39. I am amused by smug certitude.

[MarkCharles]

41. If you view the scientific process and discipline as "smug", try reading

some of the absolutes certainties contained within religious texts.

Talk about smug, more like heavy smog over the light of reason, logical analysis, and scientific discovery.

Try this little kid as example #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYb2NCWGr6g

"Evidence that science is WRONG and The Holy Bible is right!"

[rug]

42. I don't view a scientific process as smug; I view people who cling to it as a sine qua non to be.

And it's amusing.

BTW, you missed the disclaimer on your video:

"YES I AM being sarcastic. NO insects have got 4 legs. Please stop posting idiot comments. NO insects have 4 legs. Some of them look like they have 4, and since the people writing the bible were ignorant, the mistake there to this day. Now stop making fun of yourself."

[MarkCharles]

47. I didn't miss a thing, I know the guy who made the video.

I kind of like to trap true believers in stuff like this.

What do YOU "cling to as a 'sine qua non'"? Other than science, I doubt you have anything other than your smug refusal to accept evidence as overpowering unfounded hypothesis,(one of hundreds of hypotheses), which is about all religion comes down to in the end, absent any evidence.

How DO you view the scientific process, by the way? Do you accept it, or reject it, or merely quibble with it when it affronts your religious beliefs?

[rug]

51. If you indeed know him you should have a talk.

"I love Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Peace, respect, facts and common sense sucks!"

[MarkCharles]

62. I see you once again avoided answering questions, and instead chose to

be smug.

[rug]

63. I'm assume you're certain of that.

[Jim__]

49. I think that's probably true. But I'm not sure.

Our brains did not evolve to understand things at the atomic level. They may be beyond our comprehension, both now and in the future.

[rrneck]

50. I'm a little more optimistic.

We seem to be able to understand a whole lot of stuff that lies well beyond the capabilities assumed by our physiognomy. Sometimes I still find it hard to believe anyone can think in and function in terms of mach 2.

[Jim__]

64. To me the difference is that language doesn't break down at mach 2.

In the case of quantum theory, we use words like: particle, wave, object, orbit. When we are in the atomic realm, these words are disconnected from their normal referents. I trust that particle physicists have some conception of this realm. For the rest of us, the words that we use are misleading. I don't believe we get it.

[rrneck]

68. I think that

somebody in seventeenth century England wouldn't have understood the term "Mach 2" I can't begin to imagine what kind of screwy terminology they will come up with to describe that phenomena. Maybe they'll have to hire a poet to help them out.

[Jim__]

75. The term "mach" is new. But it represents a known concept - a measure of speed.

Even if they would have a hard time imagining the speed, it's just a matter of expanding on current experience.

The quantum world is not like that. It's not a matter of imagining smaller and smaller objects. Whatever exists or manifests at the quantum level is completely outside of our experience. The late physicist John Marburger suggested referring to these processes as wavicles to make it clearer to people that we don't know what these are. It's not so much the term that's important; it's that by using familiar terms, people think we're talking about something familiar. We're not.

It's possible that someone will come up with a totally new idea as to what is happening at this level, and that new idea will be comprehensible to people. But, I think it will take that type of paradigm shift to clarify these concepts.

[rrneck]

77. That makes sense.

It has seemed to me that science and faith have been converging at the subatomic level. I have no idea what that convergence, if it is happening, will look like. I can almost guarantee it won't be a bunch of new age woo. In my most optimistic moments I like to think that maybe we will find a new way to have faith in ourselves and the world around us by finding an attitude and a language to describe that which we can only imagine but have proven actually exists.

[Jim__]

78. Sometimes I get the same feeling at the cosmological level.

I'm thinking of M-theory and the idea of a holographic universe. I realize that the people working on this stuff are usually brilliant, and that eventually they'll either come up with testable criteria or go on to something else. But, some of it is out there.

[rrneck]

40. If you know something, it's knowledge.

I don't think there should be a hierarchy between the activity outside one's head and the activity inside it. Creationists try to apply their belief systems to a world that can and should be objectively measured and fail every time. Those attempts and others liked them should be vigorously challenged because, as we all know, that kind of thinking gave us some of the worst crimes against humanity in history.

