Science doesn't explain, scientists explain what the data means, science is the data demonstrated.
Stating that limits prevent unlimited things ignores the properties of the infinite. You can have an infinite thing contained within 3 centimetres if you wanted.
« Science doesn't explain, scientists explain what the data means »
Explanations that come in the form of hypotheses and theories, and are collectively known under the name 'science'. Science is the word we use for the process as well as for the results of that process.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Science doesn't explain, it demonstrates.
Science always produces the real result, regardless of how much the experimenter likes it or not.
Also, there is no absolute certainty, The Uncertainty Principle is a real demonstrable effect which disables absolute knowledge.
... What does that even *mean*!? Certainly science cannot produce anything like "the absolute truth". Science can only ever result in explanatory claims that are consistent with observation. If the observational data is limited - and it ALWAYS IS - then so will the accuracy of the explanatory model be, and much to the same degree.
« there is no absolute certainty, The Uncertainty Principle »
Even without the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle there would still not be absolute certainty. Our knowledge of reality is limited to the extent that we can establish independently verifiable observational data. Science is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about our observations of reality.
Knowing seems like a word that is commonly misunderstood and misused. It's too often used by religious people who wish to describe their relations to their faith or god, or whatever. "To perceive or understand as fact or truth", i.e. whatever is in your mind that is labelled as fact or truth.
Knowing there is evidence, knowing there is consensus over the evidence plus having a memory of checking the validity of the evidence, is however something totally different.
« Knowing there is evidence, knowing there is consensus over the evidence plus having a memory of checking the validity of the evidence, is however something totally different. »
@XGralgrathor Well, to me, knowing should be about the actual state of things or at least an approximation. And to really Know something is true, one would have to have some kind of evidence to show for it, or being able to refer to a report. But then, one should also have to check if it's good evidence? And I guess here comes the part where you check (forming a memory for later) if it's peer reviewed and cited in other papers, if it's not refuted then I guess there is some form of consensus.
I guess it could be a list of all the people you ever had sex with *chuckle*.
In all seriousness though. "Believe" could be translated to "Confidence or faith in an assumption". Knowing could be.. a 'stronger' form of belief, a belief where you think you have understood the 'facts' in a given area, in a given paradigm. Knowing is of course subjective, we will probably never be able to see the world as it 'is', because that would require us to be omnipotent and omniscient.
@XGralgrathor I guess I thought about believing in a more general sense. For example, I believe I'm the son of my parents, I don't know though, because I haven't looked at any of the documents related to it. But I feel confident in that it's probably true and I would seriously be wasting my time trying to find out.
As for religious belief.. I guess there are different kinds of belief. Fundamentalists (maybe Theologians too) would state that they 'know'. More liberal would say they just believe.
@XGralgrathor But believe and belief are probably quite misused and misunderstood words too. Like UFO 'believers', it's more likely that they feel they 'know' UFO's come to Earth often. So maybe it's that people think there's just a thin line between knowing and believing because there are so many people that just throw them out like they are synonymous. I don't know if you've seen the movie Religulous, but there's an interview with a televangelist that just Knows Jesus was a rich man, hilarious
« Knowing could be.. a 'stronger' form of belief, a belief where you think you have understood the 'facts' in a given area, in a given paradigm. Knowing is of course subjective, we will probably never be able to see the world as it 'is' »
Yes, exactly. You thought this over. This is the kind of insight that I was hoping to hear from some of the fundamentalist christians out there, who think that their knowing something makes it an undeniable truth.
Knowledge of Christ. Christ possessed by virtue of the Hypostatic Union a twofold knowledge: divine knowledge as God and human knowledge as man.
The one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from created things by the natural light of human reason (Vat. Council, Sess. III, De-revel.,
Knowledge is a charismatic gift mentioned by St. Paul, whereby a Christian has a more perfect understanding of the ordinary and necessary truths of religion, together with the ability to explain them to others. This knowledge is partial and imperfect, because it is based upon faith, but it will disappear when we attain the state of perfection in heaven. This knowledge is also distinct from the charismatic gift of wisdom.
« It means that your understanding is consistent with the reality »
Doesn't have to be. 10.000 years ago, it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat. 5.000 years ago, it was common knowledge that the sun circled the Earth. 200 years ago, it was common knowledge that the universe was static, rather than expanding or imploding.
{10k years ago it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat - 5k years ago it was common knowledge that the sun circled the Earth}
Such things were incorrectly believed to be knowledge. However, more accurately described, they were in fact, "common misconceptions"
Today, it is common knowledge that the Earth possesses the form of a sphere. We posses the knowledge of that this is not a misconception. We posses the knowledge of that future discovery won't reveal this to be error
« Such things were incorrectly believed to be knowledge »
Knowing something is more or less (again, there's some discussion in philosophical circles) having a justifiable belief. Some things are believed now that wil ultimately be demonstrated false to those who believe them.
So, if you know something to be true, what does that ultimately mean? That it must be true? No: knowledge is a belief, and you may be wrong.
