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.

[ODDITHER]

All people have the capacity to gain knowledge to some extent. Few people have the ability to convert that knowledge into wisdom.

[Alamo-Girl]

All people have the capacity to gain knowledge to some extent. Few people have the ability to convert that knowledge into wisdom.

Well said, ODDITHER! Thank you so much for your insight!

[Doctor Stochastic]

And Ronald Reagan's famous quantum mechanics movie: "Bedtime for Bosons."

[grey_whiskers]

Maybe. Or maybe, a fortnight of all Schiavo, all the time, succeeded by a week of all dead Pope, all the time, has made most of America pretty darn sick of 150 proof religiosity.

Not trying to throw napalm here or anything, RWP, but why is it necessarily an indication of 150 proof religiousity to question why a woman who is not being kept alive by "heroic measures" (her feeding tube is on the same level of intervention required by Christopher Reeve)(*) should be allowed to starve or dehydrate to death on the word of her husband, who had shacked up with another woman and had children with that other woman. Of all people, he's the one most likely to have nefarious ulterior motives...

(*) Yes, I KNOW Reeves could talk, and interact; and that he had the residual star persona of having played Superman. But being paralyzed from the neck down makes it harder to eat, drink, or avoid sever diaper rash without external help. As far as being kept alive goes, without other considerations, he needed nearly as much help as Terri.

Cheers!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Some for the Glories of This World; and some
Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come;
Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go,
Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!

Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End!

Of threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain--This Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.

Strange, is it not? that of the myriads who
Before us pass'd the door of Darkness through,
Not one returns to tell us of the Road,
Which to discover we must travel too.

And strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot
Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried--
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"

[BMCDA]

I seem to recall a symposium at a theoretical chemistry conference that the color of gold is due to relativistic effects on the inner electrons.

Actually it's due to interband transitions. In copper for instance, electrons from the filled 3d bands can transition to unoccupied states in the 4s band above the Fermi level. Thus, above a threshold of ca. 2eV, the reflectivity decreases drastically.
Gold has a slightly higher interband absorption edge which is the reason why it has a yellowish color as opposed to copper with its reddish tinge.
Silver on the other hand has no color (i.e. reflectivity is pretty high and constant over the whole visible spectrum) because it's threshold is at about 4eV which is in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum.

[grey_whiskers]

[Poem about the fleeting nature of life deleted.]

Excellent poem.

Especially that last line--

And suddenly one more impatient cried--
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"

Except that on the crevo threads, it's more like:

"And suddenly one of the lurkers cried--
Who is the Kettle, pray, and who the Pot?"

Cheers!

[OhioAttorney]

Do you know that I've been pinged a total of eleven times on this thread, despite the fact that I haven't submitted a single post to it?

I appreciate your letting me know about the launch of a thread in which I may be interested. But one ping is sufficient to get my attention; if I have the time and the inclination to participate, I'll do so. I don't constantly need to see that there are New posts to you in a thread in which I haven't been participating.

[AnalogReigns]

As far as the divine revelation kind of knowlege goes, the Puritans divided it up into two possible kinds:

1) Immediate Revelation (meaning no mediator, just God-to-you) and
2) Mediate Revelation (meaning a mediator--the only one acceptable for Protestants being the Bible itself)

Puritan thinkers rejected the idea of immediate revelation, on the basis that with the Bible being complete, there was no logical need for God to speak directly to people--other then through the mediation of His word.

I apprecite their piety, and serious faith, but at the same time I don't want to put restrictions on God which I don't see in the Bible (even to protect the Bible).

I would call the terms myself:

1}Subjective (personal direct knowlege from God) and
2}Objective (that written in scripture, which I know for certain is true)

The subjective, personal leadings must always be subject to the objective standard of God's revelation in scripture.

Similarly too, classical Protestants have divided revelation itself into 2 categories:

I) General revelation: what we can know about God just from observing creation, without scripture (see Romans 1:19,20) and

II) Special revelation: The Bible, both Old and New Testaments (and only how we find out about the good news of Jesus Christ).

Hope this all helps the discussion.

[aruanan]

Perhaps it would soothe your ruffled feathers if I suggest people can predict eclipses from a dynamical model as RWP pointed out, but they can also predict them by categorization (e.g. "almanacs" ?) :-)

You overlooked the point of my original comment. "Categorization" is the observational data from which models are derived, something I never disputed.