When we place unnecessary emphasis on the objective reality of our experience at the cost of understanding ourselves, we also do a disservice to our culture and our ability to survive as a species. There is ample evidence of a whole world that constitutes an interior life unique to each of us. If you want proof, just ask yourself if you're in there. Anybody else who tries to tell you what you experience inside your own head is actually attempting the impossible and doing you a disservice.

If someone hits you in the face with a pie, you will have knowledge of two things: You have been hit with a pie, and you are pissed off. Both, as far as you are concerned, are facts beyond dispute. Only one can be measured empirically, but both are equally important.

[skepticscott]

52. Can someone "know"

that the earth was created in six days, six thousand years ago? Is that "knowledge"? If a psychic "knows" that a missing child's body is buried in the woods somewhere, when the child is actually still alive, is that "knowledge"? If yes, then of what value is your definition of "knowledge" or "knowing"? Of what value is it if it fails to distinguish the most deluded and irrational beliefs and subjective feelings from the most thoroughly verified objective facts? Of what value is it if it can't even distinguish what you know from what you think you know?

[rrneck]

58. It is of great value

if it prompts you to go find out. Every scientific discovery began with a hypothesis. What prompts the hypothesis? That's the chicken or the egg question that drives us all. It's what being human is all about. We know about as much, and as little, about what is going on inside of us as what is going on outside of us. For every scientist there is a psychiatrist. For every architect there is an artist. Our exploration is ongoing both within and without. Belief is only proof of itself, and that's all it has to be. Or can be.

We can know that we want to know. And only we can know we want to know it. Stupidity is just self inflicted ignorance.

[skepticscott]

60. Except that under your definition

it DOESN'T prompt you to go find out, since you already are convinced you "know" something. The psychic and fundamentalist I mentioned aren't going to "go find out" anything, since they're already convinced they have the ultimate truth in their back pocket.

So I guess you're saying that in reality, your definition is of no value. The rest of what you're saying seems to make no sense at all in the context of this issue.

[rrneck]

67. Well, there is that whole free will thing.

The reason you don't hear about psychics that have found out differently is because they aren't psychics any more. The psychic and the fundamentalist you mentioned are one dimensional caricatures because their motivations don't conform to your definition of knowledge. Maybe they are motivated by something other than understanding of the world around them. Some call it money. Others call it power. Like I said, stupidity is just self inflicted ignorance.

If you want proof of what I'm talking about, just ask yourself if you're in there. I have every reason to believe you are not a Turing machine. Why are you posting here? Instinct? What do you think gets Richard Dawkins out of bed every morning? He's not a Vulcan. To find out, you would have to get to know him - personally. As a human being with a world inside of him. Maybe he cares deeply about truth and an accurate understanding of the world around us. Maybe he is outraged at the damage fundamentalist religion is inflicting on our culture. Maybe he's found a way to sell a helluva lot of books. I expect it's a combination of all three reasons and who knows how many more.

The last thing I want to do is insult or annoy you. You haven't done anything to deserve it and if I do so I apologize in advance. But this whole "other way of knowing" issue is starting to look like a blinkered dogma that denies great swaths of the world around us because it isn't designed to deal with it. The earth isn't six thousand years old and every man, woman, and child on this planet has self consciousnesses that compels them to do whatever it is they do, right, wrong, wise, or foolish.

There are exactly as many "other ways of knowing" as there are people. If you want a definition of what that may be or what it is supposed to find out, you'll have to get to know each one of them. Personally.

I need an editor.

[Nihil]

141. Picking up on one point here ...

> If a psychic "knows" that a missing child's body is buried in the woods
> somewhere, when the child is actually still alive, is that "knowledge"?

I suspect that this is "knowledge that is subsequently found to be incorrect"
(in a like manner how previous "knowledge" is superceded by more accurate
"knowledge" in astronomy, physics or any other subject).