You're making the mistake of coupling "knowledge" to other factors pertaining to man. Instead, consider "knowledge" independent of anything else. There cannot exist a reality in which nothing is reality. Whatever the state of existence may be, that is the existent reality. Therefor, there must exist absolute facts... whatever they may be. They exist as facts, independent of man's perceptions. It is irrelevant whether or not man
possesses knowledge of those facts, either way, they still exist as facts. Thus, if & when man does come to possess the knowledge of those facts, they are not made subjective or a matter of inconclusive belief, simply because man has come to possess them. But rather, they remain absolute facts which have come to be known & that is "knowledge"
This is a merely a matter of semantics because if you wish to consider perceptions that may be falsified or corrected at some future time, then one can
say that they are inaccurately called "knowledge". Rather, they would more accurately be called inaccurate beliefs, misconceptions, speculation, presuppositions, deceptions, delusions etc.
This is a rather silly debate in which to engage, amongst those who claim to understand scientific matters. It is the reason why there exists a particular process within science. First, a hypothesis is constructed. This is not knowledge, but an educated assumption based upon things known. Then, if the
hypothesis cannot be explained to be implausible, in light of known facts, it is attributed with theory status. This is still not knowledge, but something possessing the realistic potential to be knowledge, due to the inability to reasonably explain its implausibility
Finally, as a proper scientific theory, it qualifies for having the "scientific method" applied to it. Subjecting the theory to the method may produce the evidence which proves it to be empirical fact. Now man may possess the
knowledge of that absolute truth. "Empirical" is simply synonymous to "absolute"
To consider examples in which something was previously believed to be absolute fact, but was later falsified, does not refute what I have presented. It merely reveals that there have existed occasions in which man mistakenly concluded to have possessed factual knowledge, regarding a particular matter. Thus, it doesn't alter the description of "knowledge" as being an understanding that is consistent with reality
« We posses the knowledge of that future discovery won't reveal this to be error »
Actually, we possess the knowledge that the chances of our discovering otherwise are slim, just like we know the chances of our discovering the heliocentric model of the solar system, evolutionary theory and relativity theory (at least, within its scope of application) to be fundamentally flawed are slim. Doesn't mean it's impossible. There are no absolutes.
{we know the chances of our discovering evolutionary theory to be fundamentally flawed are slim}
To have began that statement with the words; "we know", is an example of incorrectly believing to possess knowledge of the reality of a particular matter. Rather than knowledge, what you have is a misconception. This is a fact, of which, I possess the knowledge
It is uncontested that bacterial viruses mutate frequently & to a great degree (the morphological change is to the entire
organism) However, according to Evo theory, it would be necessarily true that today's viruses would have an ancestral history consisting of an unbroken string of single cell organisms going all the way back to the theorized, first existent organisms
That would mean that ever since the time of the earliest organisms on Earth, bacterial viruses would have been mutating with the ability to do it frequently & to a great degree, during the entire time which has lead to the present. Yet, they have
remained single cell, bacterial viruses during the entire theorized period of billions of years. Despite the many years & frequent mutation of great degrees, viruses have merely achieved micro-evolution, i.e. variation
Also, if a environmental change threatened all of Earths lifeforms with extinction & if only 1 lifeform were to survive, it would be the single celled bacteria. This can be determined from bacteria's extremely proficient ability to perpetuate themselves. That while all other
lifeforms are occupied with surviving, bacteria are perpetuating themselves within other organisms, on them, in their food & water, in the air at all levels of the atmosphere, on land & sea & they're currently even living within & eating the street on which you reside. They've been discovered to sustain themselves on asphalt. Evolutionists have mistakenly believed that facts such as bacteria's consumption of asphalt & nylon, are supportive of evolutionary theory. In fact, they're evidence to the
contrary because they are amongst the reasons why bacteria are the "KINGS OF SURVIVAL"
However, according to Evo theory, being that bacteria are single cell organisms, they should possess the least degree of survivability. Otherwise, "St. Simian Selection of the Tree Descension" certainly would have vainly toiled much & caused a unfathomably great deal of counter productive morphological change within all other lifeforms... considering that the earliest physiological form of single cell is best
You should more carefully contemplate that statement. It is a statement, of which, you assert its validity... in absolute terms
It is not possible for man to be a true "Relativist"... unless he be a vegetable or he form absolutely no opinions, regarding absolutely all matters. All persons form opinions precisely because they believe those particular opinions to be absolutely true. To consider this assertion to be incorrect, would merely imply the
existence of imbecilic persons that subscribe to views, of which, their validity is doubted by those persons
Not to mention the fact that to consider my position to be incorrect, must necessarily be derived from possessing a differing, particular view which is believed to be correct. If that differing view is believed to be anything less than absolute truth, then considering my position to be incorrect, is derived from irrational, illogical thought
In short, any person that asserts the validity of "Relativism", should never assert that a "Absolutist" is incorrect... for that is in itself, contrary to relativism. Thus, a relativists best & wisest argument is presented by remaining silent... although it still wouldn't validate his view, but merely spare him any embarrassment
@XGralgrathor an apple is red...but it doesnt mean that everything thats red is an apple...money ,and time is also power..and so is knowledge coz with it u have a distinct superiority over those who dont posses it...and by d way..money can never be time..but time can be money...
