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.

[lafroste]

that it implies the need for 100% certainty for information to be considered knowledge

I disagree. I can define knowledge as the set of facts, without the need to know those facts a priori. There is nothing in here that demands perfection, and I don't mean to say that one cannot have knowledge unless one has all and perfect knowledge. I believe that many of the "facts" we know now aren't really facts, simply because they do not accurately reflect truth or reality. That doesn't mean that people don't regard them as facts.

I was simply trying to posit some definitions.

[Ichneumon]

I see nothing in your lists of categories covering "bogus" knowledge, such as visions, intuition, hallucinations, faulty conclusions, jumping to conclusions, fallacious reasoning, prejudices, "common sense", revisionism, deceit by others, faulty memories, "recovered" memories, bias, preconceptions, indoctrination, propaganda, emotions, superstitions, rationalizations, bandwagon groupthink, etc. etc.

Much of what people think they "know" is not actually based on the acquisition of information about reality, but instead on various sorts of poorly-grounded beliefs. And I think it's a huge oversight to neglect these categories in your overview.

There has been a large amount of study on these topics in the "skeptic" literature, such as:

Skeptical Inquirer magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Main focus is on skeptical examination of the "paranormal", but covers many other topics as well including superstitions, pseudoscience, etc.

Skeptic magazine, published by the Skeptics Society ("Dedicated to the promotion of science and critical thinking, and to the investigation of extraordinary claims and revolutionary ideas")

"Everyday Irrationality: How Pseudo-Scientists, Lunatics, and the Rest of Us Systematically Fail to Think Rationally", by Robyn M. Dawes

"How We Know What Isn't So", by Thomas Gilovich

"The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge", by Paul Kurtz

"How Do You Know It's True?: Discovering the Difference Between Science and Superstition", by Hyman Ruchlis

As a wise man once said, "it's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know that ain't so".

As such, understanding how people (including ourselves) "know what ain't so" is a critically important subject, and yet few disciplines actually pay much attention to it (except to exploit it, as by advertisers, magicians, con men, and propagandists). So the "skeptic" community came together to study that topic and provide information to the public about how not to get snookered (by yourself, even, not just by others).

Skeptics are often disliked by just about every group, because they usually act as "party poopers" pointing out the flaws in various comfortable presumptions, but they're the experts on how and why people believe various things that "ain't so" -- and how to learn to think more critically (about other people's claims, as well as about your own beliefs) and how to use more reliable methods of learning and understanding.

The skeptic literature also has frequent articles on how con men, hucksters, and other charlatans work their trades, so that you can learn how not to fall for them. There's also a whole sub-genre on how "psychics" appear to know more than they do, so as to sucker in clients and followers. For example: Hyman, Ray. "'Cold Reading': How to Convince Strangers that You Know All About Them", The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring/Sumer 1977.

[PatrickHenry]

I think in PH's and js's list there must be a bold and all cap treatment of "provisionally"

Agreed. You may mentally append that to everything I claim to know. Well, almost everything. I exist, that's for sure. And A is A. Always will be.

[Ichneumon]

The third umpire is an existentialist. "They ain't nothing till I calls 'em."

Old joke:

Holmes and Watson are traveling by train through the countryside, passing the time gazing out the window at the passing scenery, when the following conversation ensues:

Watson: "I say, Holmes, all the sheep in that field have been recently shorn."

Holmes squints at the sheep a moment and replies, "well, on the sides facing us, anyway..."

[cornelis]

Many people base their concept of truth on false beliefs

Dammach, this very fact is the age-old start of inquiry into how we know and whether what we know is really there.

And if I understand StJaques, he says that because of this possibility of untruth, we need a systematic correlation for validity.

There are two basic kinds of correlations for validity and both like to be called true:

(a) order (part to the whole or series to an end) of items within a set among other sets.
(b) order (part to the whole or series to an end) of items to an absolute singular reference point.

And now I have to go on an errand, but more later. It is enough to say that most of the "isms" are when a certain set from (a) is raised to (b).

