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.

[Whispering Smith]

Try this URL: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm

[Dean Baker]

This looks interesting, but does anyone want to dumb it down just a tad??

[Right Winged American]

The most fundamental point of this philosophy is that reality is never, ever incorrect. If your theory (a defined association of facts) does not accurately represent what happens in reality, there are only two possibilities: First the theory has a flaw in it; second, the observer has an artificially narrow perception of reality.

Ooooh! I Like that. I've always approached reality as what is, and any screwups as owing to my or our misperception or misinterpretation. Further, our empirical knowledge is hard acquired, useful, but not to be counted on because things change; It can always blow at any seam.

To steal a phrase; It's not what you don't that'll kill you, It's what you know that isn't so!

[betty boop]

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.

Can you give assurances, Ichneumon, that the insights of "party-pooper skeptics" cannot in principle be included in that vast category of "bogus knowledge" which includes "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.?"

If so, will you demonstrate why the insights of skepticism must be excluded from this nasty category? On what basis are we to rationally accept the skeptic position as not just another of the many "various comfortable presumptions?"

To me, skepticism is a variant of ideological thinking. That suspicion seems justified to me, for its basic premises are hidden as is usually the case with ideologies. If we are to penetrate the mysteries of skepticism, then it seems to me we first need to have disclosure of the hidden premise(s).

Can you help with this?

[cornelis]

Ok, here's an example. There are two basic kinds of what StJacques has designated as a "systematic correlation" for validity.

(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.

The follwing is an example of the first kind from the Honorable S.C. Justice Ginsburg:

"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary."
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."
"Even more so today, the United States is subject to the scrutiny of a candid world. What the United States does, for good or for ill, continues to be watched by the international community, in particular by organizations concerned with the advancement of the rule of law and respect for human dignity."

There's for legal validity of two different sets: between a nation and hypernationalism.

[donh]

Plastics

Sheep guts--
If you use plastics, can you truly say you've had carnal knowledge?

[Ramius]

pingfer

[Focault's Pendulum]

Thank you all for your participation in this investigation!!!

After perusing this outstanding post...the only thing I can investigate is searching for my bottle of Scotch.

I got a mild headache while trying to comprehend the bold implications therein.

I can assure you...that once I complete my initial investigation...my headache will be that much more for the worse, tomorrow morning.

FR should be a college accredited course.

[VadeRetro]

One thing I know above all else: you two guys are poop-heads!

You have too much gall.

[donh]

Your *existence* is real, *has* to be real; it can not be illusory.

There are several ways in which this can be seen as a weak claim.

For example, to an evolutionist pondering the fact that you are made up of cells whose ancestors used to be freemoving, one celled cowboys, before the communist tyranny of multicellularity came along and fenced in the ranges. "You" are just a bio-chemical/bio-electical conglomeration whose ponderings are meaningless to the cells you are made of, whose existence is far more tangibly demonstrable than your maudlin arrogance about "being" because you are "thinking"--which merely amounts to a silly attempt to pretend there is meaning in a few fleeting congeries of electical impulses between cells.

Or, consider the atoms that make up your cells--with their vast empty spaces occupied by entities whose existence at any given point or time is highly probabilistic and fleeting--and cells have the arrogance to suppose that they exist just because their happen to be an fleeting accidental conjugation of these entities in atoms whose existence is so evanescent as to be virtually non-existent.

Or, for one more, consider the inversion of the usual way of looking at Descartes argument: Your self-detected visceral existence, however pursuasive you might find it, is a far cry from high on the heirarchy of what we commonly take for objective evidence. A proof, or a refereed scientific article about an experiment I can duplicate, if I want, or, just an ordinary chair, which more than one human can stub his toe on, and then get together to share notes with other chair-victims about. All of these things take priority over your self-awareness, as objective evidence.