[Chode]

unfortunately, nothing quite as interesting as the CIA, although i do know a couple Ex-Spooks...

[Dataman]

but seemingly all ideologues ever seek is to embalm a dead past -- all the while insisting on the corpse's indispensable relevance to the future.

Well said!

BTW, speaking of embalming a dead corpse, why doesn't "science" self correct its own false nonsense like Haekel's embryos, the evolution of the horse, the peppered moths, etc. etc.? If evolution is science, then science isn't really self-correcting, is it? Unless one thinks Bill Clinton's tangled mess of lie upon "self correcting" lie is science.

Ironically, as I've said before, the opponents of real science, the concealers of facts, the academic censors, the myth-promoters are on the Darwinists' side in this ongoing dispute. As people will eventually see -- to their collective shock -- our public school science books continue to promote theories and evidence that have been long-since discredited.

-David Limbaugh

Like you said, ideologues.

[Alamo-Girl]

I shall try to remember to ping you only once! Thank you for your post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your insight, AnalogReigns! It certainly does help the discussion - and I strongly agree with your view.

[Alamo-Girl]

Ahhh, I see. Thank you for the explanation!

[VadeRetro]

The Constitution says that the entire political power inheres in We the People. If the people is disordered, then the Constitution as given to us by the Framers will have no effect -- at least not the effect that the Framers clearly intended for us. And the very government itself consequently would be a ruin for the people, and a throne for the tyrant.

Yes, the preamble begins "We the People ..." However, the Constitution establishes a republic of laws, not a whim-of-the-moment direct democracy. There is a definite lawful progression of procedural steps for amending the constitution according to the popular will and it is by design no easy matter. It requires "the People" to want what they want consistently for the period of time necessary not only to pass an amendment but to ratify it in enough states within a time limit. Otherwise, the law is the law even if the people are unhappy about it.

You've been getting the "F" lately in post after post, Betty. Cool down and start thinking about this stuff.

[Right Wing Professor]

That wasn't really what I was referring to; it was the total domination of cable news by the issue, to the exclusion of almost everything else.

It was interesting; though. Congress leapt in to intervene, passed a flawed bill (and knowingly so; Carl Levin wouldn't agree to it unless it was left to the courts' discretion whether to issue a stay) , and then, after a couple of rather deceitfully worded opinion polls found Americans didn't want Congress involved, suddenly turned tail and refused to do anything further. What a corrupt little spectacle. H.L Mencken would be smirking.

But in any case, while I'm sure the most widely quoted polls were biased, it was clear from the actions of the Congressional GOP, unprincipled weather-vanes that they are, that they thought the pro-life side overreached.

[betty boop]

There is a definite lawful progression of procedural steps for amending the constitution according to the popular will and it is by design no easy matter. It requires "the People" to want what they want consistently for the period of time necessary not only to pass an amendment but to ratify it in enough states within a time limit. Otherwise, the law is the law even if the people are unhappy about it.

Congress is not authorized to make laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. And the Judiciary are forbidden to make laws at all. When the People want to change the Constitution to empower Congress to act in ways it cannot under the existing text, then they can amend the Constitution. Until they do so, Congress must act within the meaning and intent of the Constitution as it stands.

Does your understanding differ?

[VadeRetro]

Are you moving the bar? My understanding of your last-posted text is that it differs from your previous statements.

Good grief, RightWhale -- when was the last time you read the federal Constitution? The American state is formed by, for, and in the People. Our rule of law lives only in the People. The People created the "offices," and made them accountable to us -- the People of the United States of America. See the Preamble for our aims, purposes, and goals.

The Constitution says that the entire political power inheres in We the People. If the people is disordered, then the Constitution as given to us by the Framers will have no effect -- at least not the effect that the Framers clearly intended for us. And the very government itself consequently would be a ruin for the people, and a throne for the tyrant.

That versus this:

Congress is not authorized to make laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. And the Judiciary are forbidden to make laws at all. When the People want to change the Constitution to empower Congress to act in ways it cannot under the existing text, then they can amend the Constitution. Until they do so, Congress must act within the meaning and intent of the Constitution as it stands.

Me, I like the last set. However, not just Congress but everyone is supposed to be bound by law.

[betty boop]

Don't forget Nabal's wife got to marry King David

Well I guess every cloud has a silver lining, grey_whiskers! :^) Thanks for writing!