Replies

"So very true. And it appears that understanding more of "where the other guy is coming from" will help us - either in accepting our differences or perhaps in making a more persuasive argument. "

Not to belabor the obvious, but isn't that the purpose behind these discussions? If we don't recognize differences and take pains to work around them all we end up doing is talking past one another.

I haven't noticed a definition of 'knowledge' put forward and agreed upon in any of the earlier posts. You separate the terms 'knowledge' and 'certainty' in your original post but are they not inextricably linked? If we simply accept any input into our consciousness without first calculating its inherent level of certainty we can not call it knowledge as opposed to say, 'rumour'.

We can categorize any number of informational inputs with arbitrarily chosen divisions without statistical limits imposed but if we do are they relevant? Should we not rather first set the statistical lower boundary of certainty in the definition of knowledge and then instead of trying to specify each category's level of certainty, specify each category's relevance to our world view?

Unless of course we are just trying to compose a list of informational inputs.

And yes I know, I tend to babble. But it makes me endearing, just like a puppy.

You separate the terms 'knowledge' and 'certainty' in your original post but are they not inextricably linked? If we simply accept any input into our consciousness without first calculating its inherent level of certainty we can not call it knowledge as opposed to say, 'rumour'.

Certainty is indeed linked to knowledge, but it has broad meaning and is not in all cases essential. One may know something and still doubt it, be uncertain about it, and even suspect that it isn't true.

Nowadays certainty is so much linked with knowledge that it is often confused with truth. I agree with some here that we should note the role of our will. We want to be sure about what we know. Certainty, however, should not be misten for what is true. Certainty is rather a valuation of what we are conscious of, a state or a disposition. However, the less certainty is a psychological state and becomes synomymous with truth, then certainty is simply that which comports with a set of principles as, whether those are ethical, geometrical, or dogmatic. Thoughtomator astutely points out: what we know is true in a particular set of conditions .

Thank you so much for post!

I haven't noticed a definition of 'knowledge' put forward and agreed upon in any of the earlier posts. You separate the terms 'knowledge' and 'certainty' in your original post but are they not inextricably linked? If we simply accept any input into our consciousness without first calculating its inherent level of certainty we can not call it knowledge as opposed to say, 'rumour'.

We can categorize any number of informational inputs with arbitrarily chosen divisions without statistical limits imposed but if we do are they relevant? Should we not rather first set the statistical lower boundary of certainty in the definition of knowledge and then instead of trying to specify each category's level of certainty, specify each category's relevance to our world view?

Unless of course we are just trying to compose a list of informational inputs.

Exactly. That is the point. We cannot negotiate a agreement as to what knowledge "is" but we can describe how we each view "knowledge" and how we value the certainty of it.

Indeed, some may very well accept "rumors" or "conspiracy theories" or "op/eds" as knowledge. You and I might find that bizarre, but if our correspondent has that worldview, it is helpful to us to know about it.