thankx AG, i'd like to take credit... but it's the method the CIA uses. and it works for me too...
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.
CYSSOE
Yep, we have reached the coveted third level, Carlos, and didn't even have to visit Mexico. Ne dada.
Cordially,
That's Ich talking -- something which he is apparently unable to do without insulting someone.
I wonder if he is aware he has this problem, which is starkly evident to any fair-minded observer. Or if he is, whether it might be something in which he takes pride....
A-G, you are a saint not to respond in kind. Myself, I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless to try to have a dialog with a nabal. Though I do wish the nabal well in all things.
Evaluation of Information: A-1 being best
Source.......................................Information
A.Completely Reliable............1.Confirmed by Other Sources
B.Usually Reliable..................2.Probably True
C.Fairly Reliable....................3.Probably True
D.Not Usually Reliable...........4.Doubtful
E.Unreliable............................5.Improbable
F.Reliability can't be Judged...6.Truth can't be Judged
IMHO, one of the marvelous benefits of Freeping is that our conversation becomes archive. That which proceeds from our mouths (or in this case, fingertips) reveals the countenance of our hearts. Vision could not show this to us, and our memories fail to record every detail.
Your post is a beautiful example! Here you are wishing the best for those with whom you cannot establish a dialogue. What a beautiful heart you have, my dear sister in Christ.
May God always bless you!
thankx AG, i'd like to take credit... but it's the method the CIA uses. and it works for me too...
It's increasingly obvious that FR has turned into a fun-house for the most rabid kind of religious fundamentalist, and that the major role envisaged for the non-religious here is to passively accept being verbally attacked. Several long-time FReepers have left in the last few days in reaction to the stridency of these attacks; and I'm considering joining them. But don't worry; if I decide to go, it will be a banning, not an Opus.
I'm now convinced the GOP will lose the Senate and House in 2006, and the primary cause will be American's revulsion with the excesses of the religious right.
This intemperate individual is apparently incapable of arguing a point without attacking those who might possibly disagree with him. The proposition that empiricism cannot infer causality is, of course, rubbish. A two-year old infant who learns that crying brings his mother knows better.
with an A-5 or A-6 i tend to go with the source if i know them, the hard ones are the D or E or even F-1 or 2 because then i have to use the info more than the source to judge what to do and that's more of a grey area/judgement call
People's skins are seemingly a bit thinner of late.
I wouldn't be surprised at all about the House and Senate going Democrat. It wouldn't be much more of a change than the 1994 switch. The conservatives may be able to purify the GOP into a homeopathic cadre.
D and E look wrong as the description implies that the information is definitely pointing the wrong way. I would lump D, E, and F as "cannot be judged."
> the major role envisaged for the non-religious here is to passively accept being verbally attacked
Actually, I believe the idea is to attack us until we convert. I hesitate to suggest that that strategy will succeed, though.
> Several long-time FReepers have left in the last few days in reaction to the stridency of these attacks
Let the purification begin. OPE! POE!
Don't worry, though. When America crashes and burns because of the liberals and their useful IDiots, those few of us who survive will be able to hold some small satisfaction that, "Well, we tried..."
That's not a proof--it is a conditional assertion, of no particular formal reliability. It is, in fact, simply a restatement of Descartes' equally unreliable and unprovable, and useless assertion.
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.