Your question is a classical question of both logic and philosophy which has been categorized as epistemology. How do we know what we know? How do we know that we know it? A comment in youtube would be insufficient to answer or begin to discuss it. Yet in epistemology there has been basically 4 classifications by which we know what we know. Sensory, analytically/logically, allegorically, and for the life of me I am forgetting what the 4th one is :)
@D34dH053 All knowledge is demonstrable. But how it is demonstrated is a matter of classification. There is knowledge which is demonstrated by observation and experience of the senses. There is knowledge which is demonstrated by the rules of logic and mathematics. There is knowledge that is demonstrated by the language of analogy. etc.
@D34dH053 Let me suggest that you take the time and read some formal works on logic and philosophy that deal with the area of epistemology. This way you might understand what I am trying to say.
"Let me suggest that you take the time and read some formal works on logic and philosophy that deal with the area of epistemology."
_
Let me suggest that you don;t prejudice others. Alright?
____
"This way you might understand what I am trying to say."
_
I understand what you are saying, however there is not one philosopher I have read that describes knowledge as something that cannot be demonstrated. (Kirkham, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Gettier, even Plato)
I would say that as a belief all knowledge is *justifiable*, and that in the case of scientific knowledge the justification is that it can be independently verified. But "scientific knowledge" is already one layer of abstraction removed from the kind of knowledge I am really interested in: what a person actually means when he says "I know".
(Mind you, this is not an argument for or against certain beliefs - I am simply interested in the philosophy of knowledge)
@D34dH053 One can look at a woman and by the senses observe beauty. To know that she is beautiful by the methods and rules of logic would be demonstrated in an entirely different matter than by one's senses-though to some degree they may contribute to it. Then there is the problem of definition of what is beauty. Where the methods of analogy would be employed that might describe her by various attributes, i.e., that her skin is soft like rose petals, etc.
"To know that she is beautiful by .. would be demonstrated in an ..."
_
Actually, you would believe she is beautiful, and not possess colloquial knowledge that she is. You would have personal knowledge which could be demonstrated by simple questions: i.e."What about her makes her seem beautiful? What would make her seem less beautiful?"
___
"Then there is the problem of definition of what is beauty."
_
No. It's a subjective label we apply to things that please our senses.
I believe the earth is an oblate spheroid not because I've done measurements, I rely on the peer reviewed examinations that led to this observation becoming a fact. It's either true or the scientific community is making meaningless lies for fun.. That is extremely unlikely.
Not necessarily, for me yes, my standards of evidence don't compel me to bust out a compass and measure shadows to determine that we orbit the sun, I take it on faith. For me it's faith, for a scientist who knows by experimentation it's knowledge.. but science always has a possibility of error.. I don't claim to know anything to be absolutely true.. We are limited by our senses.
Would you then say that to have knowledge of something implies a certain level of trust in the means by which that which you have knowledge about was established?
Nothing at all is completely justifiable, we can agree upon certain concepts, like morality, but there's no objective truths or knowledge except those concerning the mechanism of nature, even that is only to an extent.. We can always believe we are justified in thinking the way we do but not one person knows why life is happening in the first place so everything is a mystery.
Knowledge is the accumulation of subjectively interpreted facts, as far as I'm concerned. To "know" is to believe based on the presented evidence or lack there-of.
But faithless really is another way to say that you have good reasons for having a particular belief - that you are justified in having that belief by those reasons.
"But faithless really is another way to say that you have good reasons for having a particular belief - that you are justified in having that belief by those reasons."
_
But the "justification" in "faithless" is grounded by something that is demonstrable. Where as calling it "justified" can mean arbitrary meanings.
Some people might consider their desires "justification" to believe something. Desire hardly equates to knowledge.
"Some people might consider their desires "justification" to believe something."
_
In my opinion:
"Justified" is too loose of a term to attribute to a concept that. regardless of how we define it, always holds a constant construct; knowledge is demonstrable.
Many people hold the opinion that their beliefs are justified because they want to believe them. That they are justified because of their flawed human perception. That they are justified because someone else believes them..etc...
True. But most things that are demonstrable have not been demonstrated by you. Nor are you willing to demonstrate everything before calling it knowledge. So at some point your justification for calling a belief knowledge is going to shift from the principle of verifiability to a trust in the demonstrable accuracy of the method by which the knowledge was established.
"True. But most things that are demonstrable have not been demonstrated by you."
_
They don't have to be.
"Nor are you willing to demonstrate everything before calling it knowledge."
_
I just have to accept that it can be demonstrated to a sufficient level equivalent to the claim. Again, we are back toying with "justification" as a worthless subjective term.
