Posted on 03/15/2005 2:41:19 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
I can't resist attaching the "newbie" label to our friend Patrick.....
People who are disconnected from others are called autistic. Interestingly, when they excel at something it is usually math or pure logic.
Most knowledge of the world requires trusting the word of others.
????
All of us except Patrick joined FR in '98....
Of course, what is “knowledge” and one’s valuation of “certainty” of said knowledge can be very personal. So this list ought to be taken only as input for personal reflection.
I would very much appreciate any further suggestions and would especially like to hear others’ views on valuation of the “certainty” of knowledge!
Coffee deprived placemarker.
True, but from my comparatively limited experience around here, any sign-up date where the year starts with "19" is by this time no longer a newbie. But gloat if you must.
Well, it was somewhat irresistable....
Two or three seem capable of being combined, somehow, especially these two:
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.In each case, the "knowledge" comes from examining the evidence (presumably it's objectively verifiable) and then arriving at a conclusion. The conclusion may be virtually self-evident (Reagan) or it may be controversial. Such controversy could be due to a number of factors, such as limited evidence, or dubious reliability of the evidence, or questionable thinking about the evidence, etc. All of which leads us to:
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I have an interpretation of the fossil evidence in the geologic record.
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts know what they are talking about.On this type of "knowledge," (accepted consensus) back in 1,050, I said this:
We often say that "the consensus of astronomers is that [blah blah]." And we routinely cite that as the reason for our acceptance of that opinion. I do this frequently. When I do, what I mean is: (a) the existence of the consensus is itself a fact; (b) the experts have reviewed the matter far more thoroughly than I could, and I respect the quality of their work generally; (c) I have no reason to doubt their thinking in this matter; and (d) I personally don't know, which is why I'm relying on experts.
Since this is a compilation so that we can understand one another better, I’ve taken the liberty of interpreting your last post (and a few earlier) into what I believe is a “Patrick Henry” list of types of knowledge and valuations of certainty. I’ve included mine below for comparison and to encourage others to submit their own.
Please let me know where I have misinterpreted your posts!
PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue, it didn't come from me.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture, etc.
3. Theological knowledge, Imaginings: I have personally surmised my own understanding of this spiritual issue.
3. Evidence/Historical fact, whether uninterpreted or interpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President and I have an interpretation of the fossil evidence in the geologic recordwith your #4
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.and your #10
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I have an interpretation of the fossil evidence in the geologic recordinto one item:
Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...This would cover a multitude of conclusions, some being obvious (Reagan was president) and some being controversial. The conclusion itself (and the underlying data) is that person's "knowledge." The conclusion's accuracy is always going to be an open question, as most reasonable people will admit. It depends on the quality and sufficiency of the evidence, and the validity of the reasoning that leads to the conclusion.
5. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …with my #6
6. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because (a) the existence of the consensus is itself a fact; (b) the experts have reviewed the matter far more thoroughly than I could, and I respect the quality of their work generally; (c) I have no reason to doubt their thinking in this matter; and (d) I personally don't know, which is why I'm relying on experts.into one form of provisional "knowledge" as follows:
Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.This leaves the matter open, depending on whether confidence in X was justified, and whether X really knows what's going on. Thus, as with most knowledge, the acceptance is provisional.
Why Did Modern Science Arise in the West?
There have been numerous great civilizations -- in India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia -- that flourished long before the modern Western civilization of Europe. They have all contributed unique arts and innovations. They have maintained long centuries of peace and relative prosperity for their citizens. But there is no other civilization that compares to the West in terms of its rapid growth of technology, its scientific knowledge of nature, and its economic power. Within a period of about 400 years, the West has moved from the 'Dark Ages' of feudalism and medieval superstition to the present age of science and technology. How did this happen? What philosophical ideas were behind it?
Alfred North Whitehead, the 20th century philosopher and historian, although not a religious man in any traditional sense, has offered an answer to this question that comes from an unlikely direction:
"I do not think, however, that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles (causality). Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: -- that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted on the European mind?
"When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality. Remember that I am not talking of the explicit beliefs of a few individuals. What I mean is the impress on the European mind arising from the unquestioned faith of centuries. By this I mean the instinctive tone of thought and not a mere creed of words.
"In Asia, the conceptions of God were of a being who was either too arbitrary or too impersonal for such ideas to have much effect on instinctive habits of mind. Any definite occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot, or might issue from some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There was not the same confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being. I am not arguing that the European trust in the scrutability of nature was logically justified even by its own theology. My only point is to understand how it arose. My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology."
-- Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, p. 18-19.
There are two ways acceptance is provisional. Whenever we place our trust in authority, concensus, or a majority opinion, we are obliged to accept views other than what our own knowledge is sufficient to see. And so you say. This kind of acceptance admits that Descartes' most-commonly- distributed-commodity-in-the-world-called-reason involves serious limitations and is not as common as was thought (especially in terms of capacity and capability).
The second way in which acceptance is provisional is in the recognition that in fact all knowledge is provisional insofar as we are ethical. That is what Socrates says on the matter. If we don't admit that all knowledge is provisional, we raise one of the kinds of knowledge to an absolute. Certainty is nice, but it is partial. Even the principles of mathematics that were so appealing to Plato are limited--just ask StJacques.
We take so much for granted, ckilmer, rather than try to understand how things actually came to be as they are. The civilizations of the East never produced any kind of systematic science; and Whitehead is correct to note that there was nothing in their otherwise brilliant cultures that could conduce to that end. The inconvenient fact (for many) is that science rose in a Christian culture, from classical and Christian roots.
Thank you ever so much, ckilmer, for posting this choice selection from Whitehead.
Then again, the Greeks didn't accomplish what the Europeans did; and perhaps that bolsters Whitehead's point. The intense theological pursuits of the Middle Ages perhaps put in place the sorts of thought processes necessary to assimilate those ideas into a wider system of knowledge.
I've also heard it claimed that the Black Death helped with the transition -- among other things, the surfeit of old clothes/rags enabled the production of cheap paper, and thus a means of distributing information.... But then again, the Chinese had paper, and didn't accomplish the same things.
If we understand Whitehead's point as being that Christianity "set the tone," not only for scientific progress, but also for the ideas of individual worth and individual rights, then it appears that he was right.
Today's youth just don't respect the Olympian gods. What's this world coming to?
Excellent insights, r9etb. Well said. Thank you so very much for writing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.