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

4/6/2005 | Various Freepers

[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.

[chronic_loser]

Now, would you like to remind me why an empiricist treats the sesory inputs from a cosmos that is uncertain and ordered by a neural ganglia of which he is also uncertain into "knowledge" of which he is certain?
Actually, an empiricist is "certain" of nothing. In another post you snottily implied that you understood empiricism better than most. Your confidence was clearly misplaced.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Actually, an empiricist is "certain" of nothing"..... BINGO! All knowledge is faith based. We have no basis for CERTAINTY in any of our knowledge. An empiricist has an object of trust (his own perceptions) and a theist has another object. There is no inherent REASON that one should be considered more reliable than the other. Nice to know we agree on this point.
As to how well I understand empiricism, I apologize for the misrepresentation of myself. I do NOT (snottily or otherwise) understand empiricism "better than most." In fact, what I understand least of all is the intolerable arrogance of empiricists who dismiss faith based claims as irrational, yet point to "science" as "solid data."
You see this type of reasoning all the time among naturalists. There is an assumption that data empirically gathered is substantive, and that non-empirical claims are assigned a "lower" grade of reliability, if not dismissed altogether. Indeed, the exact point has been made in this thread, emphatically, forcefully and clearly. It was not your post, but read Patrick Henry's posts on knowledge and reliability.
This only makes sense if you begin your thought system with an ASSUMPTION that our perceptions are acccurate, the universe is ordered, and that we have the ability to correctly classify and analyse our perceptions (you may not call it "data" until you are sure it is, in fact something other than your perceptions). Those assumptions have NO basis in SCIENCE at all, but are philosophical "a prioris" that you bring to the table. The purpose of a thread like this on epistemology is to ask the question, "how do you know your presuppositions are accurate." To respond with the vast majority of naturalists that "the data confirms it" is simply arguing in a circle. That was my point in the "bizarre tangent" below
Is it because some red lights flash on a machine (designed by processes in that uncertain ganglia), or is it because his perceptions of that data are grouped into categories by that same neural gangila and you assume therefore that this has some "real" relationship to the cosmos out there?>>>>>>>

All this is to say that modern science can say NOTHING meaningful about the nature of the universe other than "our minds seem to be able to group certain perceived families of input into categories, and we can build machines that reproduce those categories." Anything else is based on assumptions that science cannot and will not give you.

[PatrickHenry]

How did we forget to post this link? Raphael's School of Athens

[Ichneumon]

Technically, it is correct to say "doubts exist," nothing more. the "I doubt" is slipped in under the door and is not realized. /// You "forgot" to explain why. Ten yard penalty. >>>>

Actually, others with better brains have done so better than I can, but since we all just hitch hike on others thoughts usually, I will give it a stab.

At the very least, you'll be able distill it down to something that can be read in one sitting. :-) Most "original sources" are rather lengthy.

Descartes was arguing for the existence of the self, the person, the "I", if you will. He started by doubting EVERYTHING. All he is left with is doubts, yet the doubts presuppose his existence, therefore, he must be.

I'm with you so far.

The guys who "think for a living" (or at least WRITE about thinking for a living) have pointed out that it does not necessarily follow that there is an *I* doing the doubting. To use a very modern example, the "doubts" could be generated by a "matrix" something like the recent movie, or by some entity which generates thoughts the way the liver secretes bile.

It's been over two decades since I sat down at length and waded through Decartes et al, but if I recall correctly his "cogito" point wasn't focused on trying to demonstrate an "I" as an independent entity, necessarily, nor to draw an specific conclusions about its properties, *other* than its raw existence. Even in the "Matrix" scenario, there is still a doubter, even if it is a "ghost in the machine" (literally), and that doubter, indeed, does exist (albeit in a diffuse form).

It seems to me to be pointless hairsplitting to object that "it does not necessarily follow that there is an *I* doing the doubting", since the doubter (whatever it may be) is doubting its own ponderings, and thus has a notion of "self", which it labels as "I" (because that's what that word *means*). I don't see how that implies anything unsupportable or is any less precise than for example, "Decartes thinks therefore Decartes exists", or "the producer of these thoughts thinks therefore the producer exists", or any other alternate forms.

That's *not* to say that "therefore I am" implies anything more specific (as in, "therefore I exist as a human mind", or "therefore I exist as an independent entity", and so on).

In a nutshell, if one allows "pondering takes place", then it seems inescapable that "a source of the pondering must exist", and "the source labels itself 'I' when pondering its operations".

