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.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

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

I enjoyed your rant and also these little nuggets that I see on the board from time to time

Now another one

Laban's two daughters married Jacob and we all know what happened next, lol

[donh]

I think this is a great metaphor for those dimensions of knowledge which are not fixed to a person’s worldview.

I stared at the animated hypercube until I fell off my chair. Thanks for the ride. Let me humbly propose that you consider it the emblem of the meta-subjective movement--all who share my take on the subjective nature of reality can sit at my end of the box and undulate. Within our tightknit group, we can consider our findings objective. I'm calling your spinning box a "subjecticon", with Bishop Berkeley all by himself in the end with the least motion, and Ayn Rand on the outer shell, about to be launched into the void. My new question is, does objective reality really deserve this much attention? Where's Timothy Leary when we need him?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, we know what happened next!

[Alamo-Girl]

I stared at the animated hypercube until I fell off my chair.

LOLOLOL! I'm glad you enjoyed the "trip" but of course, hope you didn't hurt yourself.

Let me humbly propose that you consider it the emblem of the meta-subjective movement--all who share my take on the subjective nature of reality can sit at my end of the box and undulate. Within our tightknit group, we can consider our findings objective.

As you wish, but I cannot join you because of my objections to "objectivity" in space/time. I can however find the interlocuting hypercubes quite illuminating and interesting.

I'm calling your spinning box a "subjecticon", with Bishop Berkeley all by himself in the end with the least motion, and Ayn Rand on the outer shell, about to be launched into the void.

The term 'subjecticon' sounds fine to me. However, to Bishop Berkeley the subjecticon could not exist except of course as a figmanent of someone's imagination.

My new question is, does objective reality really deserve this much attention? Where's Timothy Leary when we need him?

I can't imagine the offspring of an Ayn Rand and Timothy Leary philosophical blend - perhaps one could describe a chaotic objectivist?.

But to your question "does objective reality really deserve this much attention" - I would say "most certainly!" But then again, I assert that "objective reality" cannot be obtained from within space/time, it can only be received from "beyond" space/time as a revelation from God. And, of course, I would that everyone seek Him.

Thank you so much for all of your engaging posts!

[betty boop]

Where's Timothy Leary when we need him?

LOLOLOLOL dohn!!!!!

Well objective reality deserves some attention, it seems, because it is the context in which we experience our existential contingency. This is a different problem from the quest for Truth.

Don't be misguided by the so-called "Cartesian split," the body/mind "disjunction" that led to the magnification of the body (matter) at the expense of soul (mind, consciousness, spirit). I strongly doubt Descartes ever intended the meaning that has been imposed on his insights by the bright boys of post-modernism.

I think the point is Life is both matter (objective) and mind (subjective), two synergistic complementarities that together constitute a living being as a unified One. Like matter/energy; particles/waves; space/time -- that sort of fundamental complementarity.

I think we need to keep our eye on both: That is, objectivity and subjectivity, in our quest of the truth of existence within the divine economy, in which we are both contingent participants, and creative agents with extensions beyond the physical world, into eternity.

I just loved your juxtaposition of George Berkeley and Ayn Rand: Very droll!

Thank you oh so much, dohn, for your provocative insights!

p.s.: If you're making a study of subjectivity, and think Tim Leary might be a good guide, might I suggest another? Have you ever read the works of Carlos Castenada? What started out as a serious, disciplined sociological/anthropological study turned into a really wild ride, once Carlos met the Yaqui shamen, Don Juan....

[Ronzo]

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.

Ronzo's new goal for '05: to be just like Alamo-Girl's mother in the matters of prayer & faith...

Thank you for posting that A-G, that's just what I needed to read at this point in time!

[Ronzo]

Scientific perception about theories score high in sharability, and medium to low in reliability and utility.

No wonder so many people doubt evolution.

[Ronzo]

Catch us the foxes,
The little foxes that spoil the vines,
For our vines have tender grapes.

Song of Solomon 2:15 NKJV

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your engaging post!

Don't be misguided by the so-called "Cartesian split," the body/mind "disjunction" that led to the magnification of the body (matter) at the expense of soul (mind, consciousness, spirit). I strongly doubt Descartes ever intended the meaning that has been imposed on his insights by the bright boys of post-modernism.

So very true! This very subject needs to be tackled head-on.

[jwalsh07]

No knowledge, no peas.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your replies and especially for your high regard of my mother's gift of faith! Indeed, I share in your quest - my worst is the tendency to pick things up again after I've laid them down at the Cross.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you so much for your post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Well, another deep thread appears to have come to its end. As is becoming our custom for such threads, I offer this benediction:

Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Give [instruction] to a wise [man], and he will be yet wiser: teach a just [man], and he will increase in learning.

