You Keep Saying This....

[Open_Minded]

If I'm understanding what you wrote here, and elsewhere, knowledge is gained through use of our five physical senses.

We see something with our eyes.

Our brain processes what we see and interprets it - assessing what we see against knowledge it already has.

Since what we see - is physical - can be seen (and verified - or as you said "justified") by more than one individual - we then have a valid means of gaining knowledge.

Is this a correct interpretation of the way you understand the process of gaining knowledge?

1. We perceive things through our sense perceptions.

2. Our percepts coalesce into concepts through the faculties of the brain.

3. Justified is having a rational non-contradictory reasoning process for believing something.

 

The definition of knowledge is still a live debate for philosophers. In order for there to be knowledge, according to most thinkers, at least three criteria must be fulfilled. A thought must be justified, true, and believed.

 

OK... a thought must be

 

1. Believed (One perceives something – and believes it to be true....)
   
2. Justified (One perceives something to be true and justifies – demonstrates or proves – the validity of the belief).
   
3. Since one has first – believed something to be true – second gone through a process of testing the validity of the belief and justifying said belief then the belief becomes true?
   

At the point where a belief has been proven to be true - then and ONLY then - can one claim knowledge of said belief?

 

Prior to that point - what one holds is not knowledge - but perception. Perception leads to knowledge, but it is NOT knowledge within and of itself?

 

Is this about right? Just trying to understand your thought processes here, Asimov....

[Antlerman]

Is this about right? Just trying to understand your thought processes here, Asimov....

Yes this is what I am seeing is the heart of this issue, communication. Frankly I'm not using the word Knowledge in a strict philospophical definition, but in a more broad sense of common usage. How about "understanding", if "knowledge" means something so specific to you?

 

Edit:

 

Alright, I think this is what I may be communicating without having explored formal definitions on this. Explicit Knowledge, and Tacit Knowledge. What I am talking about really is tacit knowledge.

 

Tacit knowledge has been described as “know-how” (as opposed to “know-what” [facts] and “know-why” [science]) . It involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be written down. The simplest example of the nature and value of tacit knowledge is that one does not know how to ride a bike or swim due to reading a textbook, but only through personal experimentation, by observing others, and/or being guided by an instructor. In fact the rules for riding a bike can be articulated, but they are of no use to a learner - they are: to turn left on a bike, first turn slightly to the right; if you are falling to the left steer to the left. But being told this only confuses the learner.

 

<snip>

 

Tacit knowledge has been found to be a crucial input to the innovation process. A nation’s ability to innovate depends on its level of tacit knowledge of how to innovate (conduct research, develop prototypes of new products & processes, adapt these prototypes into models fit for mass-production) and of how to implement innovations into manufacturing, defense, communications, transportation, etc.

 

[which is what OM was getting at about science I believe]

 

 

I guess what I saying is that through the experience of emotions, the perspective gain offers a point of view that becomes knowledge on this sort of level, or you could say an "understanding". If you want to call it belief you may, but I wouldn't use that word myself as it carries an almost religious conviction about the truth of it. The understanding or knowledge I am talking about are not nearly so rigid and dogmatic to be held as Truth with a captial T, or Knowledge with a captial K.

[NotBlinded]

I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel last night about psychotic serial killers. What happens in these people is that they are prone to behave this way because of some anomolies in their frontal cortex. All it takes is some abuse as a child to trigger their actions.

 

What happens is that they are unable to associate emotion with understanding. They have came up with a way to test their emotional responses while these individuals view specific words. As we all know, words have connotations associated with them...for most people. These people see the words peace, hate, kill, etc. and have no emotional response what-so-ever.

 

One of the killers, I can't remember his name, had an IQ at a genius level, but his knowledge about life was severly impared because he had no emotional responses.

 

It is apparent to me that emotions, even if they are a reaction, are very important in gaining a 'true' understanding about reality. If not, we only have half the information necessary in order for words (which describes reality) to connote what they are intended. They are necessary for the words to have the meaning they are intended to have.

 

It is emotions that stop people from acting out their primal behavior.

 

One of the doctors said about the killers, "They know the words, but not the song."

[Asimov]

The definition of knowledge is still a live debate for philosophers. In order for there to be knowledge, according to most thinkers, at least three criteria must be fulfilled. A thought must be justified, true, and believed.

 

It is a live debate, but it mostly centers on the "justified" part.

 

OK... a thought must be

1. Believed (One perceives something – and believes it to be true....)
   
2. Justified (One perceives something to be true and justifies – demonstrates or proves – the validity of the belief).
   
3. Since one has first – believed something to be true – second gone through a process of testing the validity of the belief and justifying said belief then the belief becomes true?
   