Even in the "Matrix" scenario.

Descartes DID point out that certain philosophical positions are UNAVOIDABLE BECAUSE WE ARE UNABLE TO TO PRESUPPOSE DIFFERENTLY. For example, I really should have said that "he just slipped the 'I doubt' in under the door and we don't realize it" but the very use of pronouns in the statement presupposes our existence and move us into Descartes oven, even if not into his realm of logic. We are unable to speak, argue, post on a computer bulletin board, or irritate each other without PRESUPPOSING our own existence. This is different from demonstrating our existence as a rational and necessary CERTAINTY, as our non-existence remains a theoretical possibility. However, thinkers (and the halfwits like me who read them) over the years have given Descartes a pass simply because it is embarrassing as hell to argue that I cannot be sure, YOU cannot be sure, HE cannot be sure, of personhood, and have to use all those personal pronouns in doing it.

That's another level of analysis, but one which I think is apart from the core "nutshell" of "cogito ergo sum".

Another way of saying this is to quote a joke (I think it is from Anthony Flew, but I can't remember right now) about the guy at a party proclaiming that he can know NOTHING with certainty, not even his own existence. If you want to stop his foolery, just slide up to him and whisper "your fly is open." If he is so uncertain of everything, why does he check himself EVERY TIME?

This reminds me of a monolog from an old (1980) movie ("Foxes"). Jodie Foster's character (a teen, that's how old the movie is) says, "one time this guy was going on about how pain is just an illusion. I spilled my hot tea on his leg. After he got done hopping around, he said that I was a stupid b**ch, but that he foregave me. But he stopped talking about pain being an illusion."

I like to bat around philosophy as much as the next guy, but when the mental meanderings seem to be getting too far divorced from what happens when the rubber meets the road, sometimes some hot tea on the leg seems called for. :-)

In this case, for example, to any philosopher pontificating that even if pondering exists, an "I" does not necessarily follow, I will ask, "...who says so?"

We are unable to think or act in a way that does NOT presuppose our existence, so Descartes is "sorta" right.

Does not "presuppose our existence" in what sense?

I must warn you, though, that this position moves you closer to the bible bangers. They claim that the reason that I must ACT as though I were made in the image of God, even though I may selectively deny it in theory. Descartes position is certainly consonant with this in the area of ontology (the cornerstone for the real issue of the thread, which is epistemology), and axiology (values, or ethics).

I don't see how this would follow from the foregoing.

If the above is not always clear, I apologize. I am limited in my knowledge of philosophy and philosophical history, being degreed in Chemistry only.

That's okay, I'm over twenty years rusty myself, although at the time I did come one credit away from a Minor in Philosophy on my diploma, which would have looked sort of funny with my engineering-related major degree.

However, there are quite a number of critiques of Descartes one can google that say pretty much the same thing.

True, but in philosophy there are practically an unlimited number of critiques arguing *any* side of a particular point, so the existence of one school of thought doesn't by itself prove much. It's like the saying about lawyers: It's a poor lawyer who can't convincingly argue either side of a case.

The stuff about presuppositionalism is best laid out by a guy named Cornelius Van Til, although you can find others who say essentially the same stuff.

I'll check it out if I get the time, which at the moment doesn't look promising. Heck, I probably shouldn't have even taken the time to compose this reply (it's time I should have allotted to sleeping). But as the saying goes, I'll have plenty of time to sleep when I'm dead.

In the interests of time, I will pick up on your other issues in your post later.

Fair enough.

[chronic_loser]

Thanks for the link. WONDERFUL painting. One of my faves of all times,

RAPHAEL WAS A GENIUS!!!!!

Centered is:

Plato, pointing up, the realm of the Universals. Aristotle, Palm and finger down, the realm of the particulars.

Where do we start? (it will determine where we wind up). Medieval western Culture (Christian Europe) kicked out Aristotle and argued that only the "heavenly" or spiritual deserved attention. Modern (post renaissance) western man has returned the favor, basically kicked out Plato, arguing that all that is needful, or at least all that can be spoken about meaningfully, is in Aristotle, the data, the particulars.

Calvin argues in the "Institutes" (first chapters) that a world view which does not recognize both is doomed.

Thanks for the post!

[Ichneumon]

Good job. You have confused the hell out of me.

Woo hoo!

