|
Post by Archagon on May 10, 2007 6:26:29 GMT -5
In that case, nothing is "knowledge", and the term is meaningless.
"Compelling"? How about our cumulative scientific knowledge?
Certainly, there may not be any definite proof that things don't turn into purple elephants when not sensed, but the only theory that makes sense given the facts we have is that reality is consistent.
We can never truly know anything, so we accept what we "know" as things that have a very high probability of being true.
Knowledge is, by definition, subjective, so yes -- I know that the tree makes a sound, regardless of what some Zen Buddhist may think.
Actually, I believe that "I think, therefore I am" is no longer accepted as truth in philosophical circles. (Was it ever?)
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 10, 2007 10:52:15 GMT -5
Actually, I believe that "I think, therefore I am" is no longer accepted as truth in philosophical circles. (Was it ever?) The mind as well as memories and sense data are the only things that one can be directly acquainted with (according to Betrand Russell). Everything else is known indirectly through sense data. I guess if one wanted to nitpick, you can never be sure if the sense data is correct and whether some demon on your shoulder is altering all of it before it reaches you. I think this is close to "I think therefore I am."
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 10, 2007 12:40:01 GMT -5
Knowledge is the coincidence of belief with truth, where the belief happens to be true, the believer is aware of this, and is aware of why it is true. It is not subjective; that is to say, we cannot both know conflicting things.
I think that you are confusing knowledge with belief, Alexei.
Please tell me how you know that the tree makes a sound.
...
'"Compelling"? How about our cumulative scientific knowledge?'
It is compelling, and suggests your conclusion, but it is not evidence. We have no knowledge of this tree, we have never sensed it; there is no evidence.
...
Descartes' work continues to be well respected and widely taught. Many people agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 10, 2007 19:05:35 GMT -5
Knowledge is the coincidence of belief with truth, where the belief happens to be true, the believer is aware of this, and is aware of why it is true. It is not subjective; that is to say, we cannot both know conflicting things. Your question is the same as asking: "How do we know that we aren't simply brains in a tank?" We don't know. In fact, we don't know anything. Just because we sense something doesn't mean that it's true, for our senses could be just as deceptive as the falling tree turning into a purple elephant. Ergo, the basis for knowledge is nothing more than a set of assumptions. We keep them because they make the most sense to us, and because we wouldn't be able to function without them. That is how I know the tree makes a sound. There's a chance it doesn't, of course, but there's a chance for anything to be true, so I simply don't factor that possibility into my knowledge. *GONG* And many no longer do. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 10, 2007 22:13:29 GMT -5
"so I simply don't factor that possibility into my knowledge." The word you are looking for is "belief." It does not factor into your belief. From a philosophical standpoint, to know you must: Have the right answer. Be completely aware that it is correct. Be able to explain it to another. Even if you make the assumption that your senses are correct and the other trees make sound when they fall, you still do not know that this tree will do so. You can know that the tree makes a sound by making another assumption: other trees make a sound when they fall. this tree is like other trees. Therefore, this tree makes a sound. However, you must recognize that you do not know that this tree is like other trees, because you have never heard it make a sound when it falls. You can assume and "know" on the condition that the assumption is correct, or believe that it will make a sound, but you do not truly know. Although this discussion has been interesting and thoroughly enjoyable, I am afraid that we have missed entirely the purpose of this question. edit; I believe that the tree makes a sound. There is every reason to believe this.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 10, 2007 22:36:10 GMT -5
And what "philosophical standpoint" is this? Is there a philosopher's dictionary that I'm not aware of? Knowledge has been defined in many ways by many different people. No, I'm looking for the word "knowledge" -- whether you like it or not.
You still haven't explained how your example is different from mine. If you're so sure that "a desire for the universe to function more simply does not constitute a basis for knowledge", then what IS a basis for knowledge?
Why have you suddenly ended this discussion? Aren't you a proponent of off-topic threads?
Heck, are we even in disagreement? My argument was that all "knowledge" is subjective, so referring to "knowledge" as something provable and objective is pointless. You seem to be saying the same thing, but insist on calling "knowledge" "belief".
I'm extremely frustrated that you're so blindly convinced that you're right. Philosophy isn't as clear-cut as you make it seem.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 10, 2007 22:47:27 GMT -5
I think henrys point that "to know something you must Have the right answer. Be completely aware that it is correct. Be able to explain it to another." is actually pretty clear. What it means, is that in relation to this question, you dont have to know whether or not we are brains in a tank. All you have to know is that when the tree falls, it makes a sound that you sense as you normally would. You may be able to extrapolate, from your experience, that the tree would make a sound. But since you were not there, you cannot know it. Who knows, maybe this tree grew that way and never fell in the first place?
If you think that his definition of knowledge is wrong, we can discuss that. I think its a very good defenition of knowledge, and just because there are many philisophical defenitions, doesnt mean that a) they all apply or b) that they are all equally valid.