At the point where a belief has been proven to be true - then and ONLY then - can one claim knowledge of said belief?

 

Yes, you must believe an assertion, justify it through rational means and it must be a valid rationality in order for it to be considered knowledge.

 

Prior to that point - what one holds is not knowledge - but perception. Perception leads to knowledge, but it is NOT knowledge within and of itself?

 

Is this about right? Just trying to understand your thought processes here, Asimov....

 

Yes, that is right.

[Open_Minded]

Prior to that point - what one holds is not knowledge - but perception. Perception leads to knowledge, but it is NOT knowledge within and of itself?

 

Is this about right? Just trying to understand your thought processes here, Asimov....

Yes, that is right.

 

OK ....

 

So... following this line of thought....

 

Our five physical senses can only give us perception .... nothing else. They can give us information from which to gain "knowledge", they are a means to "knowledge" ... but the information we get from our five physical senses is merely perception until it is "justified" or "verified". At the point that it is verified - it becomes knowledge?

 

If this is your position, Asimov, how can there be such a thing as "knowledge"? I mean in its strictest sense humans "knew" for thousands of years that the earth was flat. Individuals used their eyes - looked at the horizon - perceived "flatness" or an "edge of the earth". Talked to their neighbors to "verify" what they were seeing and then when agreement was held that yes indeed there was an "edge of the earth" and the earth did indeed appear to be flat to EVERYONE who looked at it. So EVERYONE - "perceived first", processed in their brains - asked their neighbors - justified and verified their perceptions and then had the "knowledge" that the earth was indeed flat.

 

They were all wrong, Asimov. The earth wasn't flat at all.

 

They were all wrong when their five senses told them the sun circled the earth.

 

Our five senses can be mistaken in the job of giving us information with which to gain knowledge as well.

 

So.... and here is my point ....

 

why is the information gained through a "gut feeling" any less valid?

 

Hmmm...what about those nagging gut-feelings that people have that they have some kind of disease or are pregnant (I know, what's the difference?) and then it turns out they are WRONG.

 

This sounds too much like proof of prayer.

 

 

I never said my friends experience was "prayer". If someone had said that to me, my response would have been a common sense answer. People from all cultures and all religions have "gut feelings" - not just Christians.

 

No... she got information from her body ... it was subtle information in the form of a gut feeling... and she followed up on her perception. She went to a doctor and verified, "justified", her perception. From her gut feeling she had information to process - and after processing it in a logical and rational manner she gained knowledge that she had not had before.

 

Yes - gut instincts (or intuition) can be wrong. But, it is illogical to say that our five senses can't be fooled either.

 

"Gut instinct" (or intuition) is a valid means to gain knowledge, just as valid as our five physical senses. In fact - Asimov - there have been many times in my life where I have been relieved that I trusted my "gut feelings" over outward appearances. Many people would tell you this - this has nothing to do with religion - it is a human thing.

[Asimov]

Our five physical senses can only give us perception .... nothing else. They can give us information from which to gain "knowledge", they are a means to "knowledge" ... but the information we get from our five physical senses is merely perception until it is "justified" or "verified". At the point that it is verified - it becomes knowledge?

 

At the point it becomes demonstrably true, or empirically true, or deductively true, then it becomes knowledge.

 

1+1=2 is an example of axiomatic justification that is a fact:

 

1. I believe that 1+1=2.

2. I am justified in believing that 1+1=2 due to the Axiom of Identity.

3. It is true that 1+1=2, through self-verification.

 

 

If this is your position, Asimov, how can there be such a thing as "knowledge"?

I mean in its strictest sense humans "knew" for thousands of years that the earth was flat.

 

I just demonstrated it.

 

No they didn't.

 

Individuals used their eyes - looked at the horizon - perceived "flatness" or an "edge of the earth". Talked to their neighbors to "verify" what they were seeing and then when agreement was held that yes indeed there was an "edge of the earth" and the earth did indeed appear to be flat to EVERYONE who looked at it. So EVERYONE - "perceived first", processed in their brains - asked their neighbors - justified and verified their perceptions and then had the "knowledge" that the earth was indeed flat.

 

1. They perceived information, not flatness. They concluded flatness from their first observation without using any sort of reason.

2. Talking to their neighbours does not constitute a valid justification. It's essentially an argument from numbers if you say "well everyone else sees it so it must be true."

