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.
they are grouped that way for a reason, they are talking about different trust levels of their snitches/sources from top to bottom... so a D might be a known person that's Unrealiable, where an F could be a Walkin, and they could be both telling the truth with a 1-Confirmed by Other Sources
I have not taken the time to read all the responses.
The argument should not be "Is empericism sometimes correct?" or "Is empericism mostly correct" or even "Is empericism always correct".
It is, and should be "Is empericism sufficient?"
And the answer to that seems to be no, it's not.
I love these threads because it seems to be the only refuge from alot of the triping that goes on at FR.
Those who resort to emotional pleas and derogatory comments are usually doing so because they perceive they are losing the arguments.
I'm still waiting for the mathematician at the university to use his tremendous powers and wisdom to tell me what I'm gonna have for lunch tomorrow.
Not beautiful enough, dear Alamo-Girl!!! For I am now about to define "nabal" for Ich and ALL:
nabal (naw-bawl'): There are several Hebrew words in the Old Testament that are commonly translated "fool". Each of the words reflects a different "degree" of foolishness. Probably the harshest degree of "fool" in the Hebrew is "nabal." Nabal carries with it the implication of wicked impiety, stupidity, vileness...and an utterly disgraceful ( low, fallen and withered) condition.
As in:
The fool [nabal] says in his heart,
'There is no God.'
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good." (Psalm 14: 1)
And again:
"The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
"All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one." (Psalm 14:2)
* * * * * * *
The nabal is a fool because he turns away from Life, and into himself. He turns away from Truth, preferring to construct his own, according to his own (diminished) lights.
* * * * * * *
On a related subject:
Five hundred years ago science revolted against theological dogma as the source of all knowledge. Today it is science that is trying to assume the mantle of the sole arbiter of truth...They have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions this belief is considered a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence. -- Ben Wiker
Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious criteria. -- Nancy Pearcey
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. --Michael Crichton
* * * * * * *
On a more light-hearted note, here’s an excerpt from "The Hound of Heaven," a poem by Francis Thompson, that describes the nabal’s view of a certain scientific theory:
Fundamentalists of Darwin,
Can't accommodate dissent.
Heretics are dealt with harshly...
It's their Holy Sacrament.
Macro-Evolution's Dogma,
The "Idol Truth" toward which they're bowed....
Four Commandments: "Sit!"..."Roll over!"
....."SILENCE!" ...
"NO DEBATE ALLOWED!"
It's always wisest to remember,
The "Massah's" Canon Etched in Stone.
Darwin's Dogma's quite inerrant.
So, leave well-enough alone!
You shouldn't stray from his Plantation...
'Cause if you do....
They'll hunt you down! Like a "Lucy-Bone", ...they'll findya!
Then "Deep Six" you in the ground.
They'll be calling out the bloodhounds!
Their Dogma's good...
They've got your scent.
You can run, but you can't hide, boy...
'Cause their Design's Intelligent!
* * * * * * *
If insult is the coin of the day, it seems to me that two can play. :^)
* * * * * * *
I suppose I should have just turned the other cheek. On the other hand, if insult is de rigeur in Ich's debate style, maybe he should try what it's like to be on the receiving end of it for a change.
Forgive me, I am angry today. A saintly Pope is just barely interred, and the jackels are already out in full cry.... I'm taking it out on folks around here, I guess....
Please pray for me, dear sister, that God will forgive me, as I, a sinner, ever pray. I know my life rests in God. I hope He will forgive this self-indulgence....
"A.Completely Reliable............1.Confirmed by Other Sources"
If viewed as a closed system: www.democraticunderground.com/ blows this theory.
Thermal and electrical conductivity and luster--all uniquely distinguishing characteristics of metals--are not explainable without quantum considerations; considerations which, quite frankly, have nothing to do with small scale.
As for what constitutes ambient, your view is too parochial to be useful. Most of the universe has an "ambient" temperature of a few Kelvins, and superfluidity occurs "near" (under some definition, as admittedly useless as yours) that region.
The simple fact is that there are critical properties of the world which are quantum properties that have nothing to do with "size" or what someone narrowly defines as ambient. There are real, practical, broad, and deep consequences to quantum entanglement. There would be no universe without it. And without a universe, there would be no car crashes.
Similarly, the fact the the state vectors of systems containing indistinguishable particles must be either symmetric or antisymmetic on exchange have wide ranging and macroscopic consequences. The statistical mechanics of bosons and fermions are fundamentally different from the statistical mechanics of classical materials. If electrons were not fermions, there would be no metals, hence no cars, and certainly no car crashes.
??? if i, or the CIA, know a person who has a history of being Proven, 100% Truthful and Reliable, and he tells me something that is "Confirmed By Other Sources" (especially other "A" sources)... i will back him/them to the hilt!!! or am i missing something??? i don't trust anything from dummie's R us since the only Reliable thing you can trust from them is when they say that they hate W
That's vitriol, oh great expert of science.
You OMITTED the previous paragraph which had the substantive argument, bitched and moaned that I made a sweeping and scathing generalization, compared me to a baby whining to his mommy.
