Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freeper Investigation: What kinds of "Knowledge" exist, and how "certain" are the various types?
4/6/2005 | Various Freepers

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. 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.
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

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.
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 this article.
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.

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.



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-653 next last
To: 68 grunt
Excellent insight, 68 grunt! Thank you!
361 posted on 04/07/2005 7:31:00 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus
Hmmm ... that's a very interesting thought experiement, Ironfocus! Thank you so much for your challenge!

Only our God-given spirit can make it intelligible...

Indeed. I would say that is true about everything.

362 posted on 04/07/2005 7:34:05 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; chronic_loser

No, on second thought, don't follow up. You're the kind of enraged, scientifically-illiterate, philosopher-wannabe we have three dozen of on FR. I just re-read your follow-up to Ich, and I have no wish to get down in the gutter with you.


363 posted on 04/07/2005 7:41:52 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: djf
Hi, djf! Welcome aboard to this fascinating investigation!

I love the kidnapped scientist metaphor! It does a great job in capturing our inability to be know-it-alls. LOLOL!

And I agree, too, that language (and communication) are the driving force of our body of knowledge. Sadly though, it cuts both ways - language can clarify or obfuscate and for so many things, there just are no words (e.g. pain/pleasure).

Thank you so much for your post!

364 posted on 04/07/2005 7:42:26 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: JWinNC
Thank you so very much for sharing your list of "types" of "knowledge" and your valuation of their certainty! Very interesting, JWinNC!
365 posted on 04/07/2005 7:45:45 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
Thank you for bumping by! I look forward to reading your comments!
366 posted on 04/07/2005 7:53:32 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your views of knowledge and your personal testimony! Hugs!!!
367 posted on 04/07/2005 7:58:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
By the way, since you've obviously an interest in epistemology and Christianity, if you haven't read this, you should: C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason by Victor Reppert. Contrary to the shallow criticism of a number of contemporary "thinkers," Lewis is someone who needs to be taken seriously, and not just by Christians.

Just wanted to say I read that book too, and Fred is right: C.S. Lewis must be taken very seriously. Lewis derails the metaphysical naturalist train unlike anyone I've ever seen!

368 posted on 04/07/2005 8:12:47 PM PDT by Ronzo (God ALONE is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

There I was digging into IE roots like a hog in truffles and I got a great idea--buy an IE dictionary. A good one. Great anticipation. It arrived. Began comparing Webster's etymologies. Not a lot of commonality. Some, but not wonderful. But, it reinforced an earlier axiom--trust no one.


369 posted on 04/07/2005 8:13:47 PM PDT by RightWhale (50 trillion sovereign cells working together in relative harmony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: proud American in Canada
Thank you so very much for your kind encouragements! I am very glad you are printing the thread and will meditate on these things - and I do very much look forward to reading your views!
370 posted on 04/07/2005 8:29:49 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Ronzo
Thank you so very much for your endorsement of the book recommendation!
371 posted on 04/07/2005 8:32:13 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; cornelis; PatrickHenry; chronic_loser; betty boop; xzins
You've already had several replies - but, er, if I may...

It is difficult to see how revelations can lead to anything but conflict.

Concerning Spiritual revelations ...

To the person who has received a Spiritual revelation - e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - there is no question because the Spirit Himself reveals it as part of the person's being. It is not like someone else speaking but rather an involuntary speaking within, a compelling not of self-will. (Matt 16, John 1)

Likewise, when one who is indwelled by the Spirit reads Scriptures, the Words come alive within. To someone who does not have yet have this indwelling (or has not yet learned to defer to the Spirit when reading Scripture) - the Bible would be text on paper, a manuscript, interesting literature, etc.

Most important in receiving Spiritual revelations is that God is self-consistent. Each revelation will agree with all of His previous revelations to the believer. Thus if a person believes he has received a revelation which is inconsistent, then there is something desperately wrong. (Cayce, Yates, etc.)

A clear indication that a "revelation" someone claims to have received is not from God is when it disagrees with Scriptures which have already been Spiritually revealed to the hearer as Truth. This is called the Berean test (Acts 17).