Anything that has the capacity to be demonstrated by anyone, regardless of belief system,has the capacity to be known.
Remember that we're not talking about some abstract concept of knowledge, such as the knowledge that has been gathered by science over the ages, but the specific concept of knowledge as something that exists in *your* mind. The kind of knowledge that is implicit in the statement "*I* know that the Earth is round".
"So at some point your justification for calling a belief knowledge is going to shift from the principle of verifiability to a trust in the demonstrable accuracy of the method..."
_
Verifiability resides solely in the method of demonstration itself. If someone comes up and shows me a magic trick, a demonstration "has" been accomplished. But, the method did not explain, nor validate, what I saw, therefore I cannot hold knowledge of the event. I agree with you to a point.
"In which case, could either of us justifiably claim to "know"?"
_
We might be capable of knowing small bits of situational knowledge, depending on our accounts and how drunk we were. But, even sober, our perception is flawed. Which is why police grab statements from many people during any accident or crime. If one person was capable of knowing everything about a situation, police would only require 1 witness during a trail when many had seen an event.
Ultimately all knowledge is confined to language-by which such knowledge is communicated-whether internally in ourselves or externally among others. Therefore the first experience of knowledge-whatever knowledge may be-must have a basis by which to experience it. For lack of better term-that basis is to be called language-which is a world of discussion in itself. But notice how language is used without exception when discovering and/or sharing knowledge.
Thus having a workable language system by which we might avoid confusion-which is counterproductive to knowledge-is of chief importance. There for definition of terms, of semantics, of grammar are crucial if any beneficial discovery is to be obtained. We must have some kind of absolutes, otherwise there will be only confusion in the exchange. Is there such a language that illustrates the basics of sound communication? What about mathematics?
« therefore I cannot hold knowledge of the event »
An interesting analogy: the magic trick. You'll agree with me that when somebody performs a trick that has no apparent explanation, you nevertheless *know* it is a trick, and not "real magic". This is the kind of knowledge I want to explore.
'You'll agree with me that when somebody performs a trick that has no apparent explanation, you nevertheless *know* it is a trick, and not "real magic"."
_
Well, they actually only can believe it's a magic trick until they have the capacity to demonstrate that what they saw was a slight of hand or another illusion. But, even without knowledge of the details and methods used, the viewer "knows" they saw an event.
The real result is based in the reality.
Science doesn't explain, scientists explain what the data means, science is the data demonstrated.
Stating that limits prevent unlimited things ignores the properties of the infinite. You can have an infinite thing contained within 3 centimetres if you wanted.
MarxIzalias 7 months ago
« Science doesn't explain, scientists explain what the data means »
Explanations that come in the form of hypotheses and theories, and are collectively known under the name 'science'. Science is the word we use for the process as well as for the results of that process.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
Read a dictionary.
knowledge |ˈnɒlɪdʒ|
noun
1 facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject
• what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
2 awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
MarxIzalias 7 months ago
« awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation »
Yes, and that is an inroad to the kind of knowledge I am looking to define.
Some people, for instance, demand that science produce absolute certainties. But don't the nature of knowledge and "absolute certainty" contradict?
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
@XGralgrathor
science |ˈsʌɪəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Science doesn't explain, it demonstrates.
Science always produces the real result, regardless of how much the experimenter likes it or not.
Also, there is no absolute certainty, The Uncertainty Principle is a real demonstrable effect which disables absolute knowledge.
MarxIzalias 7 months ago
« Science doesn't explain, it demonstrates »
Science can only demonstrate the accuracy of its explanations, in terms of how well its explanations match available observational data.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
« Science always produces the real result »
... What does that even *mean*!? Certainly science cannot produce anything like "the absolute truth". Science can only ever result in explanatory claims that are consistent with observation. If the observational data is limited - and it ALWAYS IS - then so will the accuracy of the explanatory model be, and much to the same degree.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
« there is no absolute certainty, The Uncertainty Principle »
Even without the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle there would still not be absolute certainty. Our knowledge of reality is limited to the extent that we can establish independently verifiable observational data. Science is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about our observations of reality.
XGralgrathor 7 months ago
Cont.
Knowing seems like a word that is commonly misunderstood and misused. It's too often used by religious people who wish to describe their relations to their faith or god, or whatever. "To perceive or understand as fact or truth", i.e. whatever is in your mind that is labelled as fact or truth.
Knowing there is evidence, knowing there is consensus over the evidence plus having a memory of checking the validity of the evidence, is however something totally different.
DukeTwicep 8 months ago
« Knowing there is evidence, knowing there is consensus over the evidence plus having a memory of checking the validity of the evidence, is however something totally different. »
Could you elaborate on that?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor Well, to me, knowing should be about the actual state of things or at least an approximation. And to really Know something is true, one would have to have some kind of evidence to show for it, or being able to refer to a report. But then, one should also have to check if it's good evidence? And I guess here comes the part where you check (forming a memory for later) if it's peer reviewed and cited in other papers, if it's not refuted then I guess there is some form of consensus.
