Posted on 04/06/2005 11:36:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Freepers began a most engaging dialogue at the end of another thread! It is not only a fascinating subject - it also presents us with an opportunity to clarify ourselves and hopefully help us appreciate our differences and thus relieve some of the contention on various threads (most especially science and philosophy threads).
The subject is knowledge - which, as it turns out, means different things to different people. Moreover, we each have our own style of classifying “knowledge” – and valuing the certainty of that “knowledge”. Those differences account for much of the differences in our views on all kinds of topics – and the contentiousness which may derive from them.
Below are examples. First is PatrickHenry’s offering of his classification and valuation followed by mine – so that the correspondents here can see the difference. Below mine is js1138’s offering.
Please review these and let us know how you classify and value “knowledge”! We’d appreciate very much your following the same format so it’ll be easier for us to make comparisons and understand differences.
PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
1. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
Alamo-Girl’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
js1138’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties
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:
2. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
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.
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.
True..
It seems it all started at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil(right and wrong)[in Genesis].. and has grown progressively worse ever since.. If we would Not have touched that damned tree... Oh! well we did.. That tree produced TWO smart alecks as progenitors.. and this thread displays that in spades.. Nice work... We are ALL guilty.. LoL...
The day I receive a Spiritual revelation will probably be the day I have a heart attack..
Actually, I think God might've spoken to me once. It sounded like: Don't even bother! ;^)
Everybody blames Hegel. Everybody has read analyses of Hegel. Who has read Hegel? Schopenhauer was exceedingly bitter about the adulation heaped on Hegel, called him many things except philosopher. Hegel was of course talking about some things that most philosophers haven't got around to, namely the origin of the state and of rights. Very difficult and ill-defined topic to this day.
And thanks for sharing that "intelligence" discussion from your psychology course!
For philosphers it is not what you know, but how you know. Or, for entertainment at faculty parties, AKA symposia, with dozens of PhDs attending, how do you know that you know. They say they are not philosophers, and you may ask what PhD stands for. This will reduce your required attendance at future faculty parties.
Not now. He wrote the small book at the beginning of his career and it is the basis of all that followed. A person should read it and see the development of sufficient reason. There are four types of sufficient reason in his system, ranging from direct perception/intuition to revelation. The language is technical, so any quick statement or synopsis would be meaningless to most.
He annoyed the Vienna Circle followers with that although he refused to argue with them directly, being a member himself and opposed to positivism. He also caused the followers and developers of Artificial Intelligence to choke on their symposium snacks, which resulted to this day in Goedel being ignored like a bad dream.
I am not opposed to universals, per se. What I claim is that they have no existence independent of God. I do not say "independent of some consciousness" as the referenced thread does (which is just a rewording of George Berkeley's [1685-1753] contention). What is the "essence" of the number 7? It is a truth that God knows, and which I, in his image, can know. Nothing more--but also nothing less. Imagine: that we can know things that are in the mind of God. That have been, that always shall be. This is a thing ignored by fideists: because of the gift of reason, we are in Eternity...even now.
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.