All of which brings me around to my question: I think humans are, more than any other creatures we know about, defined by their existence as part of a community. We observe that those of us cut off from effective participation in our community go bonkers, become unhealthy, and meet untimely ends at a very high rate. I therefore suggest that, while Descartes formulation might be a very good one for, say, a muledeer, it will be rather deficient for a human: If all you do is think about what you are, you will shortly cease to be, however, if you suppress your philosophical misgivings, and you continue to work at being, as I aver you are supposed to, you may very well become something worth thinking exists.

[narby]

Very interesting post. But I'm afraid I can't improve on many of these without some serious head scratching.

[betty boop]

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 [to souls open to such experiences].
2. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another [e.g., in the testimony of the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and saints].

* * * * * * *

Hello Alamo-Girl and Patrick! You see I thought to use Patrick’s list as the focus of my own thinking in this matter of grades of ascertainable (more or less) knowledge. I notice that Patrick has segregated forms of theological knowledge to a sub-class, a ghetto as it were, inferior to the main body of relative (un)certainties.

I have no objection to the hierarchy given at points 1 through 7 above. Seems a valid order, and happens to reflect my own views.

Just a couple observations: It has only been in the recent few (post-modern) centuries that theological knowledge, a/k/a/ spiritual understanding of types (1) and (2), has been relegated to an intellectual ghetto. In former times, (1) and (2) were understood to be the very ground or foundation of the Patrick’s 1 through 7. It was because (1) and (2) were valid that humans had any confidence at all in the first 7. And because of that confidence, science became possible.

Because in the pre- post-modern world, God and Truth were synonymous. And humans beings understood, or used to, that without a foundation in Truth, everything that human beings do is in vain.

Which observation, for some strange reason, recalls a potent sonnet to mind:

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said – “two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert ... near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lips, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
n -- Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

But I think it was Hegel who first turned the ensouled understandings of countless generations of humanity on its head. And it’s all been downhill from there….

Cases in point: Marx and his epigones Hitler and Stalin et al. to the present day followed Hegel.

JMHO, FWIW.

Hugs to both of you!

[betty boop]

There's for legal validity of two different sets: between a nation and hypernationalism.

Which I guess just goes to show that one can get so carried away with "dotting all the i's" and "crossing all the t's" of the "rules du jour" that real life, the vital and vivid human concerns, gets dumped down the rathole of irrelevancy.

"Law" -- as construed by oligarchs -- is superior (a) to the people who made it; and (2) [who are] the very people it must serve in order to be legitimate; (3) notwithstanding that the oligarchs swore to be subject to (1), and diligent in preserving the interests of (2).

There is a huge difference between what constitutional rule of law requires, and how it is being practiced today. "Systematic correlation" for validity seems a hopelessly inadequate instrument to address such concerns, which go straight to the individual and to the society, at the end of the day.

We seem to be doing a whole lot of that sort of thing, these days. As a culture, I mean.

[PatrickHenry]

I notice that Patrick has segregated forms of theological knowledge to a sub-class, a ghetto as it were, inferior to the main body of relative (un)certainties.

In the thread where this "knowledge" topic originated, Alamo-Girl also questioned my segregation of theological items (direct revelation and faith in another's revelation). The reason I gave her was this:

As for revelation, how would we decide if it goes, say, before or after the calculation of an eclipse? And where do we rank (on our scale of "certainty") the faith of the person who reads about a revelation and decides to believe it? I don't want to start a knife fight over this, but you asked why I listed the theological items separately. That's why.

She wasn't pleased, but like the sweetheart she is, she let me have my own list, and she made hers. That's how we ended up with two separate lists.

I can elaborate a bit further. Purely theological matters, which are the subject of revelation, being of a spiritual nature, are not objectively verifiable in this world. (We've discussed the limitations of science many times in the past). Therefore knowledge of such matters is, at least to me, of a different nature than the knowledge discussed in the earlier part of my list. It can't be observed, etc. So to me, it deserves a separate treatment. I don't think of it as a ghetto. To me, it's a separate domain of knowledge.