3. So you're wrong.

 

4. Not to mention that a dude with a stick and a shadow estimated the Earths' circumference.

5. Not to mention that simple observation of water craft and people from a specific distance show that there is a curvature to the earth.

6. Not to mention that a high hill can show a curvature to the Earth as well.

 

Essentially they assumed the earth was flat because everyone else did too...until rational people took over and said "hey morons, what the hell?"

 

They were all wrong when their five senses told them the sun circled the earth.

 

Their five senses didn't tell them that the sun circled the Earth. Their conceptualizations told them the sun circled the earth.

 

Our five senses can be mistaken in the job of giving us information with which to gain knowledge as well.

 

Yes, hence the principle of scientific intersubjective falsification.

 

I never said my friends experience was "prayer". If someone had said that to me, my response would have been a common sense answer. People from all cultures and all religions have "gut feelings" - not just Christians.

 

I never said she experienced a prayer. I said that it sounds like the argument for "proof of prayer".

 

No... she got information from her body ... it was subtle information in the form of a gut feeling... and she followed up on her perception. She went to a doctor and verified, "justified", her perception. From her gut feeling she had information to process - and after processing it in a logical and rational manner she gained knowledge that she had not had before.

 

Yes, knowledge she didn't have from her gut-instinct until it was verified.

 

Yes - gut instincts (or intuition) can be wrong. But, it is illogical to say that our five senses can't be fooled either.

 

I didn't.

 

"Gut instinct" (or intuition) is a valid means to gain knowledge, just as valid as our five physical senses. In fact - Asimov - there have been many times in my life where I have been relieved that I trusted my "gut feelings" over outward appearances. Many people would tell you this - this has nothing to do with religion - it is a human thing.

 

Your senses GIVE you your gut instincts. It's the inner perception...those "chills" and "hot flashes" and such are experiences that your percepts give you. Gut feelings can "lead" to knowledge, but they all come from your senses, and all knowledge comes from a cognitive process that uses reason.

[Open_Minded]

"Gut instinct" (or intuition) is a valid means to gain knowledge, just as valid as our five physical senses. In fact - Asimov - there have been many times in my life where I have been relieved that I trusted my "gut feelings" over outward appearances. Many people would tell you this - this has nothing to do with religion - it is a human thing.

Your senses GIVE you your gut instincts. It's the inner perception...those "chills" and "hot flashes" and such are experiences that your percepts give you. Gut feelings can "lead" to knowledge, but they all come from your senses, and all knowledge comes from a cognitive process that uses reason.

In this we agree - there is an "inner perception" happening. And that is why - through the ages and across cultural boundaries - human beings have historically acknowledged a sort of "sixth sense".

 

Now - moving onto other dimensions of "knowledge" or "knowing" - - - -

 

Asimov, we both know (and I use the word intentionally) the definition of "knowledge" outlined above is quite narrow. In daily life people use the words "knowledge" and "knowing" in much broader ways.

 

Antlerman's and NotBlinded's points are valid as well. Maybe not within the strictest definition of "knowing", but they are valid within the common usage of "knowing".

[Antlerman]

I'm not really seeing this as a discussion of concepts, but an argument of proper word usage. Why not just say, "That’s not the right word to use, I think you are trying to say this particular thing. Maybe use this word instead?" I'm thinking that would be more beneficial to the discussion?

 

BTW OM, I wish people wouldn't use that flat earth analogy. It's a myth. No one believed that. Asimov is correct about the ship's mast, etc. There are many other better examples of mistaken ideas in history. Ironically, the belief that people believed the earth was flat; itself is an example of a commonly accepted error.

 

Last thing, on that note of mistaken beliefs that people commonly held as true based upon the interpretation of the available information at that time: As much as I appreciate the "objectivity" of science, I have to acknowledge that even there "Knowledge" or "facts" are not immutable, unchanging, etc. They likewise are based on the available information at that time. I concur whole-heartedly that it is the best system of determining accurate knowledge available to mankind, but it is about "degrees of certainty", not "Certainty with a capital C. Science gives us the highest degree of certainly available at this time, but not absolute certainty. So therefore, if we are going to make a statement of knowledge means we KNOW as FACT that something is TRUE, then humankind has no knowledge at all.

 

How strict do we want to define that word? At what mark of "certainly" on the measuring stick?

