HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU KNOW?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Since we are starving for new traffic on the forum, I thought I would throw this in.  Our local state University (WSU) is offering some free classes to the "elderly", and since I fit that catagory, I decided to sit in on the class (mentioned above) that is being taught by a professor of philosophy.  I am surprised at the large size of the class, and saw an old acquaintance there who is Catholic.  I am anxious to see how religious issues, and "knowing" there is a god will be handled.  From some questions that were asked in the first session (introduction to knowing) it looks like it could get interesting.  Basically he was saying "knowing" is "belief plus......"  He talked about Descartes, early modern philosophy, evidence (and more).  I'm anxious to see where it goes from here.

 

Ha!  I sat there thinking the class was probably one of the largest groups of obsessive personalities (including myself) I have seen in years.

[TABA]

Hi Weezer,

 

This class sounds very interesting, and I hope it lives up to its promise for you.  It’s the kind of thing I’d sign up for and would like to pursue, especially when I’m retired.  I will say that in the meantime, my deconversion has led me to explore aspects of philosophy as guides to living, and this has been very rewarding for me. One of several reasons I’m so glad I started questioning Christianity around ten years ago now: deconversion has opened up my mind to new ideas that were either off-limits or at least discouraged while it was clogged with Christian theology and dogma.   
 

I hope you will keep us posted about this class, what was said, and your reactions to it.   I have some thoughts on the subject of “knowing”, but I was wondering if you had some initial reactions just from the first session?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

8 hours ago, TABA said:

 

I was wondering if you had some initial reactions just from the first session?

 

Yes.  He seemed to be implying what I have thought for years.  Knowing is a very nebulous word.

 

One of the things I am looking forward to is a section on conspiracy theories.  And although I don't thnk it is on the course outline, I am hoping religious "knowing" comes up.  Which I am sure it will.  

[TABA]

58 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Yes.  He seemed to be implying what I have thought for years.  Knowing is a very nebulous word.

It certainly is.  Are you interested in discussing this here, or do you want to confine it to a discussion of your class?  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 minutes ago, TABA said:

It certainly is.  Are you interested in discussing this here, or do you want to confine it to a discussion of your class?  

 

Discussing it here would be great!

[TABA]

19 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

Discussing it here would be great!

Good!  You want to go first, or you want me to offer my thoughts on “knowing” first?  It’s your thread.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I might add that it is a weekly class, and it was canceled today due to instructor being sick.  Also, if the discussion here gets into obsessive/compulsive hairsplitting, I will likely drop out of the discussion.  YOu can go first.  Right now nothing is coming to my mind.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What if a split end was actually just two hairs really close together?   

[Hierophant]

I think we can "know" very little. Best we can do is say the current evidence points to X being most likely, but keep the door open because we may find something new.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, Hierophant said:

I think we can "know" very little. Best we can do is say the current evidence points to X being most likely, but keep the door open because we may find something new.

 

That pretty well sums up what I would say about it.  To me it seems like some people confuse it with "fact".  

It should be interesting (or perhaps boring)?? to see what he has to say about it in 8 hours of lecture.  

 

 

[freshstart]

This is an interesting philosophical topic to me.  I think it starts with defining what it means to "know" something.  Do you know how to blink your eyes? Take a deep breath? Open and close your hands?  If so, can you explain how you do it?  Not really.  You just DO it.  Nor can we understand exactly how we "learned" how to do these things.  Also there are things we know with certainty that we cannot prove. We know when we are in pain, for example, but we could never prove we're in pain.  Only we can "know" our own pain (and other emotions).   

Then there are things that we claim we do not know.  Supposedly we don't know to grow our own hair or digest our food, but clearly we do it.  So how do we account for the part of us that "knows" how to do these things?  There is a tendency to separate the "unconscious" from the "conscious"  or the "autonomic" from the "voluntary."  But perhaps these are just arbitrary classifications? 

Just my 2 cents . . .

[pantheory]

"knowledge" that is well-founded is based upon evidence. If the evidence and its interpretation seem obvious to almost everyone then the knowledge has a solid foundation concerning its probable validity. But if the "knowledge," evidence, or interpretation of the evidence is debatable, then its validity has a weaker foundation and its truth less certain concerning those interested.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

On 10/21/2023 at 10:37 PM, Weezer said:

Since we are starving for new traffic on the forum

 

Hey, consider me new traffic! I will probably be here till you are all sick of me 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/28/2023 at 11:14 AM, pantheory said:

"knowledge" that is well-founded is based upon evidence. If the evidence and its interpretation seem obvious to almost everyone then the knowledge has a solid foundation concerning its probable validity. But if the "knowledge," evidence, or interpretation of the evidence is debatable, then its validity has a weaker foundation and its truth less certain concerning those interested.

