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.

[betty boop]

I haven't encountered a sceintific experiment that has created energy and mass from nothingness, but I have observed an event where this has occurred associated with faith through Christ.

Is this something you can share with us, Cvengr? In my case, you would not at all be addressing a "skeptic" about such things.

[donh]

I haven't encountered a sceintific experiment that has created energy and mass from nothingness

Others have, however. Look up the Casimir effect.

[Alamo-Girl]

Ok, you've got my attention - geometry is my favorite math/science subject and is the object of both Einstein's dream (transmuting the base wood of matter to the pure marble of geometry) - and the root of the "unreasonable effectiveness of math".

Except for the word "objectivity" which I dismiss out-of-hand for any observer in space/time, I wish to meditate on the valuation of certainty of knowledge based on the hypercube you propose (or an equivalent). But this will require a cup of coffee first. LOLOL!

I'll make a followup post after a break.

[donh]

Except for the word "objectivity" which I dismiss out-of-hand for any observer in space/time,

Relativistic effects on distinct observers due to the K-L contraction is not the same discussion as relative vs. objective perception--it's the same word being used in two very different contexts. I expect you know this, but I'm in an expansive mood, and don't mind trying to be a bit pedantic and careful today.

And, at any rate, I prefer to parse the question, for the moment, along the two dimensions of reliability and sharability to try to slide sideways out of arguing about the slap-fest between Descarte, Berkeley, and Hume over the ontological nature of my perceptions.

So...here's what I think this approach buys me: reliability is the measure of how trustworthy my perceptions are, whereas sharability is a measure of how easily and to what extent I can share my perceptions with others. "Objectivity" is a word that sweeps with too broad a brush these days, and is colored by somewhat dismissive baggage about our private perceptions, and our as yet unproved perceptions, probably fostered in no small measure by the word's association with Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement. I'd argue that scientific perceptions about scientific laws score high on the sharability and utility dimension, and medium to high on the reliability dimension. Scientific perception about theories score high in sharability, and medium to low in reliability and utility.

We commonly think of the scientific endeavor as "objective", but science has radically reformulated it's laws many times, to explain in a different way, the same data and successful predictions. Hence my contention: science is highly sharable, and highly utile, but it could hardly be said to be reliable, on its track record.

[donh]

quoting self:

We commonly think of the scientific endeavor as "objective", but science has radically reformulated it's laws many times, to explain in a different way, the same data and successful predictions. Hence my contention: science is highly sharable, and highly utile, but it could hardly be said to be reliable, on its track record.

....I suppose, in a way, you could think of this phenomenon as a universalization of the solipsistic dilemma--applied to our joint project of understanding the universe: Scientific laws are kind of analogous to the outer perceptual wall of an individual human--they are subject to shared perception, which can be wrought ever tighter by ever more stringent and critical observation. Scientific theories, on the other hand, correspond to the undemonstrable, unsharable inner life of a person. Both bid fair to be always cloaked in some strong measure of darkness, compared to what goes on outside the skin, and can be easily shared and used. I suppose some might find this frustrating and limiting and, well dark. But I think it could easily suggest that both scientific knowledge and personal flowering can never be calculated to a gnat's eyebrow, and brought to closure.

[donh]

In the last paragraph of the post I initiated this discussion on, when I wrote:

for outside observers, whereas the jury,

I should have written:

for outside observers regarding a delusional paranoid, whereas the jury,

sorry.

[cornelis]

a word that sweeps with too broad a brush these days

For political reasons. Your distinctions are great. In fact, that particular word has done a switcheroo over the millenia: the term subject has been used for object and object for subject. Go figure.

Anyhow, permit me to put a highlighter stroke on this my now pedestrian point: it's about scope. Science is reliable, highly reliable, and no poster here on FR that I know of has ever seriously thought otherwise. Reliable, that is, concerning certain events. Its success that is now shared so broadly stems directly from its reliable predictability. It's too bad it can't speak for the rest of the world we experience. And I'm not here speaking about mishaps like our Challenger and Columbia.

Forgive me if I'm oblivious to parts of your views--we rarely converse.

[cornelis]

Thanks for your observation

And thank you for your recent display of honesty. It should be exempt from any guilt or shame. Contrary to this wormwood advice to mull and cool that I've seen posted, I'd say civility is at fault if it allows the foxes to spoil the vines.

[RightWhale]

The Revolution of 1800 swept the Federalists into oblivion and brought the Jeffersonian Democrats in. Then came Jackson and we achieved rule of the majority. Tyranny freely expressed by all.