You're not only ill-tempered, you're paranoid. The example of a baby was to illustrate that we empirically discover cause-and-effect by induction even before we can formulate words. I suspect, if you were to lay off the denigratory stuff you seem to put in every post, we could discuss this. But I also suspect you can't do that. And, as you've seen, I'm more than happy to respond in kind.
The luster of metals is a consequence of their electrical conductivity. The existence of conduction, while we certainly treat it quantum mechanically, is surely not only explainable quantum mechanically. Michael Faraday seemed to manage.
As for what constitutes ambient, your view is too parochial to be useful. Most of the universe has an "ambient" temperature of a few Kelvins, and superfluidity occurs "near" (under some definition, as admittedly useless as yours) that r
This is simply idiotic. We were discussing automobile crashes. When you develop an automobile that can travel deep space and operate at 2 K, get back to me.
There are real, practical, broad, and deep consequences to quantum entanglement. There would be no universe without it. And without a universe, there would be no car crashes. Similarly, the fact the the state vectors of systems containing indistinguishable particles must be either symmetric or antisymmetric on exchange have wide ranging and macroscopic consequences. The statistical mechanics of bosons and fermions are fundamentally different from the statistical mechanics of classical materials. If electrons were not fermions, there would be no metals, hence no cars, and certainly no car crashes.
I just get through teaching statistical thermo., and I have to put up with this?
The sophomore physics insight that the state of the universe depends on the fundamental properties of matter, which are quantum mechanical, does not mean that the properties of macroscopic matter are quantum mechanical. The grass is green. That does not mean the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up the grass are green. We can't properly understand the properties of an electron without the Heisenberg principle. That doesn't mean the Heisenberg principle is any use at all in calculating the trajectory of a baseball.
I suggest you go find a bull session with some physics undergraduates and get this out your system.
The notion of causality itself (while it may be also hard-wired into our brains) can be determined by experience. While we can deplore post hoc ergo propter hoc as a fallacy, in fact our first experience of causality is by noticing a correlation in the time sequence of events. After a while, we may learn to be more careful; we may realize that because X always precedes Y, it doesn't mean X causes Y; it may mean that X and Y have a common cause in Z.
So when a billiard ball hits other billiard balls and they scatter; we notice that in all the circumstances where we fire the cue ball into the other balls, they move; and in all the cases where we don't; they don't move. The simplest hypothesis (Occam's razor) is that A caused B. There is an infinity of other hypotheses (e.g. close approach of the cue ball was detected by sensors on the other balls, which activated tiny motors, causing them to scatter.)
Dan Dennett has a nice discussion of causality, along these lines, in Freedom Evolves . While I doubt you like Dennett's philosophy much, I hope you'll at least concede he's not a dullard or dishonest.
The debate happened in science. It was allowed. It was decided by the evidence that has come in since 1859. There's no precise date, but was pretty much over in science by about a century ago.
The debate we have now is in forums like FR and school board meetings. It occurs between people who are willing to lie about what science has found and people who know better.
You're not gonna get anywhere arguing against all types of cause and effect.
I'm still waiting for anybody to reply to my #442.
BTW, I'm on your side in this, the fact is empericism is insufficient.
As I have said in the past, fanatacism exists on both sides of the equation.
People have spent years, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, sleepless nights and unending, overflowing coffee cups only to "BE ABLE TO REPEAT BACK TO THEIR PROFESSORS EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PROFESSORS WANT THEM TO"
Anyone who tries to argue that education is not an industry is doomed to failure.
When the new physics is discovered and revealed, PHD's will be jumping out of buildings like investors in 1929.
--Henry Cole, Dean of St. Paul's, 1559.
... Sherman, set the Way-Back-Machine for the early Roaring Twenties of De Broglie and Bohr, when they still thought electron velocity was an observable ...
The Bohr result was Z * e **2/(N * 4 * pi * epsilon-zero * hbar). (N=1,2,...) which is about (2.2 * 10**6)(Z/N) m/s. I guess that's decent enough for a back of the envelope calculation. For Iodine, you'd have to replace Z by Z(effective.) Even in the most wildly libertarian estimate (I refuse to do a liberal estimate on Free Republic) which is full Z, the 1s electron for iodine is 53 * 2 * 10**6 m/s, roughly 1/3 of the speed of light. Not taking the calculation very seriously--which is wise--it's a strong plausibility argument for claiming the "inner electrons" (again, whatever that means) DO see relativistic effects. The 4s electrons would be pretty well shielded, but even without shielding you're already down to 1/12 of the speed of light--which I, naively, not being a high energy physicist--would say is not really relativistic territory: the gamma differs from 1 by 3.5 * 10**-3. Throwing in that Z(eff) is probably somewhere between 1 and 2, and not 53, I'd say I'm on your side: the 4s electrons are firmly in Newton country.
But again, I think RWP's original point (which he actually flubbed a bit--see my post) is valid, in that relativity is an everyday phenomenon, and that you, while correct, are picking nits.
Yes, it does. Faraday did not "explain" conduction. And you cannot "teach" the statistical thermodynamics of many interestng materials without it.
Your personally insulting and falsely condescending tone tell me you're not a person I'm interested in instructing any further--if you're even capable of receiving it. We're done here.
It's not my place to pass judgment, so I won't; but turning the other cheek is what I've come to expect of you. We all have our bad days. Mull it over a little more.
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.