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.
50-100 trillion cells, actually. How fat are you?
The difference between belief, faith, and knowledge.
I don't see them as interchangeable, as they each perform separate tasks.
For example, supposing I told you I would pay you ten dollars if you mowed my lawn. If you needed the money badly you would probably consider it.
After a moment, you considered mowing my lawn, BELIEVING I would pay you after you were finished. At this point you have Belief, though not acted upon as yet. Even if you decided not to mow my lawn, you still have the belief that I would have paid you.
As it worked out, you decided to mow my lawn after all and dragged your lawnmower over and cut the grass. You have activated your belief with labor. Labor might also be labeled as FAITH, which is another word for WORKS. You did the work, still believing that you would get paid.
Upon completing the task, I handed you ten dollars.
Know you KNOW your belief was true and your faith/labor/works were justified, for you now possess the the fruits of your labor.
It might also be said that your belief is no longer needed, nor is it necessary to keep mowing my lawn, for you have already have the KNOWLEDGE, the substance of what you believed in and worked for.
Many say, 'faith without works is dead.' Some say, 'I'll show you my faith by my works.'
Wouldn't it be resolved if one could say, faith AND works are synonymous?
In a Christian sense, consider that 'eternal life is the KNOWLEDGE of Jesus Christ and He would sent him.' As we know, BELIEF comes first. Activated by FAITH, and at some point, coming to the KNOWLEDGE -- receiving the substance.
I'm sure the formula can serve as a funcional equation for other endeavors.
Now I can go back and start reading the thread. Thanks again, A-G, for a topic that is sorely needed here.
Yes, divisions are caused by some believing they have all the facts when they don't. In the case of Terri, I would hope that the division is a result of some not having enough of the facts and fail to subscribe to a human consensus on what we do have (for not all the facts will be known) rather than defects of the heart. Best -- Dave
You:
I understand your position on this - especially since you are such a veteran of the crevo wars and are on the evo side, you might conclude that the religious would have no problem if only they kept beliefs separate from science. To the contrary, I assert that Spiritual understanding overarches everything to believers and thus trumps all other forms of knowledge. However, as betty boop says, God is author of both revelations: Scriptures and Nature - and therefore, we believers expect them to agree. I have personally never been disappointed.
Yes, but you are a remarkable person. If all Christians had your view of things, then there would truly be no science/religion conflicts. However, even the briefest sojourn in the evolution threads will reveal that the "full blown creationists" regard scripture as an infallible science text. Properly understood, it isn't, as you know, and as many Protestant denominations know, as do the Catholics. For example: Faith can never conflict with reason (The Pope's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts.) An excerpt:
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.So I continue to maintain that I'm justified in keeping knowledge obtained by revelation and faith in a separate category from my "first seven" types of knowledge.
I meant to thank your for the ping, and am pinging you to my reply above, betty boop.
Does historical knowledge fall in this category as well?
And I do understand your frustration with those who would re-interpret scientific "facts" to fit their own doctrine. And the reverse is true as well, those who re-write doctrine to fit their interpretation of scientific "facts".
IMHO, the phenomenon is a reflection of a person's valuation of the certainty of knowledge - and, IMHO, it is important to be aware of it.
Gotta go and do some work. I'll catch y'all later this evening.
I can follow this. Some would think that scientist only think, or should only think, but there are some who ctually do work.
Did God actually say that? Or was it written by a perceptive (or possibly paranoid) wordsmith in biblical times?
I personally think it was the latter, but Hey! That's just me.
History (like the American Revolution) isn't a subject of revelation, which -- as I understand it -- is the source of spirutual knowledge. It's item number three in my "first seven":
3. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...
I've naught participated in these deep treads before so forgive my simplicity. There is another type of knowledge, may I suggest 'communal knowledge'. Communal knowledge is much different as as communities. It explains many things which are too bizarre for comprehension. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and even Napoleon. It also explains HEP and any other cheap street riot. Communal knowledge is often used by con-men, or charismatics or political leaders or even riot leaders. There is a subconscious wave which binds up all. A person can stand within the wave, its length is limitless, and the person may be swept up with the wave or stand against the tide of the wave. To accept that there is the tie that binds us means to accept that we can affect that bind. Standing against the wave will not change its direction, but by joining the wave you may gradually do so. Yeah, I know, I'm nutz ;^)
Second, the fact remains that no matter how much you try to hand-wave it away, there *is* pondering going on, that pondering *is* taking place, and its substrate (whatever it may or may not be) therefore *does* exist. Decartes is vindicated yet again.
yea? Prove it. There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of that there is "pondering" going on outside of physical behaviors that give the appearance that they can ultimately be accounted for as the summation of physical processes engaged in by individual cells.
There is only objective evidence that your cells are "pondering"; yours and Descartes claims are unverifiable personal revelations, proffering no more a categorically reliable basis than that of a Holy Roller that God has touched his tongue, or a witch that she has had congress with the Devil.
I submit that you don't understand Decartes' point.
Oh, I expect I do understand it well enough. It is just an unverifiable claim of no significant practical merit, other than that it has keep wordy philosophers busy and out of the way of of people trying to get things done, and scientists trying to understand things of a bit more of a material nature.