The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding. - Proverbs 9:8-10

[js1138]

All threads come to an end. This one had moments when people were trying to understand each other's positions.

[Alamo-Girl]

All threads come to an end. This one had moments when people were trying to understand each other's positions.

I am very pleased with the mutual respect and understanding on this thread especially since the subject is at the heart of the contention on so many other issues.

Thank you for your participation both in the article and on the thread!

[betty boop]

The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.

Thank you for this most apt benedicton, Alamo-Girl!

Sigh. It was a good thread, and I think some people really did try to understand each other....

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, it was a good thread - not as good as the ones you have authored, but, IMHO, we all walked away with something.

I look forward to your next article (hint, hint...) so we can once again explore the deep questions.

[StJacques]

"I haven't seen your name much on these threads, and I'm a semi-pro lurker (and occasional punster, too).

What brings you out with the frustrated Evolutionist crowd all of a sudden--this thread has been more civil and productive than many I've seen!"

Actually, I've been a pretty regular participant on the Crevo threads for the past several months, though I have not been in here much lately over the past few weeks as I have been out of town a lot on work-related matters and I only do my "freeping" when I'm able to work from my home office.

And as for being part of the "frustrated Evolutionist crowd" -- I am not sure how to respond except to say that the quality of argumentation on several other recent threads, and by "recent" I mean going back just a couple of weeks, has been particularly strident and, on occasion, nonsensical. The only thing that has "frustrated" me to any degree has been the tone of personal attacks waged upon those who argue for the validity of the Theory of Evolution by certain individuals, as Right Wing Professor pointed out, who seem determined to wage a fanatical attack on religious grounds, rather than actually discussing the science that lies behind evolutionary theory.

Those who know me understand that I have some very deeply-held religious beliefs and that I see no conflict between my religious faith and the Theory of Evolution. And I certainly have NOT been frustrated by any arguments put forth to undermine the science that lies behind evolutionary theory. Quite the contrary, I have been most reassured that the Theory of Evolution stands up quite well to its critics.

[PatrickHenry]

... arguments put forth to undermine the science that lies behind evolutionary theory.

There are no scientific arguments opposing evolution, and there is no controversy that needs to be included in public school curricula. The only threat to the theory of evolution would be a mob with torches and pitchforks.

[StJacques]

"From the first breath you take you literally live in the world of 'experience.' You know no other. You cannot conceive of what it would be like to live in a world of 'no experience' or prior to 'experience.'

The above part is hard to argue with in so far as it relates to the way one conceives of the world. But it is possible to conceive of things that are not "of the world," otherwise we would not be discussing it, which is a central flaw in arguing that all knowledge comes from experience.

". . . This is the whole flaw in this whole argument, whether it is Kantian 'Synthetics' and 'Analytics' or not. . . ."

There are problems in Kant, but I think most give him credit for handling the role of the rational, thinking mind better than you do.

The following is from an analysis of Kant's epistemology:

Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious: the mind could be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be noise -- "less even than a dream" or "nothing to us," as Kant alternatively puts it.

To simplify the above, Kant's contribution is that he essentially argues that "experience only gets you so far." You have to make rational sense out of what you experience and that reasoning faculty is not borne of experience.

". . . There is no way anyone can have any idea what life would be like without 'experience.' A person garners more experience before he or she develops enough consciousness and conceptual ability to understand what that experience is than can be measured or understood. . . ."

Again, you are correct that one cannot have an idea of what life would be like outside of one's experience of life. But, if I may quote Shakespeare, "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your worldly philosophy."

". . . All thoughts and concepts are inherently rooted in and dependent upon 'experience.'. . ."

Here I definitely disagree. And the question I offer in contrast is "why does 1 + 1 = 2"? Is it because of the ways in which we define the numbers "1" and "2" or is there some underlying objective reality that is reflected in mathematics? If everything comes from experience the truth of the equation is derived from our definitions of "1" and "2." I say there is too much in mathematics to reduce it to such nominal terms.

". . . All theories about what lies outside "experience" are just that, unsupported theories. . . ."

All theories about what lies outside experience are metaphysical, but are supported by some pretty impressive argumentation at times, Albert Einstein, e.g.

". . . And, by definition, they are incapable of definition."

I believe you will find that this last statement is either a Tautology or begs the question (Petitio Principii).

Interesting discussion though.