[Open_Minded]

Last thing, on that note of mistaken beliefs that people commonly held as true based upon the interpretation of the available information at that time: As much as I appreciate the "objectivity" of science, I have to acknowledge that even there "Knowledge" or "facts" are not immutable, unchanging, etc. They likewise are based on the available information at that time. I concur whole-heartedly that it is the best system of determining accurate knowledge available to mankind, but it is about "degrees of certainty", not "Certainty with a capital C. Science gives us the highest degree of certainly available at this time, but not absolute certainty. So therefore, if we are going to make a statement of knowledge means we KNOW as FACT that something is TRUE, then humankind has no knowledge at all.

 

How strict do we want to define that word? At what mark of "certainly" on the measuring stick?

 

Antlerman - I completely agree.

[chefranden]

 

Their five senses didn't tell them that the sun circled the Earth. Their conceptualizations told them the sun circled the earth.

 

Where did they get their conceptualizations, if not from their senses that gave them knowledge of their physical place in the universe? What is up? What is around? if there is no place from which to judge? For example if you laid on your right side all your life the sun would not be up at noon it would be to the right. Depending on which way your head was oriented the sun could set in front, behind, down, or up.

 

There is no knowledge, whether scientifically aquired or otherwise that is not mediated by your body.

[chefranden]

Your senses GIVE you your gut instincts. It's the inner perception...those "chills" and "hot flashes" and such are experiences that your percepts give you. Gut feelings can "lead" to knowledge, but they all come from your senses, and all knowledge comes from a cognitive process that uses reason.

 

How else would you get "knowledge" if not for your feeling? Do you need to look at a thermometer to know that it is cold? How do you know when you are "in love"? What is the scientific test by which you can verify it? Do you know that Ayn Rand was right by scientific test, or by your gut? Has her philosophy been verified in all or any of its particulars, or do you just feel that your reasoning about her philosophy is better than someone else's reasoning to the contrary?

[Asimov]

Now - moving onto other dimensions of "knowledge" or "knowing" - - - -

 

Asimov, we both know (and I use the word intentionally) the definition of "knowledge" outlined above is quite narrow. In daily life people use the words "knowledge" and "knowing" in much broader ways.

 

Antlerman's and NotBlinded's points are valid as well. Maybe not within the strictest definition of "knowing", but they are valid within the common usage of "knowing".

 

How is it narrow?

 

1. You believe something is true.

2. You justify the rationality of your belief.

3. What you believe is true.

 

In cases where it's a justification, it must be empirical, deductive, or axiomatic.

 

"knowing" something is true because you "just know it is" is an emotional appeal.

 

Would you grant the possibility that square circles exist because someone "just knows" that they exist? I hope not.

 

Oh, and flat earth stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

 

 

Science gives us the highest degree of certainly available at this time, but not absolute certainty.

 

Yea, but I'm not talking strictly about science there, Antlerman. Science never can provide absolute certainty because it's an inductive system.

 

Where did they get their conceptualizations, if not from their senses that gave them knowledge of their physical place in the universe? What is up? What is around? if there is no place from which to judge? For example if you laid on your right side all your life the sun would not be up at noon it would be to the right. Depending on which way your head was oriented the sun could set in front, behind, down, or up.

 

Well, first off all there is fluid in your head that tells you what is up and down. So if you laid on your side up would still be up.

 

Your example is entirely irrelevant, since it doesn't apply as an objective rule. You're trying to take certain ideas of relativity and trying to apply it to all knowledge?

 

How else would you get "knowledge" if not for your feeling?

 

Yes, how else? You obtain information from your perceptions, you form concepts and those concepts which are rationally valid are knowledge. Cold is a relative term, we're talking about objective knowledge. Cold is a feeling. Love is a feeling. These are emotions.

[Open_Minded]

Now - moving onto other dimensions of "knowledge" or "knowing" - - - -

 

Asimov, we both know (and I use the word intentionally) the definition of "knowledge" outlined above is quite narrow. In daily life people use the words "knowledge" and "knowing" in much broader ways.

 

Antlerman's and NotBlinded's points are valid as well. Maybe not within the strictest definition of "knowing", but they are valid within the common usage of "knowing".

 

How is it narrow?

 

1. You believe something is true.

2. You justify the rationality of your belief.

3. What you believe is true.

 

In cases where it's a justification, it must be empirical, deductive, or axiomatic.

 

"knowing" something is true because you "just know it is" is an emotional appeal.

 

Would you grant the possibility that square circles exist because someone "just knows" that they exist? I hope not.

 

As Antlerman has said in the past - there is a kind of "knowing" that is non-rational. That doesn't mean it's irrational either.

 

It is non-rational to "know" one is in love.

It is non-rational to "know" that a song is beautiful.

It is non-rational to "know" that art has a message - a personal message that speaks individually to each person who sees it.