As he said, I think everyone believes the tree would make a sound. And being able to make generalizations and extrapolations based on your experiences are important. But I think whats also important is differentiating between your extrapolations and your knowledge, since otherwise its easy to lead yourself into believing you know something that you might not. Ie Its easier to make the jump between believing that all trees make a sound when they fall to say, believing that a metal ship would never be able to float, since you cant make your penny float. Just because you havent ever seen any that arent (whether or not this is true or not) doesnt mean it cant happen.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 10, 2007 22:52:48 GMT -5
Oh great, I'm being ganged up on by the philosophers' club.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 10, 2007 23:03:52 GMT -5
My example does not pertain to this question directly, but follows in a similar philosophical vein.
Henry's point is that our "knowledge" of the falling tree is mere extrapolation and not fact. My point is that all knowledge is extrapolation and not fact. We don't "know" that the tree will make a sound, but our experience tells us that it will; similarly, we don't "know" that what we see is true - that other people are not figments of our imagination - that we aren't, indeed, brains in tanks - but our experience tell us that it is/they aren't/we aren't.
The term "knowledge", then, is inherently subjective, and using it in an objective sense is pointless.
Am I being blunt? How am I misreading your argument? Please, enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 10, 2007 23:20:52 GMT -5
(this post was written after Alexei's reply to my post and ignores several posts after that)
That definition was from my critical thinking textbook.
I outlined the accepted basis for knowledge a couple of times. It is in my last post that I said it best.
If you or others wish to continue the discussion then it shall continue. I love off-topic threads (though this one is right on topic). However, I feel that the spiritual value of the question is being ignored.
Now.
Some beliefs are subjective, some knowledge is subjective. There is a way to tell which is which.
I know that Heineken is the best beer. Jebezel knows that Coors Light is the best beer. We are both correct. How? The best beer is subjective. That is to say, this judgment is based on the perceptions of individuals, which vary. One thing is true for Jebezel and another is true for me, and that's ok.
I know that I went to class today. I was there, it was class, I know. Jebezel was at school but didn't see me, and he knows that I didn't go to class. This is objective. If I was in class, it is true for everybody. Jebezel is wrong, or I am wrong. This is not subjective.
Jebezel knows that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it does not make a sound. Alexei knows that it does. Can Jebezel and Alexei both be right?
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 10, 2007 23:25:07 GMT -5
extrapolate, from m-w.com: "to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area" conjecture: "a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved" "The term "knowledge", then, is inherently subjective, and using it in an objective sense is pointless." I knew today in class that my dick was not hanging out of my pants. This was objective, as it was not a matter of taste or a matter that exists in my own perception only. Others saw that my dick was not hanging out of my pants, and were dismayed. I made use of this knowledge by not needlessly putting my dick back into my pants when it was not already out and thus playing with myself needlessly in public. It was not pointless. It occurs to me, however, that you may mean something different. That objective knowledge exists, but only subjectively; that is to say, that because my knowledge is housed in my mind, accessible only through my perceptions, it too is in a way subjective. This is an intriguing thought, however, objectivity still exists as a subset of this absolute subjectivity. Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 11, 2007 0:34:02 GMT -5
And many no longer do. What's your point? Isn't the existence of one's self known always simply because if one didn't exist, he or she would not be able to think?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 11, 2007 0:37:56 GMT -5
Knowledge is subjective and objective at the same time. Since I experience something, I know that I experienced it, that is objective; however somebody else may have experienced the same thing in another way, and therefore that same knowledge is subjective. My solution then is to realize that the only thing you can really call objective knowledge is your own experience and thinking (hence Descartes' "I think therefore I am") because regardless of what other people observe and think, you can be certain that your experience was experienced.
Hence, to bring this back to where it started, if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, I do not experience the tree falling, and the sound, therefore I can never objectively know that it happened.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 11, 2007 0:53:57 GMT -5
" Since I experience something, I know that I experienced it, that is objective; however somebody else may have experienced the same thing in another way, and therefore that same knowledge is subjective."
Some things are subjective in this way. Usually this refers to matters of taste or preference. This tastes good, that feels bad, etc. Two people can have differing knowledge and it is acceptable because that knowledge is based upon individual perceptions.
There are many things which, if two people disagree on it, one must be wrong. Things that do not depend on individuals' perceptions to be true. Who is the President of the United States? What model is your car? How many fingers am I holding up? Two people cannot experience these things differently and have different knowledge of these things without one being wrong.
Of course you could nitpick and say that someone could not recognize the current administration as the true leaders, or say that you see extra fingers because you perceive them. One person would still have to be wrong, as both things could not be true, and thus it is independent of individual perceptions and is not subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 11, 2007 2:13:58 GMT -5
No, you're referring to perception, which wasn't my point. Let's avoid talking about perception and opinion, and focus on objective knowledge. They're very different things.
Please explain how you knew your dick was not hanging out of your pants.
|
|