Is there any chance that we can get back to the original plan? Does anybody want to? No? Then what?

[Cvengr]

The significance of faith as status quo is still for future ages. The utility of such knowledge in your proposed 'hypercube' might not as fruitful for this age as simply obedience to God's plan and the running of its course.

Meanwhile, the importance of faith remains premier.

[RightWhale]

Who has been left out? Burke? Yes! Ingenious madman.

[betty boop]

I'd say civility is at fault if it allows the foxes to spoil the vines.

Especially in cases where the foxes are constitutionally uncivil; that is, uncivil on principle (or so it seems).

Thank you, cornelis, for your kind words and friendship, so deeply appreciated.

[betty boop]

Meanwhile, the importance of faith remains premier.

Undoubtedly, Cvengr. Thank you so much for your insights!

[Alamo-Girl]

I’ve given it some more thought, donh and am now ready to post a comment or two…

Relativistic effects on distinct observers due to the K-L contraction is not the same discussion as relative vs. objective perception--it's the same word being used in two very different contexts.

Indeed, nevertheless I stick with my point that “objective truth” cannot be known in space/time, i.e. “objectivity” cannot be achieved by an observer in space/time. As an example, sound has a specific definition in physics which is not subjective. The perception of sound is quite subjective by species and individuals.

Nevertheless, even though there exists a non-subjective definition of sound, the objective truth about what sound “is” cannot be ascertained from within space/time. Sound cannot physically exist without space/time by definition and yet as Max Tegmark suggests in his Level IV cosmology, sound itself may be a mathematical structure existing “beyond” space/time whose existence is only manifest in space/time.

But we cannot obtain this as objective truth about sound (or any objective truth) from within space/time. IOW, "objective truth" (and "absolute morality" I might add) can only be received as a revelation from God.

Back to the hypercube…

You suggested a general delineation of one dimension each for reliability, demonstrability, sharability, and utility but also recognized that other people might have a different structure of valuation of knowledge. I agree there should be n dimensions to your hypercube model with the exact definition of each dimension being a personal matter.

The interesting part (at least to me) is the dynamics of the hypercube. As a person’s needs change from moment to moment, their aspect in the hypercube will change to accommodate and value the “knowledge” accrued at that point. And being dimensional, the view in a particular instance would be need based and not fixed. To visualize this using your four dimensional valuation:

The following would represent a valuation where the focal point fixed in the center of the hypercube is based upon a snapshot in time, such as responding to the question posed by this article:

The next graphic represents the focal point transforming dynamically in the hypercube based upon a person’s needs in "real time":

I think this is a great metaphor for those dimensions of knowledge which are not fixed to a person’s worldview. For instance, in my worldview, items 1 and 2 (relating to Spiritual revelations) would form the context in which the remaining ten (valuations of) knowledge dimensions would transform according to need, moment by moment. Or alternatively, those dimensions would be fixed and all the others transform according to need, moment by moment.

Yours is a most fascinating hypothesis for the valuation of knowledge! Thank you!

[Alamo-Girl]

I have been meditating on your post for quite some time now and really only have a few comments. First of all, thank you so much for the great summary!

Secondly, I confess to cringing a bit at the word "gnostic" since (at least around here) it ends up being used as a perjorative for any conflicting doctrine (LOL!) rather than the various mindsets of the "gnostics" from the earliest days to now.

Thirdly, I find this very interesting:

I must freely admit I have witnessed physical phenomenon, not explicable by empirical methods, and highly contradictory to even the most basic of scientifuc methods, which were very closely associated to faith and knowledge, perhaps uniquely isolated from the other categories mentioned in the first several paragraphs.

I have likewise witnessed first hand and personally experienced a number of Spirit related phenomenon which could never be explained by empirical methods. However, knowledge, other than Spiritual revelation of course, was not a factor.

I am very curious to know what your experiences have been in this regard. If you'd rather keep it private, a Freep mail would be fine.

[Alamo-Girl]

I love that metaphor - foxes spoiling the vines! Perfect, cornelis.

[Cvengr]

undoubtedly...or indubitably?

[Cvengr]

Here's a simple testimonial. First, a little background. I come from a familial tradition of well-to-do rednecks well studied in the sciences, professions, and engineering. Can hold my own with the best of them, but obviously a fellow who devotes 16-19 hrs per day for 4-20 yrs straight in any particular area will out forte my skills in that strength. My devotion has been closer to the 18 hr day, better measured by how many hours not devoted to the profession (the dual) and more recently reducing to about 12 hrs daily and able to get 6-8 hrs of sleep daily now some 25 years later. However, I've found most well studied students/professors/professionals in the engineering disciplines, rarely have time to devote more than 4 contiguous hours daily on advancing their profession. Most of their time gets caught up in bureaucratic or sundry daily issues. With this garbage out of the way, here is the testimonial.

