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 PatrickHenrys offering of his classification and valuation followed by mine so that the correspondents here can see the difference. Below mine is js1138s offering.
Please review these and let us know how you classify and value knowledge! Wed appreciate very much your following the same format so itll be easier for us to make comparisons and understand differences.
PatrickHenrys types of knowledge and valuation of certainties:
1. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
Alamo-Girls types of knowledge and valuation of certainties:
js1138s 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.
All people have the capacity to gain knowledge to some extent. Few people have the ability to convert that knowledge into wisdom.
And Ronald Reagan's famous quantum mechanics movie: "Bedtime for Bosons."
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!
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?"
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Like you said, ideologues.
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.
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.
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?
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.That versus this: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.
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.
Well I guess every cloud has a silver lining, grey_whiskers! :^) Thanks for writing!
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.