Okay, actually that wasn't my intent, but I suppose at least it's a start. ;-) On these threads people often talk past each other because they think they already know "where the other person is coming from". (There are at least a couple of prime examples on this very thread -- folks who'd rather pigeonhole someone into one of their prefab mental categories than to actually listen to what's being said -- and what isn't.) If I've managed to inadvertently confuse you, the upside is that you'll read subsequent material with a fresh eye, if just to figure out what in the heck sense I (might) be making...

But unfortunately, that really must wait a few hours, I *have* to get some sleep right now. But you've made a number of cogent points in your most recent posts to me (as well as some I take issue with), so I'll be happy to address them as soon as I can manage to.

[PatrickHenry]

And here's one more link for ya: Click here if you dare!

Other than the word "epistemology," it doesn't have much to do with with this thread. But when I spotted it, I somehow thought of you.

[chronic_loser]

Why should an empiricist be totally skeptical?>>>

Simply, because empiricism, by definition, cannot authenticate itself, as it cannot get "outside" the realm of particulars to any type of "meta" anything.
Empiricism, by definition, is concerned with observable details. For example, David Hume recognized this when he observed one billiard ball "causing" the otherst to scatter on impact. In fact, he observed nothing of the sort. He observed one ball striking others and the others scattering. Empirical data re: causality is completely lacking. Push it back far enough and you are left only with statements that there are certain perceptions and our minds tend to organize these into patterns. Whether these have any real relationship to the "think in itself" (Kant) is a matter of conjecture and COMPLETELY unresolvable with the empirical method. Therefore, empircism collapses back on itself.

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

[chronic_loser]

Why should an empiricist be totally skeptical?>>>

Simply, because empiricism, by definition, cannot authenticate itself, as it cannot get "outside" the realm of particulars to any type of "meta" anything.
Empiricism, by definition, is concerned with observable details. For example, David Hume recognized this when he observed one billiard ball "causing" the otherst to scatter on impact. In fact, he observed nothing of the sort. He observed one ball striking others and the others scattering. Empirical data re: causality is completely lacking. Push it back far enough and you are left only with statements that there are certain perceptions and our minds tend to organize these into patterns. Whether these have any real relationship to the "think in itself" (Kant) is a matter of conjecture and COMPLETELY unresolvable with the empirical method. Therefore, empircism collapses back on itself.

Again, the brighter scientists recognize this, and the honest bright ones both recognize and acknowledge it. The rest are either dullards or dishonest, or both.

[betty boop]

How the heck do you keep up with these threads? I miss one day and I have no idea of where I am.

LOL b_sharp, but I don't. Seems I can never keep up. :^)

[betty boop]

Personally, I think you should be ashamed of engaging in victim politics, and argue the substance.

One has difficulty arguing substance when one never gets answers to one's questions.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Or as I might say: "They appear that way at the present time."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for bumping by! I look forward to reading your views!

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's fun to trace words from their current usage as far back as one can.

Check
Yar
Scuba
Snorkel
Orange
Easter

[Doctor Stochastic]

Feel free to plagiarize.

"I saw Descartes before the Hors d'Oeuvres table, munching on a croissant; he had a Coca-Cola and Chartreuse cocktail in his left hand...."

Maybe I'll enter something like this in the Dark and Stormy Night contest.

[xzins]

I found this graphic on a knowledge acquisition page and found it interesting. Their interest was in retrieving knowledge from experts. They considered experts to be a major source of knowledge, and that they were a largely untapped resource. (http://www.epistemics.co.uk/Notes/63-0-0.htm)

Comparison of KA Techniques
The figure below presents the various techniques described above and shows the types of knowledge they are mainly aimed at eliciting. The vertical axis on the figure represents the dimension from object knowledge to process knowledge, and the horizontal axis represents the dimension from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge.

[js1138]

I would argue that Ginsberg's statements consist of a true statement followed by two non sequiturs.

Hard cases make bad law. Or something like that.

[Lazamataz]

Self ping.

I notice that your entry had a lot of 'feel' and emotional subtext.

You must be a woman. ;^)

[Diamond]

How come I'm not on your ping list?;^(

Cordially,

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! What a fascinating post!

Where in the heck did you read *that* [I suspect your reaction on this thread - that there is only one "right" answer which is your own] into my posts?

I gathered it from your post 62 where you said among other things:

As such, understanding how people (including ourselves) "know what ain't so" is a critically important subject, and yet few disciplines actually pay much attention to it (except to exploit it, as by advertisers, magicians, con men, and propagandists). So the "skeptic" community came together to study that topic and provide information to the public about how not to get snookered (by yourself, even, not just by others). Skeptics are often disliked by just about every group, because they usually act as "party poopers" pointing out the flaws in various comfortable presumptions, but they're the experts on how and why people believe various things that "ain't so" -- and how to learn to think more critically (about other people's claims, as well as about your own beliefs) and how to use more reliable methods of learning and understanding.