It has nothing to do with "a life worth living" or however you'd like to sum up your alleged point in the prior paragraph. It has to do with the fundamental matter of existence or non-existence, and how much we can or can't know about it.
...according to Cartesians. According to many others, it is airy hogwash and a pointless waste of ergs, trying to imagine that there's a powerful reality-solvent dwelling mysteriously somewhere within you.
All this myasmic indwelling foo-foraw is in aid of the Cartesian Project: trying to imagine that Newton and/or Euclid have paved the way for a formally closed, logically demonstrable universe, and that like Spinoza, Descarte is going to be going on from "I think, therefore I am" for a Principia of Morality.
I'm sure Descarte was a nice guy, but "I think, Therefore I am", is an utterly useless, uninformative, and rather doubtful construct in aid of a useless, if not dangerous task.
ping to self
As for knowledge and sensation, how do you know when you are having a sensation? Is there a sensation that you are having a sensation? And then a sensation that you are having a sensation about that sensation? And how does that become knowledge about that sensation?
Only our God-given spirit can make it intelligible...
I Googled 'rumsfield + "things we know"' and at the top of the list was this site.
There may be several reasons to separate or distinguish these (what in other situations ought not be separated or distinguished). Strictly speaking, it is or isn't knowledge. But what is the reason for you separate category. Some of the "separatists" continue on this vein and end up separating history as well and that is why I mentioned historical knowledge. Perhaps you have a different reason.
Greetings!
Hope all goes well for yourself, Betty, and all the others. It has been a trying time, what with the events in Indonesia and last weekend.
As is usual for this type of thread, I will post, then go back and read.
My interest in heuristics and epistemology is boiling now! Lots of hours, thousands, in the semi lucid state right before I go to sleep.
It is a question that's easy to state, but very hard to get foot on. I spent years trying to decide if there was so much as one single statement that could unarguably be universally agreed as "true".
I finally found one, but won't state it here, as it might prompt some disagreement, which is not really the point.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of type of "knowledge". We could spend years listing them, think we are complete, only to discover we have missed some. Some of the ones we missed would be true head slappers, real groaners, totally obvious things that we didn't even notice. (we can't see the forest for the trees types of things. Right in front of us all along).
So we can't really discuss it until we get a better handle on it. That's where psych and computers enter the picture. In trying to discuss and quantify knowledge, the trend is to look at the human mind as a bunch of switches. The act of communication is when one mind that has certain switches set, does or says something that causes the same(or very similar) switches to be set in another mind.
So I could say "RED", then say "TRUCK", and some people would conclude I was talking about a fire truck.
The swutch thesis is very handy. It helps us quantize knowledge, but has another somewhat unexpected benefit. It helps us see what is really going on with communication and language. The fact that words have meaning is only because those meanings (and actions and effects on our switches) is an agreed upon thing between you and I and others.
We begin to conclude there is no inherent meaning or value to a random string of characters, somewhat pointing us at a sterile universe devoid of purpose.
This is where it gets exciting. Let's imagine I kidnap some scientists. I then have them sit down in my kitchen. I fill a clear plastic quart jar with water and set it on the counter. I tell the scientist type to watch the wter and report to me if he sees anything unusual.
He protests, then he watches for awhile. (btw, I put the cap back on the bottle). He watches for a while longer, then gets really restless.
He concludes, after a bit, it's a waste of time. Nothing will ever happen.
He may be right. But it is poor judgement and science on his part. The number of molecules in the jar probably is a few more decimal placements than Avogadro's number. And the number of possible statistical states of those molecules (just counting position, linear and angular momentum) is a one followed by a couple hundred zeros.
He could sit and watch the bottle for what amounts to many times the current age of the universe and see only the smallest, almost insignificant fraction of the possible states of the molecules in the bottle.
This complements the switch theory. We are forced to conclude we don't have enough switches in our head to describe the bottle. There aren't enough switches in the known universe.
But that doesn't mean our heads are imperfect. Or erroneous. Only incomplete.
Anyways, I find it exciting. And it gives a small hint to the actual meaning and size of the divine. I have lamented in the past that it seems we too often try to create God in our image rather than the other way around. I tend to think his purpose and motivations are simply not knowable by us.
Like our kidnapped scientist, we can only glimpse the tiniest part.
Perhaps I will write more later. But I don't want to launch into a diatribe about modern "science" and it's limitations, even though, perhaps I should! Limitations that most scientists adamantly deny, but even a bad poet could describe.
I would highly recommend any of the works by A.S. Eddington
As a scientist, he was able to describe and understand the roles and ideas of scientific thought and reasoning. And he did it in a way that did not at all decry or deny other disciplines. Truly a brilliant mind.
If you're asking why I put knowledge obtained from revelation and faith in a different catagory from all the rest, I've answered that in a few prior posts. Check out: 94, 293, and 303.
Well and truly said, Eastbound! Thank you so much for writing!
Checkin it out.
Obligatory Descartes before hor's D'oeuvre joke:
Descartes enters a tavern and orders a glass of wine. After he's finished the bartender says, "Would you like another?" Descartes replies, "I think not," and vanishes.
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.