 

These things have nothing to do with the kind of rationality that you speak of - they have to do with wonder. And wonder is not necessarily emotion - it is a connection to something bigger than ourselves. Something like the power of love, or the power of music, or the power of art.

__________________________

 

Asimov - I do look forward to continuing this conversation - but must admit to abandoning it for a time as I am leaving for week long trip. I look forward to seeing where the conversation has gone when I get back.

[Antlerman]

Science gives us the highest degree of certainly available at this time, but not absolute certainty.

 

Yea, but I'm not talking strictly about science there, Antlerman. Science never can provide absolute certainty because it's an inductive system.

If science is the best system we have to test the validity of a hypothesis (or a "belief"), yet it cannot be said that its conclusions are absolute, then restricting the term "knowledge" to be a “justified, true belief” puts us in a position where we cannot say anyone knows anything for sure. Therefore knowledge only exists in a transcendent, conceptual state – like God, but is irrelevant since no one can lay claim to it. We should remove “knowledge” from daily language and restrict it to a religious belief.

 

I avoid this problem of absolutes by appealing to "degrees of certainty". There is all sorts of information out there which people hold to be true based on a whole litany of imperfect "justifications", which then become their “knowledge”. What it sounds like the real issue is here is the question of the reliability of the systems used to make claims to justification of beliefs. To that I answer that science is the best, but not absolute system for justification of beliefs, but to restrict the use of the word knowledge to one system over another makes that system the same as a religious institution acting as the source and repository of "valid" or "true" human knowledge.

 

How are you defining truth? How are you defining justified? What system of knowledge are you using, and which is the one all people should use? Which is valid, and how is it valid over all others?

[Asimov]

As Antlerman has said in the past - there is a kind of "knowing" that is non-rational. That doesn't mean it's irrational either.

 

No there isn't.

 

It is non-rational to "know" one is in love.

 

In love is an expression of emotion. There is nothing to know about that.

 

It is non-rational to "know" that a song is beautiful.

 

Not it's not. There are many ways you can justify why you think a song is beautiful, therefore it is rational to know that a song is beautiful.

 

If you think a song is beautiful "just because", then it's not an expression of knowledge.

 

It is non-rational to "know" that art has a message - a personal message that speaks individually to each person who sees it.

 

You don't know that a piece of art has a message. You perceive that the art has a message and then you conceptualize what that message is. You have reasons for why the art shows meaning to you.

 

If I read "Fight Club", a specific piece of art, that has a message that I obtained from reading it. I can explain what that message is, and I can justify that through quoting and explaining the actions and sayings of what the characters are saying.

 

Again, it's entirely rational or irrational.

 

These things have nothing to do with the kind of rationality that you speak of - they have to do with wonder. And wonder is not necessarily emotion - it is a connection to something bigger than ourselves. Something like the power of love, or the power of music, or the power of art.

 

Wonderment is an emotion. A reaction to a concept in an emotional way. It's a feeling.

[Asimov]

If science is the best system we have to test the validity of a hypothesis (or a "belief"), yet it cannot be said that its conclusions are absolute, then restricting the term "knowledge" to be a “justified, true belief” puts us in a position where we cannot say anyone knows anything for sure. Therefore knowledge only exists in a transcendent, conceptual state – like God, but is irrelevant since no one can lay claim to it. We should remove “knowledge” from daily language and restrict it to a religious belief.

 

I'm not talking about science, Antlerman. Science can provide justified true beliefs in some cases, in other cases we can only make supported beliefs.

 

I avoid this problem of absolutes by appealing to "degrees of certainty". There is all sorts of information out there which people hold to be true based on a whole litany of imperfect "justifications", which then become their “knowledge”. What it sounds like the real issue is here is the question of the reliability of the systems used to make claims to justification of beliefs. To that I answer that science is the best, but not absolute system for justification of beliefs, but to restrict the use of the word knowledge to one system over another makes that system the same as a religious institution acting as the source and repository of "valid" or "true" human knowledge.

 

And how exactly is science the best answer in justifying that "murder is wrong"? Or that 1+1=2? Or that "something exists"? Or that "consciousness exists" (something that perceives and conceptualizes)? Or that identity exists (A=A)?

 

We don't use science in many philosophical thought, which CAN provide us with truth.

 

How are you defining truth? How are you defining justified? What system of knowledge are you using, and which is the one all people should use? Which is valid, and how is it valid over all others?

 

Truth is a logically valid statement. Justification is the reasoning one uses in order to validate a statement. There is no "system" of knowledge. There's a system to gaining knowledge.