Jesus' "a bad tree cannot yield good fruit" (Matt 7) standard is the first test. IOW, if a person claims to have Spiritual discernment and wants to share it with a believer, then the believer should look at the fruits of the speaker’s life (Gal 5) to decide whether or not to listen. “False prophets” would fail this test. Even so, after hearing what is said, many believers will still apply the Berean test.

Personally, I choose not to filter God’s Word through the eyes of mortal men and thus eschew all doctrines and traditions and put everything to the good/bad tree and Berean tests. But that’s just me.

Some are more comfortable relying on the insight of a single spiritual mentor or a lineage of mentors. These have placed their trust in a person or institution between themselves and the Word (Jesus). Certainly, as long as those in between and the ones trusting never lose sight of Christ, there is not so much risked.

However, some will invariably end up worshipping the messenger instead. These are the kind who followed Jim Jones and Marshal Applewhite and David Koresh to their end. And some are led astray into bizarre and destructive behavior.

For that reason, I strongly recommend for all believers to stay focused on Jesus and faithfully apply the good/bad tree test and the Berean test to every spiritual speaker, even the ones they already trust.

My two cents…

372 posted on 04/07/2005 10:24:30 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
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.

Which reminds me of the classic:

3 is greater than 2
(except for unusually large values of 2)

Check your Jacobians, folks. . .

Cheers!

Full Disclosure: You Frech should check your Jacobins, too!

373 posted on 04/07/2005 10:39:06 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

That doesn't answer the question at all. It only says that you have chosen a particular side. Others have also had unquestionable spiritual experiences that disagree with yours. Those who've never had such experiences just see two or more people ablsolutely convinced of their beliefs to the point of being willing to die for them.


374 posted on 04/07/2005 10:43:29 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser
However, simply the fact that conflicting claims to revelation exist is no prima facie reason to either doubt their validity or decide that no rational process for distinguishing between them is available.

I think the problem is often a little more complex than that. One problem is that the empirical sciences are UNABLE by their nature to choose between competing revelatory claims; coupling that with the superior ability of the sciences to predict everyday phenomena, and the supposition that all religions necessarily grew out of a desire to explain the cosmos, and--bingo--you have the temptation to sweep "all these religious fancies" aside.

And of course, you have other issues such as wishful thinking (on both religious and non-religious sides), intellectual pride, etc.

And if the supernaturalists are right, then you have the factors of real revelation and real deception thrown in--as well as the possibility of all kinds of misunderstandings. (Just try telling one of your elementary school age children to pass a message on to one of their siblings, and you'll see that it really can depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is...)

And all this before the possibility of stories being mangled by history, translation problems, etc.

Full Disclosure: St. Paul came out and said that "now we see as through a glass, darkly." Why do I only find these threads after all the fun, furor and uproar has died down? :-(

375 posted on 04/07/2005 10:50:09 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Thank you for your reply!

My post was directed only to Spiritual (Holy Spirit, i.e. Christian) revelation. And yes indeed, I have clearly taken a "side".

Those who've never had such experiences just see two or more people ablsolutely convinced of their beliefs to the point of being willing to die for them.

So very true. Until the observer has a Spiritual revelation of his own, it'll probably not make any sense at all.

376 posted on 04/07/2005 10:50:54 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: donh
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.

Useless unless you're Michael Schiavo's lawyer. . .

"She doesn't [seem] to think, therefore SHE is not...therefore we should starve what is left."

377 posted on 04/07/2005 10:52:55 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Why do I only find these threads after all the fun, furor and uproar has died down? :-(

Hang in there and check back now and again! Some are reading the responses over the weekend and meditating on their own views and have promised to return.

378 posted on 04/07/2005 10:54:34 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus
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?

Sure sounds like the quote from one of the Richard Feynman books...

Something like

I wonder why
I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder
I wonder why I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder

Or words to that effect...

Cheers!

379 posted on 04/07/2005 10:55:30 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: djf
The number of molecules in the jar probably is a few more decimal placements than Avogadro's number.

Yah sure you betcha.

Avogadro's number = number of units in a mole.

1 mole of water ~ about 18 grams of water.

1 liter of water ~ 1000 cc of water ~ 1000 g of water (temperature and density...)

there are more or less 55 moles of water in a liter.

Cheers!

Full Disclosure: Forgive any math mistakes, it's past my bedtime :-)

380 posted on 04/07/2005 10:59:15 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 641-653 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson