The Future of Biology: Reverse Engineering

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/14/05 | Staff

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your clarifications and edits! Does this fairly represent your views of types of knowledge, in order of certainty?

PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:

1. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
2. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
3. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...
4. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
5. 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.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.

Separate List for theological knowledge:

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your post and that great excerpt!

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent insights! Thank y'all so very much!

[PatrickHenry]

Types 1-7 are fine. (This is, of course, a preliminary list, and I'm sure we'll both have revisions to make from time to time.)

The separate theology list still needs work. Originally I had only two items (1 = direct revelation, and 2 = faith in someone else's revelation). In 1,022, when we were both working on one list, your #7 was added, and the wording was changed to "spiritual understanding" in 1,037.

In 1,045 I revised the list, using "your" item, which I had been thinking of as knowledge obtained by direct revelation, and adding as a second item having faith in another's revelation. Afterwards you asked why I was separating theological knowledge from the rest, and we decided to keep our own lists. If this list is mine, I'd have only two theological items as follows:

a. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
b. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another.

The casual observer might ask why I don't combine "faith" with number 5 in the non-theological part of the list (Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X ...) The reason is -- at least to me -- the nature of the track record that inspires the acceptance. In accepting the consensus of, say, physicists on the structure of the atom, there is an objectively verifiable body of evidence that could be reviewed. In the area of faith (in purely theological matters), by definition there is no such track record.

There's probably a fuzzy middle area, like where a clergyman gives advice about matters of this world, but in such cases I'd say his judgment is open to review like anyone else's. Similarly there are situations where a scientist pontificates about spiritual matters. When he does so, his track record in the lab is of no use to him in inspiring confidence, and because he's out of his area of expertise, he's likely to make a fool of himself (as is a clergyman when giving his untrained opinions about some complicated scientific issue).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your additional changes!

The casual observer might ask why I don't combine "faith" with number 5 in the non-theological part of the list (Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X ...) The reason is -- at least to me -- the nature of the track record that inspires the acceptance. In accepting the consensus of, say, physicists on the structure of the atom, there is an objectively verifiable body of evidence that could be reviewed. In the area of faith (in purely theological matters), by definition there is no such track record.

Indeed, this is why we need separate lists for each correspondent. In your worldview it is possible for a person to objectively verify evidence. Conversely, in my worldview the indwelling Spirit is the Truth and also the confirmation of all other knowledge, including evidences.

Below is your compilation followed by mine. I’ve gathered some ideas from your posts and made a few changes to mine as well! Please let me know if the order of certainty is correct for you.

I welcome any contributions for other lists!

PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:

1. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
2. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
3. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...
4. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
5. 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.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.

Separate List for theological knowledge:

1. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
2. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another.

Alamo-Girl’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:

1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue, e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - it didn't come from me.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.

[PatrickHenry]

One more point. As my least certain item of knowledge, I had been listing:

7. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.

Some clarification is probably in order here. I'm entirely certain that I have a feeling, so there is no doubt at all regarding knowledge of the feeling's existence. But as for what it is that the feeling may be telling me -- that is, the quality of the "knowledge" involved -- there's not much to recommend this as a great source of information. Example: I very often feel that I'm going to win the lottery. Because I'm so often being misled by my feelings, I've listed them dead last on my certainty index.

[js1138]

js1138’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:

1. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you. This is pretty nearly the only thing I am certain of. It's certain even if I am deranged or on drugs, or both. In this category I would place my knowledge of morality, which for AG seems to be expressed as revealed knowledge.

2. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet. I am aware that this has limitations, but what choices do I have? I learn the limitations and live with them.

3. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning. Same limitations apply, except that they are more frequent and serious.

4. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true. The trueness may be unassailable, but the conclusions of axiomatic reasoning are only as true as the axioms, which may be arbitrary. Outside of pure logic and pure mathematics, axiomatic reasoning drops quickly in my estimation of usefulness. People who argue politics and religion from a "rational" perspective are low on my list of useful sources.

5. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week. I am not aware of any scientific theory that I understand which has failed in a major way. Some theories, of course, make sharper predictions than others. Eclipses are pretty certain.

6. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ... Oddly enough, "facts" are less certain in my view than theories.

7. 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.

[PatrickHenry]

I find it fascinating how your "certainty index" differs from mine. Example: You rank your own personal memories as a more certain source of knowledge than calculations predicting a solar eclipse. I don't have that much confidence in human memory.

This whole subject of "knowledge" is probably worth a vanity thread of its own. If more attention were paid to it, perhaps a lot of confusion in many areas could at least be understood better. Many disagreements are probably the result of different "knowledge priorities" rather than pure stubbornness, as often seems the case. Alas, all this work is somewhat lost here at the end of a thread with an unrelated article.