I was troubleshooting a new construction project in a large high security warehouse. A problem frequently arises in high security industrial areas where the local management has access to their facilities, but difficulty in arranging for others to inspect or insure equipment installation is all performed per codes. In this case, the warehousemen frequently would procure warehouse racks and temporary offices to support their operations, but lacked coordinated effort to have these things installed professionally.

As time wore on, every 3-5 years the management of the facility would procure another set of racks sufficient to now form a mezzanine across the warehouse, however, nobody had been exposed to the site who had any engineering expertise, so no attention was paid to foundation design or to fire protection codes.

Over several years, a fire inspector would swing by, identify insufficiencies and write up the tenants, but funding was a problem so frequently the codes were reinterpretted until funding could be made available to correct the problems.

In this situation, about 5 different large structures had been constructed in the warehouse over a 20 year period, and one of the first ones constructed, had finally received some fire protection piping a year earlier, only to now have a project come in and demolish those mezzanine structures with the new fire suppression systems, but meanwhile the newer equipment and mezzanines without fire protection were remaining in place. (Typical big government job where even with the best of intentions, the things that work get destroyed, and those that never worked, get ignored.)

Now in the process of identifying existing conditions in the warehouse for future modifications, I was curious as to how much of the warehouse actually had been outfitted with fire protection, since no as-builts were available in the high security area and work had been performed several years earlier, but no more than perhaps 5-10 years. Other fire protection systems in the building had been installed perhaps 25-40 years earlier. As I investigated and looked at the temprary offices that were going to be demolished in an adjacent area, I noticed they also had fire protection piping inside the offices, where typically none of the facilities had ever been engineered or inspected during construction, but rather installed as equipment.

I further investigated to find out where their water source was coming from, and climbed around an attic space to find where a new fire main must have been installed, because previous designs had insufficient water flows to meet the implied demand for such systems.

I was also curious because I was looking for wall space and determining how much loading had been placed on an open web truss system without any engineering approvals.

As I was investigating above the area to be demolished, I was surprised to discover the same fire protection piping from below the office spaces, were open on top the office, unattached to any other piping, and as I turned around trying to determine where they had originally planned to route their water connections, I nearly cut my back on an exposed, unground/unbuffed stick of 2" steel pipe (water line, left protruding and uncapped about 6 ft away from the office point of connections.

I looked at the situation and studied a bit how the piping had been placed, which wasn't well designed from a building perspective, but seemed to have been a half hearted or unknowledgable attempt to place the line several years earlier, perhaps even a decade earlier, as the piping had dust caked on top of the pipe which wouldn't easily rub off, even with a little water rubbed on it.

I didn't pay too much attention to it, but had at the time also bumped into a Lt near the end of the working day who had a penchant for collecting old uniforms. I didn't let anybody know about the piping, as it was rather immaterial as the offices were going to be demolished, but since the unprotected mezzanine remained, I was trying to conceive a method by which we could install fire protection utilizing the same piping, although it would entail a new engineered design, and probably and upsized water main from the parcel connection to water supplies outside the building.

I chatted a bit with the Lt, until the end of the work day, which was a Friday, and had to leave because the building was being secured. As I left, I remembered some Scriptural verses about not letting the left hand know what the right hand was doing, and made a simple prayer to the Lord through Christ and left the issue in His hands, rather than mine, so that I wasn;t becoming a busybody in another effort. I also recognized at the time, that I was perhaps the only person alive or in existence who had probably even recognized a problem there or knew something wasn;t in compliance with codes, yet also considered how portions of the building which had been brought into code compliance after 1-10 years of noncompliance were being torn down after they had been made compliant, while other sections remained noncompliant and flagged for noncompliance with much ado about nothing.

I left and returned the following Monday morning, the next work day, and returned to the area I had been inspecting for a design and thinking about how to scope the project. During the course of touring the area again, I went back to the area where I had nearly cut myself on the exposed pipe, only to discover the piping was completed and operational. In fact the piping was routed in a slightly different fashion than before, and it was connectted to the office spaces. This puzzled me, because the offices were about to be demolished, yet somehow they had become connected. Upon investigation, no projects or funding had been set aside to install any of the piping and no contractors or repairmen had been to the site. I then looked for the Lt I had previously met, and was told by a SNCO that no such officer had worked there, but that he was the only one in control of that area.