You also objected:

me: For example, I completely disagree with you on the above and instead agree with betty boop. I cannot speak to the other cultures, but Judeo/Christian faith not only encourages discovery - it demands it by Scripture (Psalms 19 and Romans 1).

you: That's a wonderfully idealistic and rosy view, but it is quite inconsistent with actual history. My synopsis is based on a long familiarity with the historical roots of empiricism, and I stand by it.

You are certainly welcome to your views. That is the point of this thread, trying to understand one another’s bases for knowing. In the above example you are evidently focused on the failure of man whereas I am focused on the exhortation of God to look and see – that is a fundamental difference between us which is good to know. Man’s failures I take as a given – we always “blow it” - but we must never quit trying to look and see.

No, I do not say "mere belief" *instead* of "simply saying 'belief'", I said "mere belief" to DISTINGUISH it from those beliefs which are *true*. As the passage above should have made reasonably clear, by "mere belief" I meant, as I clarified in the very next sentence, "[those] of our beliefs [...] which are false". In other words, *false* beliefs are not knowledge, they are "mere beliefs" -- they are *only* beliefs, and nothing more. They are those beliefs which do not reflect reality. Perhaps you misread my words due to *your* "prejudice"?

Indeed. That is the point. I read your paragraph at post 217 in light of your previous post at 62. At 217 you said, among other things:

This is a remarkably inaccurate description of the history of science in particular, or epistemology in general. If anything, "(1) and (2) [faith and revelation]" were obstacles to real learning for millennia (just as they continue to be in the Muslim world to this day). Furthermore, faith and evelation" led primarily not to "confidence" in the reliability of "the first 7", but to doubt in them -- both because "the first 7" sometimes led to conclusions contrary to the "accepted wisdom" arrived at via "faith and revelation", and because belief in the results of "faith and revelation" pointed towards a conclusion that the universe was *capricious* (i.e., operated at the whims of god), and was not *predictable* (i.e. mechanistic/deterministic enough for constant physical laws and processes to be discovered). When lightning bolts are hurled weapons of god's wrath, who's going to bother to examine them for regularities and the constant laws by which they invariably behave?

IOW, in looking at the sum of your posts, I perceive a prejudice on your part – that “knowledge” must pass the skeptics’ test and further, that the skeptics’ test would preclude many beliefs (faith and revelation). If that is your prejudice, then so be it. It’s good to know how Ichneumon classifies and values knowledge.

Your post continued in objecting to my remarks that you are demanding proofs. And again I refer back to the previous two posts linked and excerpted above.

Please keep your small-minded notions of how God may be reached to yourself.

Sorry. No can do. It’s a package deal for a Christian – we cannot be silent when we are compelled to speak.

Yes, of course, your capacity exceeds my own and is in fact limitless.

The point is that the knowledge which is revealed by God through the indwelling Spirit cannot be obtained by human effort nor can it be contained within the mind of any man. Secrets and mysteries are revealed in glimpses as the need arises within the believer – usually to give testimony (almost never for personal “gain”). We share the mind of Christ – which is without any limitation at all. IOW, my pride is in Him, not myself – my “certainty” is in him, not myself.

Conversely, those who do not abide in Him are limited by the boundaries of their own mind. They cannot share in the mind of a Person greater than every thing, every where and every when.

Of course, there are some Eastern mystics who would say they share in the collective consciousness of the universe. But, as I understand it, that sharing is by an advancing awareness in the universe itself, life/death and reincarnation, and not sharing the mind of another Person.

Notably, the creation is also described in Romans 8 as having a will. IMHO, this is what the Eastern mystics have sensed.

[RightWhale]

Expert systems may be nothing more than a software marketing ploy. AI is one thing, and database mining something else. There is tremendous progress being made in database mining and topology applications. I am not worried that they will get their thinking machines to work. Goedel might have been wrong, but the Fourfold Principle of Sufficient Reason has a method or three of knowing the Truth that is beyond machines. Should we worry the machines will pull our feeding tubes? Maybe, but that would be cold logic, not revelation. Goedel kept asking why until eventually nobody could answer and the AI fans keep him chained to a bed in the attic and hope everybody forgets about him.