DukeTwicep 8 months ago
I guess it could be a list of all the people you ever had sex with *chuckle*.
In all seriousness though. "Believe" could be translated to "Confidence or faith in an assumption". Knowing could be.. a 'stronger' form of belief, a belief where you think you have understood the 'facts' in a given area, in a given paradigm. Knowing is of course subjective, we will probably never be able to see the world as it 'is', because that would require us to be omnipotent and omniscient.
Cont.
DukeTwicep 8 months ago
« "Believe" could be translated to "Confidence or faith in an assumption" »
Okay, that's an interesting definition. I'll have to think it over for a while.
Are you talking about a particular type of "belief" here? Religious belief, for instance? Or just belief in general?
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor I guess I thought about believing in a more general sense. For example, I believe I'm the son of my parents, I don't know though, because I haven't looked at any of the documents related to it. But I feel confident in that it's probably true and I would seriously be wasting my time trying to find out.
As for religious belief.. I guess there are different kinds of belief. Fundamentalists (maybe Theologians too) would state that they 'know'. More liberal would say they just believe.
DukeTwicep 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor But believe and belief are probably quite misused and misunderstood words too. Like UFO 'believers', it's more likely that they feel they 'know' UFO's come to Earth often. So maybe it's that people think there's just a thin line between knowing and believing because there are so many people that just throw them out like they are synonymous. I don't know if you've seen the movie Religulous, but there's an interview with a televangelist that just Knows Jesus was a rich man, hilarious
DukeTwicep 8 months ago
« Knowing could be.. a 'stronger' form of belief, a belief where you think you have understood the 'facts' in a given area, in a given paradigm. Knowing is of course subjective, we will probably never be able to see the world as it 'is' »
Yes, exactly. You thought this over. This is the kind of insight that I was hoping to hear from some of the fundamentalist christians out there, who think that their knowing something makes it an undeniable truth.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor So, what is truth?
DukeTwicep 8 months ago
The whole universe and all history revolve around one central event: the Incarnation.
kevfal 10 months ago
Knowledge of Christ. Christ possessed by virtue of the Hypostatic Union a twofold knowledge: divine knowledge as God and human knowledge as man.
The one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from created things by the natural light of human reason (Vat. Council, Sess. III, De-revel.,
kevfal 10 months ago
Knowledge is a charismatic gift mentioned by St. Paul, whereby a Christian has a more perfect understanding of the ordinary and necessary truths of religion, together with the ability to explain them to others. This knowledge is partial and imperfect, because it is based upon faith, but it will disappear when we attain the state of perfection in heaven. This knowledge is also distinct from the charismatic gift of wisdom.
kevfal 10 months ago
« Knowledge is a charismatic gift »
Yeah, you can stop there. When I want meaningless nonsense, I'll go watch a Monty Python video. It's more entertaining too.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
It means that your understanding is consistent with the reality, regarding the particular subject matter in question
Or it can be said that your perception of a particular matter, is accurate
To "know" can mean that you possess the awareness of the existence or the occurrence of something
Chuichupachichi 11 months ago
« It means that your understanding is consistent with the reality »
Doesn't have to be. 10.000 years ago, it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat. 5.000 years ago, it was common knowledge that the sun circled the Earth. 200 years ago, it was common knowledge that the universe was static, rather than expanding or imploding.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
@XGralgrathor
{10k years ago it was common knowledge that the Earth was flat - 5k years ago it was common knowledge that the sun circled the Earth}
Such things were incorrectly believed to be knowledge. However, more accurately described, they were in fact, "common misconceptions"
Today, it is common knowledge that the Earth possesses the form of a sphere. We posses the knowledge of that this is not a misconception. We posses the knowledge of that future discovery won't reveal this to be error
Chuichupachichi 10 months ago
« Such things were incorrectly believed to be knowledge »
Knowing something is more or less (again, there's some discussion in philosophical circles) having a justifiable belief. Some things are believed now that wil ultimately be demonstrated false to those who believe them.
So, if you know something to be true, what does that ultimately mean? That it must be true? No: knowledge is a belief, and you may be wrong.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
{knowledge is a belief, and you may be wrong}
You're making the mistake of coupling "knowledge" to other factors pertaining to man. Instead, consider "knowledge" independent of anything else. There cannot exist a reality in which nothing is reality. Whatever the state of existence may be, that is the existent reality. Therefor, there must exist absolute facts... whatever they may be. They exist as facts, independent of man's perceptions. It is irrelevant whether or not man
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
possesses knowledge of those facts, either way, they still exist as facts. Thus, if & when man does come to possess the knowledge of those facts, they are not made subjective or a matter of inconclusive belief, simply because man has come to possess them. But rather, they remain absolute facts which have come to be known & that is "knowledge"
This is a merely a matter of semantics because if you wish to consider perceptions that may be falsified or corrected at some future time, then one can
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
say that they are inaccurately called "knowledge". Rather, they would more accurately be called inaccurate beliefs, misconceptions, speculation, presuppositions, deceptions, delusions etc.
This is a rather silly debate in which to engage, amongst those who claim to understand scientific matters. It is the reason why there exists a particular process within science. First, a hypothesis is constructed. This is not knowledge, but an educated assumption based upon things known. Then, if the
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
hypothesis cannot be explained to be implausible, in light of known facts, it is attributed with theory status. This is still not knowledge, but something possessing the realistic potential to be knowledge, due to the inability to reasonably explain its implausibility
Finally, as a proper scientific theory, it qualifies for having the "scientific method" applied to it. Subjecting the theory to the method may produce the evidence which proves it to be empirical fact. Now man may possess the
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
knowledge of that absolute truth. "Empirical" is simply synonymous to "absolute"
To consider examples in which something was previously believed to be absolute fact, but was later falsified, does not refute what I have presented. It merely reveals that there have existed occasions in which man mistakenly concluded to have possessed factual knowledge, regarding a particular matter. Thus, it doesn't alter the description of "knowledge" as being an understanding that is consistent with reality
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
« We posses the knowledge of that future discovery won't reveal this to be error »
Actually, we possess the knowledge that the chances of our discovering otherwise are slim, just like we know the chances of our discovering the heliocentric model of the solar system, evolutionary theory and relativity theory (at least, within its scope of application) to be fundamentally flawed are slim. Doesn't mean it's impossible. There are no absolutes.
XGralgrathor 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
{we know the chances of our discovering evolutionary theory to be fundamentally flawed are slim}
To have began that statement with the words; "we know", is an example of incorrectly believing to possess knowledge of the reality of a particular matter. Rather than knowledge, what you have is a misconception. This is a fact, of which, I possess the knowledge
It is uncontested that bacterial viruses mutate frequently & to a great degree (the morphological change is to the entire
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
organism) However, according to Evo theory, it would be necessarily true that today's viruses would have an ancestral history consisting of an unbroken string of single cell organisms going all the way back to the theorized, first existent organisms
That would mean that ever since the time of the earliest organisms on Earth, bacterial viruses would have been mutating with the ability to do it frequently & to a great degree, during the entire time which has lead to the present. Yet, they have
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
remained single cell, bacterial viruses during the entire theorized period of billions of years. Despite the many years & frequent mutation of great degrees, viruses have merely achieved micro-evolution, i.e. variation
Also, if a environmental change threatened all of Earths lifeforms with extinction & if only 1 lifeform were to survive, it would be the single celled bacteria. This can be determined from bacteria's extremely proficient ability to perpetuate themselves. That while all other
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
lifeforms are occupied with surviving, bacteria are perpetuating themselves within other organisms, on them, in their food & water, in the air at all levels of the atmosphere, on land & sea & they're currently even living within & eating the street on which you reside. They've been discovered to sustain themselves on asphalt. Evolutionists have mistakenly believed that facts such as bacteria's consumption of asphalt & nylon, are supportive of evolutionary theory. In fact, they're evidence to the
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
contrary because they are amongst the reasons why bacteria are the "KINGS OF SURVIVAL"
However, according to Evo theory, being that bacteria are single cell organisms, they should possess the least degree of survivability. Otherwise, "St. Simian Selection of the Tree Descension" certainly would have vainly toiled much & caused a unfathomably great deal of counter productive morphological change within all other lifeforms... considering that the earliest physiological form of single cell is best
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
@XGralgrathor
{There are no absolutes}
You should more carefully contemplate that statement. It is a statement, of which, you assert its validity... in absolute terms
It is not possible for man to be a true "Relativist"... unless he be a vegetable or he form absolutely no opinions, regarding absolutely all matters. All persons form opinions precisely because they believe those particular opinions to be absolutely true. To consider this assertion to be incorrect, would merely imply the
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
existence of imbecilic persons that subscribe to views, of which, their validity is doubted by those persons
Not to mention the fact that to consider my position to be incorrect, must necessarily be derived from possessing a differing, particular view which is believed to be correct. If that differing view is believed to be anything less than absolute truth, then considering my position to be incorrect, is derived from irrational, illogical thought
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
In short, any person that asserts the validity of "Relativism", should never assert that a "Absolutist" is incorrect... for that is in itself, contrary to relativism. Thus, a relativists best & wisest argument is presented by remaining silent... although it still wouldn't validate his view, but merely spare him any embarrassment
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
knowledge is power. :p
charcoal777 1 year ago
« knowledge is power »
Money is power. Money is time. So knowledge is time. And time is power. This is fun! Another!