[cornelis]

I see nothing in your lists of categories covering "bogus" knowledge, such as visions, intuition, hallucinations, faulty conclusions, jumping to conclusions, fallacious reasoning, prejudices, "common sense", revisionism, deceit by others, faulty memories, "recovered" memories, bias, preconceptions, indoctrination, propaganda, emotions, superstitions, rationalizations, bandwagon groupthink, etc. etc.

I always like to point out that it is our natural aversion to truth that causes the most trouble.

[PatrickHenry]

Let me be the first on the thread to say the word "carnal".

Plastics.

[Ichneumon]

Agreed. You may mentally append that ["provisionally"] to everything I claim to know. Well, almost everything. I exist, that's for sure.

This was the insight in Decartes, "I think, therefore I am". It's more profound than most people give it credit for.

Decartes realized that almost everything else is open to error -- even the things you directly see and touch might be illusions, or the result of hallucination (or "fakes" in the manner of the simulated world of "The Matrix", etc.)

But Decartes also realized that no matter how much of the perceived world might be illusory or understood in error, one primal fact is inarguable -- if you're pondering your perceptions and thoughts and wondering about their accuracy, you provably EXIST, even if all else might be hallucination. Because you couldn't be questioning your perceptions if you didn't exist in the first place. Your *existence* is real, *has* to be real; it can not be illusory.

Thus, the fundamental observation: "I think, therefore I am [exist]".

All else may be open to question, but that is not.

And A is A. Always will be.

And that brings up the other kind of unquestionable truth -- "true by definition".

[musical_airman]

Good post. Very interesting. I'll have to put some more thought into this one in a bit. Instead of my wonderous opining on type of knowledge (for now) I'll just make a bad joke. Let's not forget this type of knowledge......

;)

[musical_airman]

.....Not to mention that its wonderfully appropriate that my lame attempt at humor is post #69.......

[Vicomte13]

Mere coincidence that your post turned up where it did in the sequence?

[PatrickHenry]

And that [A is A] brings up the other kind of unquestionable truth -- "true by definition".

I'd prefer to say, in this instance, "true by identity." I think it's more than a quibble. A definition isn't an axiom.

[hosepipe]

[ I see nothing in your lists of categories covering "bogus" knowledge, such as visions, intuition, hallucinations, faulty conclusions, jumping to conclusions, fallacious reasoning, prejudices, "common sense", revisionism, deceit by others, faulty memories, "recovered" memories, bias, preconceptions, indoctrination, propaganda, emotions, superstitions, rationalizations, bandwagon groupthink, etc. etc. ]

So if I get your drift(from the whole post)... Your saying basically ...
There are MORE than one sucker born every minute..
Right.?.

[Ichneumon]

I always like to point out that it is our natural aversion to truth that causes the most trouble.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."
--Winston Churchill

And what the heck, some other favorites:

"Truth exists; only lies are invented."
--Georges Braque

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."
--Oscar Wilde

"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."
--Mark Twain

"Memory is often less about the truth than about what we want it to be."
--David Halberstam

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong."
-- H. L. Mencken

[StJacques]

". . . And if I understand StJaques, he says that because of this possibility of untruth, we need a systematic correlation for validity. . . ."

Without some means of testing a proposition or an observation of phenomena to verify that it is as "understood" it cannot be called knowledge.

Which essentially means you have understood me correctly.

[musical_airman]

Unfortunately, yes, mere coincidence. If I had that kind of internet clairvoyance for real, I could make an absolute killing on Ebay, though.

[Vicomte13]

Ah, but are there ever truly "mere" coincidences in the world?

[musical_airman]

You know, the good Lord just might of had his finger on my mouse button for y'alls amusement.

[StJacques]

". . . And that brings up the other kind of unquestionable truth -- "true by definition"."

Actually, when something is "true by definition" it is not inherently true -- which is to say it could be true but is not necessarily true -- since any argument that is "true by definition" commits one of two logical errors; either the logical fallacy of Petitio Principii (a.k.a. "Begging the Question") or it presents a meaningless Tautology in which the conclusion is equivalent to the premise.

[perfect stranger]

bump to find this later