How about the inverse:
If a psychic "knows" that a missing child's body is buried in the woods
somewhere, when the child is missing, is that "knowledge"? (A)

How about when the psychic marks out the exact point & depth on a map for
the police? (B)

How about when the police arrive at the point and start digging? (C)

(I presume that the trivial case of "after the police find the body as stated"
(D) need not be questioned.)

Are you claiming that there is no "knowledge" right up to the point where
the body is discovered?

:shrug:

To my mind, the knowledge at point A is comparable to a "working hypothesis",
a qualified guess that can be proven/disproven by the subsequent stages
(B = transmission of information to others,
C = investigation/objective validation process
& D = confirmation).

The exact mechanism may not be known but the facts match up.


(Edited to clarify the penultimate paragraph.)

[skepticscott]

53. You'll be happy to know

that this has been blessed by everyone's favorite hit-and-run artist as a "good" post and a "thoughtful" post. However not, apparently, one which he feels like making a direct, meaningful response to.

[Boojatta]

76. I try to communicate clearly.

Sometimes I have an idea in mind, and it occurs to me that it's going to be difficult to express it clearly. Why not find a substitute that is easier to express? In my experience, if there's a good substitute, then I hadn't done enough thinking and wasn't ready to put my thoughts into words. If there isn't a good substitute, then it's better to go with the original and be willing to make the effort to express the original idea in words, rather than bake a cake of a message with what looks like sugar, but might actually be salt.

What happens when you try to get past the promotion of vagueness as a virtue, past carelessly or deliberately slippery word usage, or confusing the flexibility of words with flexibility of the meanings and intents behind those words?

[Angry Dragon]

93. I know that posts like this serve no purpose

[Silent3]

94. It has at the very least been entertaining

That's a purpose. :)

For myself, this this thread served a purpose in forcing me to organize my thoughts on the concept of knowledge and its relationship to objective verification in a more coherent and unified form than I've done before. Although it's not all that terribly long a post I spent more than a week poking at it on and off trying to settle on the best way to express what I was trying to say.

For people reading this thread who basically agree with me, I'd like to think that I may have assisted them in clarifying their own thoughts on this matter, and perhaps that I've provided them some material they might be able to use in their own arguments in the future.

If you imagine that a purpose is only served by a thread like this when an argument immediately and clearly sways people who had previously disagreed to agree, I can see where the conclusion that "no purpose" has been served might come from. As I see it, however, directly and immediately viewable mind-changing is a rare event no matter what the issue or argument. People do change their minds, however, even if it seldom happens right before your eyes, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that when one presents an argument like this, and hopefully does it well, that it might someday be among an array of factors which contribute to an eventual change of mind. That's good enough a purpose for me.

While I didn't consider it a likely outcome, I did expose myself to the opportunity of having my own mind changed. That's a good purpose too.

[Angry Dragon]

95. As long as you had fun

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

Have a nice day

[trotsky]

122. I thought it was one of the best attempts to grapple with this subject I've seen in R/T.

Thanks for trying.

[Silent3]

137. Considering that the most engaged attempt...

...to dispute my OP had to devolve into providing a definition of knowledge that treats any feeling or thought or idea whatsoever as knowledge, not even denying that the thought of Millard Fillmore being the first human on the moon would have to count as "knowledge", I'd say the thread has been pretty successful. When people have to sink that low and then can't or won't answer for it, it's the closest one ever comes to winning a debate like this, as it's nearly unheard of for anyone to simply admit they're wrong.

[rrneck]

138. Did you qualify your own self awareness yet?

[Silent3]

139. Ah, Magritte

As much as I need to when dealing with lazy and dishonest debaters with no substantive case of their own, or with people who think they can win an argument by being so dickish that a person doesn't want to deal with them any more, people whose standard appears to be that, unless I answer every question on their terms while not daring to expect anything in return, I'm then deemed "cornered".

For such people I have no patience, but I will provide for them a generous share of contempt.

[rrneck]

140. Ah Fillmore

Actually did get him on the moon. Will wonders never cease.