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Comment removed
charcoal777 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor an apple is red...but it doesnt mean that everything thats red is an apple...money ,and time is also power..and so is knowledge coz with it u have a distinct superiority over those who dont posses it...and by d way..money can never be time..but time can be money...
charcoal777 1 year ago
« money can never be time »
Of course it can. Never heard the phrase "buying time"?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
Your question is a classical question of both logic and philosophy which has been categorized as epistemology. How do we know what we know? How do we know that we know it? A comment in youtube would be insufficient to answer or begin to discuss it. Yet in epistemology there has been basically 4 classifications by which we know what we know. Sensory, analytically/logically, allegorically, and for the life of me I am forgetting what the 4th one is :)
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain
"How do we know what we know? How do we know that we know it?"
_
Demonstration of that knowledge.
_____
" there has been basically 4 classifications by which we know what we know"
_
All knowledge is demonstrable.
D34dH053 1 year ago
@D34dH053 All knowledge is demonstrable. But how it is demonstrated is a matter of classification. There is knowledge which is demonstrated by observation and experience of the senses. There is knowledge which is demonstrated by the rules of logic and mathematics. There is knowledge that is demonstrated by the language of analogy. etc.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@Hermit
"But how it is demonstrated is a matter of classification"
_
Actually demonstration would have to be sufficient to satisfy the classification of the claimed knowledge:
i.e. Knowledge from observation: test description against verifiable observation using checklists, etc.
Knowledge from math/logic: apply rules of logic and math to claims of knowledge. pass=knowledge held.
Knowledge is not demonstrable through analogy for many reasons: major reason: one repeating what someone else said
D34dH053 1 year ago
@D34dH053 Let me suggest that you take the time and read some formal works on logic and philosophy that deal with the area of epistemology. This way you might understand what I am trying to say.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain
"Let me suggest that you take the time and read some formal works on logic and philosophy that deal with the area of epistemology."
_
Let me suggest that you don;t prejudice others. Alright?
____
"This way you might understand what I am trying to say."
_
I understand what you are saying, however there is not one philosopher I have read that describes knowledge as something that cannot be demonstrated. (Kirkham, Wittgenstein, Kripke, Gettier, even Plato)
D34dH053 1 year ago
« knowledge is demonstrable »
I would say that as a belief all knowledge is *justifiable*, and that in the case of scientific knowledge the justification is that it can be independently verified. But "scientific knowledge" is already one layer of abstraction removed from the kind of knowledge I am really interested in: what a person actually means when he says "I know".
(Mind you, this is not an argument for or against certain beliefs - I am simply interested in the philosophy of knowledge)
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@D34dH053 One can look at a woman and by the senses observe beauty. To know that she is beautiful by the methods and rules of logic would be demonstrated in an entirely different matter than by one's senses-though to some degree they may contribute to it. Then there is the problem of definition of what is beauty. Where the methods of analogy would be employed that might describe her by various attributes, i.e., that her skin is soft like rose petals, etc.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain
"To know that she is beautiful by .. would be demonstrated in an ..."
_
Actually, you would believe she is beautiful, and not possess colloquial knowledge that she is. You would have personal knowledge which could be demonstrated by simple questions: i.e."What about her makes her seem beautiful? What would make her seem less beautiful?"
___
"Then there is the problem of definition of what is beauty."
_
No. It's a subjective label we apply to things that please our senses.
D34dH053 1 year ago
I believe the earth is an oblate spheroid not because I've done measurements, I rely on the peer reviewed examinations that led to this observation becoming a fact. It's either true or the scientific community is making meaningless lies for fun.. That is extremely unlikely.
fetalbetal 2 years ago
« That is extremely unlikely »
So knowledge can be based on the fact that any alternative is extremely unlikely?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Not necessarily, for me yes, my standards of evidence don't compel me to bust out a compass and measure shadows to determine that we orbit the sun, I take it on faith. For me it's faith, for a scientist who knows by experimentation it's knowledge.. but science always has a possibility of error.. I don't claim to know anything to be absolutely true.. We are limited by our senses.
fetalbetal 2 years ago
« We are limited by our senses »
Would you then say that to have knowledge of something implies a certain level of trust in the means by which that which you have knowledge about was established?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Nothing at all is completely justifiable, we can agree upon certain concepts, like morality, but there's no objective truths or knowledge except those concerning the mechanism of nature, even that is only to an extent.. We can always believe we are justified in thinking the way we do but not one person knows why life is happening in the first place so everything is a mystery.
fetalbetal 2 years ago
Knowledge is the accumulation of subjectively interpreted facts, as far as I'm concerned. To "know" is to believe based on the presented evidence or lack there-of.
fetalbetal 2 years ago
« Knowledge is the accumulation of »
Ah, but my question was both more general and more specific.
« To "know" is to believe based on the presented evidence or lack there-of. »
Yes, that is a better answer to the question I was asking. So you would agree with the statement that knowledge is a "justified belief"?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"So you would agree with the statement that knowledge is a "justified belief"? "
_
No, sir.
"Justifiability" is subjective in some people's beliefs. If you are looking for a two word phrase to replace "knowledge", I would probably go with;
Faithless belief.