 

The class is over and Pantheory pretty well summed up the last session.  I was unable to attend the last two sessions, and later watched the videos, so didn't get in on those class discussions.  It was worth doing, but as suspected could have been condensed to half the time. 

 

He compared "knowing" to science and how both should try to find exceptions to information.   And that knowing you could be wrong makes you a good knower.  And talked about being a VIRTUOUS KNOWER.  Being consistent.  Open minded.  Reflective.   Considering if it is personally and socially responsible.  Best among all theories?  Good for others as well as me?

 

Basically he wrapped it up by saying there are some things we can't know for sure. We just have to look at all the evidence and decide what we have confidence in.      Common sense! 

Another interesting thing he said goes against what some christian scientists try to do.  A good scientist TRIES to find exceptions to the information.  Not just to prove his theory. 

 

[pantheory]

On 10/31/2023 at 11:44 AM, moxieflux66 said:

 

Hey, consider me new traffic! I will probably be here till you are all sick of me 

 Happy to have your here with your sensible comments

[walterpthefirst]

13 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

The class is over and Pantheory pretty well summed up the last session.  I was unable to attend the last two sessions, and later watched the videos, so didn't get in on those class discussions.  It was worth doing, but as suspected could have been condensed to half the time. 

 

He compared "knowing" to science and how both should try to find exceptions to information.   And that knowing you could be wrong makes you a good knower.  And talked about being a VIRTUOUS KNOWER.  Being consistent.  Open minded.  Reflective.   Considering if it is personally and socially responsible.  Best among all theories?  Good for others as well as me?

 

Basically he wrapped it up by saying there are some things we can't know for sure. We just have to look at all the evidence and decide what we have confidence in.      Common sense! 

Another interesting thing he said goes against what some christian scientists try to do.  A good scientist TRIES to find exceptions to the information.  Not just to prove his theory. 

 

 

A scientist also needs to be careful about the language they use, Weezer.

 

Out of a duty to less well-informed people who don't necessarily understand the scientific method.

 

I'm not speaking of Pantheory here, btw.

 

 

I have to inform you that of the different branches of science only mathematics employs proofs.

 

Therefore, no physicist, biologist, geologist or any other kind of scientist in the empirical  sciences will ever prove their theory.

 

That is why empirical theories may be overturned by new evidence and new data - because they are never proven.

 

 

Nitpicking by me, again?

 

Not if you believe that we have a duty in this forum to help those coming from fundamentalist backgrounds, with little idea of how science works.

 

I hope that my attention to this kind of detail serves the both forum and those people.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Nitpicking by me, again?

 

I'll let you be the judge of that.  I thought it was clear that trying to "prove" something was NOT what good scientist do.  But hey, now it is perfectly clear! 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Weezer said:

I'll let you be the judge of that.  I thought it was clear that trying to "prove" something was NOT what good scientist do.  But hey, now it is perfectly clear! 

 

 

Good scientists may not seek to prove things, but other people do.

 

William Lane Craig uses the Hawking-Penrose Singularity theory to make his case for the god of the bible being the cause of the beginning of the universe.

 

Why does he do this?  Because that theory is a mathematical proof.

 

Weezer, only those people who are informed about how science works will understand that this mathematical proof tells us nothing about the real universe.

 

Many people will incorrectly conclude that science has proven that the universe must have had a beginning - just as Genesis 1 : 1 describes.

 

And so Craig can bring new sheep into the kingdom on the back of that misunderstanding.

 

Which is exactly the kind of activity this forum is designed to counteract.

 

To bring clarity where there is misunderstanding or downright mendacity and falsehood.

 

And so my efforts to help people understand why the empirical sciences never use proofs is perfectly in tune with the purpose of this forum.

 

Can you see that, now that I have explained it to you? 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Can you see that, now that I have explained it to you? 

 

Frankly, I am wrestling with what to say to you.  Are you being sarcastic?

[walterpthefirst]

15 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Frankly, I am wrestling with what to say to you.  Are you being sarcastic?

 

 

No.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No.

 

I believe the point has been MORE than explained.   If you want further discussion about this,  it will have to be with someone other than me.  Have a good evening.