[b_sharp]

Generally, sceptics are open to new phenomena as long as they come with 'knowledge' derived from naturalistic evidence based investigations. If the phenomena can be replicated only in convenient environments and/or circumstances or can be shown to be trickery they are rejected.

Carl Sagan had 10 tools to detect suspect reasoning. Most sceptics try to use these tools before jumping to conclusions.

1. There should be independent confirmation
2. There should be substantive debate on the evidence
3. Avoid arguments from authority. Experts are from within the field in question not outside.
4. Consider more than one hypothesis. Then falsify them.
5. Fairly compare your own hypothesis to other's.
6. If possible, measure, measure, measure.
7. In a chain argument, every link must work.
8. Occam's Razor.
9. Is the hypothesis falsifiable? If not look again.
10. Rely on experimentation.

Sceptics don't just brush something off because it looks goofy or doesn't jibe with their world view, they question the amount of careful study that has gone into the claim and will dismiss it if extravagant or poorly backed.

Weigh the evidence.
Weigh the credibility of the evidence sources.
Weigh the counter evidence.
Weigh the credibility of the counter evidence sources.

Why do you feel sceptics hide their premises? It certainly isn't a part of being a sceptic

[cornelis]

The most fundamental point of this philosophy is that reality is never, ever incorrect

This statement is another variant of the A is A identity. It is what it is. The problem, however, is we often don't know what it is.

What do we take for real, anyhow? There are some who say death is part of our human reality, end of story. But we resist it. When human beings resist this mortal nature they appear to adjust their glasses and say to reality: "you are wrong, altogether wrong."

And so we become human exactly at the point when we say that nature is wrong.

[b_sharp]

It really sounds like we are conflating knowledge and belief. Is there no separation between the two? One can believe very easily in something that has no veracity in external reality but holds in our consciousness. Is this truly knowledge?

I have trouble accepting 'all' internalized information as knowledge; to me knowledge is something that is intended to not only satisfy my cravings but information that can be passed on to others with some confidence of truthfulness. I don't consider lies or scams or dreams ... as knowledge.

Perhaps I am simply too naive, but my definition of knowledge does not extend to misinformation or rumour.

[lafroste]

I can elaborate a bit further. Purely theological matters, which are the subject of revelation, being of a spiritual nature, are not objectively verifiable in this world. (We've discussed the limitations of science many times in the past). Therefore knowledge of such matters is, at least to me, of a different nature than the knowledge discussed in the earlier part of my list. It can't be observed, etc. So to me, it deserves a separate treatment.

I respectfully disagree. The problem I see with your theory is it presumes that there is some value to your opinion one way or another. That is a basic fallacy of humans, IMHO (see #43). If for example, I say "I don't believe Paris, France exists" (I'm such a sweet talker) Pretty much everyone would dismiss my opinions because they believe it does exist, and some number of us are fairly certain because they've been there. It should be obvious that my belief that it doesn't exist has no actual effect on whether it is there or not.

Similarly, if I say "I believe in God" and another says "I don't believe in God", neither of our opinions has the slightest relevance whatsoever to whether or not HE really does exist. Our beliefs only serve to inform our own decisions. The more accurate our beliefs, the better (usually) our decisions.

I am not implying that your (in the generic sense) opinion is unimportant, I'm saying that it is non-important because even "unimportant" can imply some non-zero value to its worth.

This philosophy can be viewed as the antithesis of post-modern relativism, a rediculous philosophy that exalts feelings over thoughts, opinion over fact, and process over result.

I see a lot of posts here where people interpret meaning out of what they think of things, and I believe that is exactly the most meaningless measure there is.

[VadeRetro]

3. Avoid arguments from authority. Experts are from within the field in question not outside.

Example: If we're talking about the history of life on Earth, I don't want to see Isaac Newton and Werner Von Braun.

[cornelis]

I agree. You can't think anybody out of existence, although many act on that presumption.