D34dH053 2 years ago
« Faithless belief »
But faithless really is another way to say that you have good reasons for having a particular belief - that you are justified in having that belief by those reasons.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"But faithless really is another way to say that you have good reasons for having a particular belief - that you are justified in having that belief by those reasons."
_
But the "justification" in "faithless" is grounded by something that is demonstrable. Where as calling it "justified" can mean arbitrary meanings.
Some people might consider their desires "justification" to believe something. Desire hardly equates to knowledge.
D34dH053 2 years ago
"Some people might consider their desires "justification" to believe something."
_
In my opinion:
"Justified" is too loose of a term to attribute to a concept that. regardless of how we define it, always holds a constant construct; knowledge is demonstrable.
Many people hold the opinion that their beliefs are justified because they want to believe them. That they are justified because of their flawed human perception. That they are justified because someone else believes them..etc...
D34dH053 2 years ago
« is grounded by something that is demonstrable »
True. But most things that are demonstrable have not been demonstrated by you. Nor are you willing to demonstrate everything before calling it knowledge. So at some point your justification for calling a belief knowledge is going to shift from the principle of verifiability to a trust in the demonstrable accuracy of the method by which the knowledge was established.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"True. But most things that are demonstrable have not been demonstrated by you."
_
They don't have to be.
"Nor are you willing to demonstrate everything before calling it knowledge."
_
I just have to accept that it can be demonstrated to a sufficient level equivalent to the claim. Again, we are back toying with "justification" as a worthless subjective term.
Anything that has the capacity to be demonstrated by anyone, regardless of belief system,has the capacity to be known.
D34dH053 2 years ago
« They don't have to be »
Remember that we're not talking about some abstract concept of knowledge, such as the knowledge that has been gathered by science over the ages, but the specific concept of knowledge as something that exists in *your* mind. The kind of knowledge that is implicit in the statement "*I* know that the Earth is round".
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« I just have to accept that it can be demonstrated »
Implying a level of trust in the method that supposedly assures the accuracy of the claim.
« toying with "justification" »
I am using the word according to the definition Webster [1a]: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"I am using the word according to the definition Webster [1a]: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable. "
_
Proving to whom? Themselves? Others?
D34dH053 2 years ago
"So at some point your justification for calling a belief knowledge is going to shift from the principle of verifiability to a trust in the demonstrable accuracy of the method..."
_
Verifiability resides solely in the method of demonstration itself. If someone comes up and shows me a magic trick, a demonstration "has" been accomplished. But, the method did not explain, nor validate, what I saw, therefore I cannot hold knowledge of the event. I agree with you to a point.
D34dH053 2 years ago
Let's imagine we both saw an event.
We both have some type of anecdotal knowledge that the event took place, but I decide to claim knowledge about what really happened.
I would have to explain the processes and mechanics that were involved with the event to have knowledge of the event on this level.
The equivalency of the level of knowledge has to balance out with a level of demonstrability.
Who's to say we both agree on any given specific of the event? What if we were drunk?
D34dH053 2 years ago
« What if we were drunk? »
In which case, could either of us justifiably claim to "know"?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
"In which case, could either of us justifiably claim to "know"?"
_
We might be capable of knowing small bits of situational knowledge, depending on our accounts and how drunk we were. But, even sober, our perception is flawed. Which is why police grab statements from many people during any accident or crime. If one person was capable of knowing everything about a situation, police would only require 1 witness during a trail when many had seen an event.
D34dH053 2 years ago
Ultimately all knowledge is confined to language-by which such knowledge is communicated-whether internally in ourselves or externally among others. Therefore the first experience of knowledge-whatever knowledge may be-must have a basis by which to experience it. For lack of better term-that basis is to be called language-which is a world of discussion in itself. But notice how language is used without exception when discovering and/or sharing knowledge.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
Thus having a workable language system by which we might avoid confusion-which is counterproductive to knowledge-is of chief importance. There for definition of terms, of semantics, of grammar are crucial if any beneficial discovery is to be obtained. We must have some kind of absolutes, otherwise there will be only confusion in the exchange. Is there such a language that illustrates the basics of sound communication? What about mathematics?
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
« therefore I cannot hold knowledge of the event »
An interesting analogy: the magic trick. You'll agree with me that when somebody performs a trick that has no apparent explanation, you nevertheless *know* it is a trick, and not "real magic". This is the kind of knowledge I want to explore.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
'You'll agree with me that when somebody performs a trick that has no apparent explanation, you nevertheless *know* it is a trick, and not "real magic"."
_
Well, they actually only can believe it's a magic trick until they have the capacity to demonstrate that what they saw was a slight of hand or another illusion. But, even without knowledge of the details and methods used, the viewer "knows" they saw an event.
D34dH053 2 years ago
"To "know" is to believe based on the presented evidence or lack there-of. "
_
I would expand on that to say:
To know to to have a belief that you can demonstrate to be accurate against facts and situations.
Any belief that does not equate to every detail of a situation or fact is not knowledge, but only exists as a claim of knowledge.
D34dH053 2 years ago