[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your posts! I’ve added your mentoring item to the list – here it is revised and ordered according to my personal valuation of “certainty”.

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!

Types of “knowledge” according to Freepers :

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. 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 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.
12. Theological knowledge, Imaginings: I have personally surmised my own understanding of this spiritual issue.

[PatrickHenry]

A good list. You're much better at these compliations than I am. Now I can quibble (which is much more fun than compiling):

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.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I have an interpretation of the fossil evidence in the geologic record.

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:

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.