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

4/6/2005 | Various Freepers

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you all for your participation in this investigation!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Your participation will be much appreciated!!!

[jmc813]

self bump for later

[wideawake]

Jacques Maritain, the America-loving, devout Christian philosopher from France (I know, weird guy) wrote an excellent book about epistemology called Degress of Knowledge in which he analyzes this question in great depth.

[razorback-bert]

hmmm.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the book recommendation!

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm looking forward to your views on the subject!

[thoughtomator]

Is a logical conclusion really substantially different than a prediction from scientific theory?

For example, you can say that the Pythagorean theorem, a^2+b^2=c^2, can be proven true. However, what is rarely stated is that it is true only for a particular set of assumptions, in this case, flat geometry. If you use a curved surface, then the theorem is no longer true.

Likewise, scientific theory presents us with what we know is true in a particular set of conditions (if it actually does rise to the level of a theory rather than a mere hypothesis). What's the difference between the set of conditions that a scientific theory is based on, and the set of conditions a "logical conclusion" is based on?

[PatrickHenry]

Epistemology Discussion Ping List

An off-beat use of the evolution ping list.

[Lexington Green]

Negalogical Knowledge - when you know you don't know.

[Ranxerox]

I would add to the list empirical knowledge: knowledge gained from direct experience or observation, without the benefit of scientific theory.

Although, as I typed that I realized there is some overlap with your catagories.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

well, we must put down what God says is knowledge:

Proverbs 9:10

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insight! Indeed, you may wish to combine numbers 3 and 8 from my list into a single entry on yours with clarification (and of course, your own ranking of relative 'certainty'). js1138 saw a similar weakness in axioms on his list.

As for me, I'll leave the two separate because one is a prediction and the other self-verifies (albeit with reservations, such as your example in plane geometry).

[SpaceBar]

There is statistical knowledge, like knowing the exact nature probabilistically of something that is by nature stochastic and unpredictable in single events but highly predictable when the overall behavior of large numbers of identical systems are considered.

[Alamo-Girl]

when you know you don't know.

From what betty boop tells us on the previous thread, this humility is what made Socrates particularly wise. Thank you for your post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I would add to the list empirical knowledge: knowledge gained from direct experience or observation, without the benefit of scientific theory. Although, as I typed that I realized there is some overlap with your catagories.

Please feel free to make your own list and definitions! A list of only one or two types would even be fine with us!

[VadeRetro]

I forget who said it, maybe James Thurber. You're grown up when you know that the wolf at the door is real even though you can't see him and Santa Claus isn't real even though you can see him.

[visualops]

Can't get into this now (at work) but this evening will throw a few cents in.

Great subject!
thanks for the ping, PH.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for the passage!

Indeed. Here is my statement of worldview:

I perceive that "all that there is" is God's will and is unknowable in its fullness, that the physical realm is a manifestation of that reality. Thus concerning math and physics I am Platonist. And concerning politics and ideology, I am Christian conservative.

Hence, my list of types of "knowledge" and certainty flows from that view of reality.

[cloud8]

I'm sure you've heard this story...

After a ball game, three umpires meet to discuss a controversial call.

The first umpire, an empiricist, says, "Some are balls, some are strikes, I calls 'em as I sees 'em."

The second umpire, a relativist, says, "Some are balls, some are strikes, I calls 'em as they are."

The third umpire is an existentialist. "They ain't nothing till I calls 'em."

So while we are all slightly askew from reality, each perceiving it in an individual way, we have--besides our native intelligence--religion, tradition, education and the law to guide us in interpreting reality. "Knowledge" is the total of all this--our awareness of the world around us plus our intellectual skills that enable us to deal with it.

Does this make sense? I not much of a philosopher, I'm afraid.