I went back and double checked the area and noticed that the piping also had some older discoloration and hardened dust on it, and continuous pipe in the area where I had nearly cut myself the previous workday. The evidence of somebody having come in and installed the line ofver the weekend wasn;t consistent with the pipe's appearance, nor the security nor operating procedures of the facility. The closest thing I could describe this situation to would be a Twilight Zone episode, or a dual universe type event. It really would be simpler to conceive of me having been transplanted into a dual world with only a few things changed, than to account for how the piping could have been connected.

I didn't think too much about this situation, other than thinking that perhaps my memory had failed me and I must have been mistaken. I returned to my office, made mention about it to a fellow professional who thought I was nuts, and again I simply attributed it to faulty memory. That is of course until I walked into my office, tossed my keys on my table, turned around and saw a set of prints I had forgotten I had taken to the site the previous Friday, and had actually taken measurements of the pipe from the point of connection at the office attic and the sharp 2" pipe that had nearly cut me. I had taken some notes about them, and had prepared to have an effort made to connect them until I looked to see what was servicing the fire main. My only memory lapse had been forgetting I had documented what I simply assumed to have been true.

Over the past 30 years I've bumped into maybe half a dozen episodes which in completely different contexts, also seemed a bit off the wall. In most situations, I consider human error to be a more plausible explanation. It's interesting though in some remote environments, where very little manmade evidence exists, how these types of episodes become more discernible to a person, simply remaining observantly alert. (not paranoid, not delusional, not trying to read anything into any event or thing,..merely observing conditions.)

The more I study Scripture, though, the more I've found it remarkably consistent in being able to explain things of this sort than science would be able to explain or 'common-sense'. The same areas of explanation in Scripture also touch on Scriptural events which I had in the past simply acknowledged as miracles associated with the Creator and not thinking much more about them.

The same issues touch in part upon some Sci-Fi-like issues, but these might also be convenient ways for an unbeliever to account for phenomenon touching between the spiritual and physical domains.

Don't get me wrong,...I don't find gnosticism to be true, but like many cults, it might have touched upon some issues, which had truth in them, but divorced itself from truth when it drifts away from God's plan for all things.

I have found that there are some elements in Scripture, which if one placed priority on modern day science, one would be led to simply discount as superstition or misinterpretation of physical mechanics. On the contrary, I have found that perhaps our reliance on modern day scientific method to place something else before God and His ability to provide.

I'm not making allusions to speaking something into existence, rather, faith in Him and allowing Him to lead the way might have very real physical, soulish and spiritual results which would overwhelm our general intuition which has been scarred from years of thinking independent of Him.

I suspect many a good scientist might find a steep learning curve once again, if they returned to Scripture and studied Him through faith in Him in all things. Additionally, regardless the outcome, by remaining faithful to Him, there work, even if minor, would be far greater and lasting than even the most grand Nobel Laureate might expect.

I have no doubt that the preceding testimony is simply discarded by any number of classifications. The truth though, I have found to be much simpler in that it relies on upon Him and His will, rather than my own.

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautifully written, amazing testimony, Cvengr! Thank you oh so very much for sharing it with us!

I'm not making allusions to speaking something into existence, rather, faith in Him and allowing Him to lead the way might have very real physical, soulish and spiritual results which would overwhelm our general intuition which has been scarred from years of thinking independent of Him.

Indeed.

It has been said there is the grace of faith and the gift of faith - that every believer has the grace of faith but only a few, the gift. My mother was one of those gifted ones. She simply believed. She had no doubts. When she left something at the Cross she never picked it up again. The answered prayers were breath taking.

I've often wondered if we are born with the ability to trust absolutely - but then lose it as time goes by - such that the only way it can be restored is as a gift from God.

[donh]

Science is reliable, highly reliable, and no poster here on FR that I know of has ever seriously thought otherwise. Reliable, that is, concerning certain events. Its success that is now shared so broadly stems directly from its reliable predictability.

I propose that you give some more thought to the distinctions I drew here. I aver that science's LAWS are highly utile (predictable/reliable), however, science's THEORIES, standing behind and trying to explain why these laws work, are no more reliable, at their fundament, than any other act of revelation through faith, predicated on limited knowledge.

I cite, for one of many examples, the vast difference in the fundamental large-scale nature of the universe between Newton's fixed frame, and Einstein's relativistic frame. Yet they both provide equations that adequately predict the same events for most practical close-to-home purposes. ie. what you are looking at when you blithely claim that science is reliable. Overall, science is not "reliable", regarding theory, on it's track record, it is useful, regarding laws, being predictively accurate much of the time about many things.