[PatrickHenry]

One more observation about your "certainty index." Because you rank knowledge from revelation (whether direct or accepted on faith) ahead of all forms of observation, you might find yourself in a difficult bind regarding the Galileo controversy, because that's exactly (it seems to me) the "certainty index" that he was up against. He stated his position (which is also mine) in this document, the link to which which I've posted many times in the past:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Excerpt:

... nothing physical which sense ­experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words.

His position didn't prevail at the time. Since then the Church has quite literally modified it's certainty index, as can be inferred from this Papal document:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Excerpt:

I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.

I'm rather confident that you accept the solar system. Nevertheless, to routinely rank the interpretations of others regarding revelation ahead of what we actually observe can generate conflicts of this nature. Or so it seems to me. Anyway, that's why I put theological issues in a separate ranking.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your types of knowledge and valuations of certainty!

This is very, very helpful in understanding your posts!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your posts!

This whole subject of "knowledge" is probably worth a vanity thread of its own. If more attention were paid to it, perhaps a lot of confusion in many areas could at least be understood better. Many disagreements are probably the result of different "knowledge priorities" rather than pure stubbornness, as often seems the case. Alas, all this work is somewhat lost here at the end of a thread with an unrelated article.

I strongly agree with you on this!!!

If y'all would like, I can prepare an article for Freeper investigation on this very subject. But I'll likely be working again this afternoon - so it would have to be this evening at the earliest. If you'd rather do it, then please go right ahead.

Your last post indicates that I too need to make a clarification. I've given a very high priority of 2 to belief in revelations experienced by others. My entry should be clarified as follows:

2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit. To clarify: I eschew the doctrines and traditions of men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith or whoever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, David, etc.) do not fall in this category since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He confirms this is so to me personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings - including the geocentricity interpretations of the early church and my own such as in in this article.

[PatrickHenry]

I think this is the kind of thread that you'd be much better at posting than I could be. I'm content to wait until you have the time for it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Will do then. I do ask that you think about who all you want to ping to the discussion.

[PatrickHenry]

I've been wondering about the ping list for such a thread. I suppose you'll take care of people like St. Jacques, who isn't on any of my lists. I'll have to be somewhat selective in going through my ping list (over 260 names) to pull out those who may find this interesting. That will be difficult. I'll mull it over.

Hey, don't forget to ping me when you post the thing!

[atlaw]

I'd like to be pinged to the new thread when you post it. the topic is fascinating. I probably won't contribute much (don't want to embarrass myself in front of the credible thinkers here), but I'll avidly read.

[PatrickHenry]

It's also going to be tricky to compose just the right title for the thread. I'll leave that to you, because it'll be your thread. But I can't help offering a suggestion -- not so much about the actual title, but about the concept for the thread:

What kinds of "Knowledge" exist, and how "certain" are the various types?

[Alamo-Girl]

You couldn't possibly embarass yourself - there is no right or wrong in how people classify and value knowledge! We very much seek your insight!

I will ping you as soon as it is posted!

[cornelis]

What kinds of "Knowledge" exist, and how "certain" are the various types? You really dig the certainty thing, eh?

I understand your unspoken oblivion to my posts, but I think the point that should be stressed again: since all knowledge is finite, all that we deem certain is hampered by what is uncertain. That is not to suggest that we must all be sophistic skeptics. It is to understand that there is more to human life than certainty. Freedom of will, human agency, and the interaction of love, is not, as a one-time-poster Jolly Rogers had it, a pure function of reason.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the suggestion! I will add the necessary preface to encourage the correspondents:

Freeper Investigation: What kinds of "Knowledge" exist, and how "certain" are the various types?

I will be specifically soliciting responses like js1138's at post 1087. Yours, mine and js1138's will be used as examples.

So far, my initial ping list will be: PatrickHenry; atlaw; js1138; betty boop; cornelis; marron; LogicWings; r9etb; Ronzo; RightWhale; OhioAttorney; ckilmer; xzins; Hank Kerchief

These are correspondents who have recently posted on or near the subject of the investigation (as best I can recall off the top of my head).

I also added Hank Kerchief who has a philosophy ping list, but I don't know if he'll be interested in this subject. I added xzins because he also has a "list" albeit perhaps informal of correspondents interested in the theological ramifications of such things.

Hank and xzins, to get an idea what the fuss is all about you might want to read forward from post 1085.

The science ping list for which you are now famous surely includes people who are exhausted from years of contention and may find some relief in seeing perhaps why it has been this way.

[PatrickHenry]

... don't want to embarrass myself in front of the credible thinkers here ...

Who? Me? I embarrass myself every day when I put my thoughts out there for others to critique. How else can I learn?