Is knowledge something you have...

Actually I only got the impression you considered certain deductive ideas potentially certain.

Can you list some things you consider 100% certain?

Remember...
any argument you put forward for them being 100% certain means that you are 100% certain your short and long term memories are working well and you are simply setting off the 'this makes sense' qualia at the end of your analysis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps in some ideal future, but if we look back through the past many things that were physical were not easy to find and verify. Some of them were experienced by people, but tests to verify them were not available. Or there was a lack of interest or funding, appropriate technology, etc.

We are always, or have been so far, at an incomplete moment in the verification of the physical.

And so we do not know if some things labeled spiritual are in fact physical.

Not to mention that many scientists and philosophers consider all knowledge to have come from within out minds, our minds being a simulation of 'out there' and the only thing we have contact with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes knowledge is something you have. You know somebody knows something according to the following:
If you believe the person knows X.
If the person knows X.
Then you know the person knows X.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93198

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Knowledge is simply information.

Putting that information to use requires a degree of wisdom.

 

Knowledge is not simply information. Knowledge is a belief in something that is true.
In order for a subject to possess knowledge on a matter, there are 2 necessities.
1. The subject believes the matter is true.
2. The matter is true.

 

That's just simple circular reasoning leading you absolutely nowhere. Knowledge IS nothing more than information - and that information may well be incorrect.

 

It is not circular reasoning. It's how knowledge works: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193

Not to mention knowledge cannot be incorrect. If somebody has a belief that is incorrect it is a misconception. Not knowledge.

 

And so we get into differences between "knowledge" on a philosophical level and "knowledge" as used in casual parlance.

If someone says "I know X" in casual parlance, what they usually mean would be along the lines of "I know X is probably true based on what I have read / understood". But I'm sure there are other uses.

Then, as I asserted and explained in a previous thread, I do not think intuition can lead to knowledge. It can lead to a claim of knowledge but there is insufficient justification that rationally leads to the truth value of the claim. The claim might be right, if the intuition is accurate. But all one has is confidence that it is true rather than sufficient justification.

I would probably refer to it as a "subconscious assessment". But "intuition" (as you have described above) seems reasonable to me.

Sure. And I would expect people who have an issue with the assertions of knowledge to call people out on it.
But I would also avoid trying to detract such arguments on to philosophical matters of what constitutes knowledge or not, as the discussion will not be around what each individual "knows" but what evidence is published etc.
For example, I do not "know" (in a strict philosophical sense) that evolution (or even the theory of evolution) is true. But I "know" that science considers evolution a fact - and that the current theory of evolution is the best current theory to explain how this fact of evolution can lead from the first life to current situation.
Don't confuse evolution with the Theory of Evolution, though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And bear in mind that if science is using the term "Theory" then it is not "knowledge" as it is not yet proven as valid for anything other than the data used to arrive at the theory, let alone true.

Not as far as I know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think I am just trying to be pragmatic, knowing that this is a philosophical discussion. Rigorous definitions are all well and good in such situations - but in casual parlance they just don't have the same definition / usage.

A concern I have for such a rigorous definition of knowledge as I have provided is that it leaves "knowledge" alsmot redundant as a term - as it could only be used for things that an individual has personally assessed the truth value of - which brings into the whole equation of how one can indeed know that it is the truth.

E.g. if I toss a coin and I see that it lands on Heads then I can surely say "I know it landed on Heads"? But how can I be sure that this is true? How can I be sure that I have not been hypnotised to see Heads?
And if someone else ratifies it - how can I be sure that they also have not been hypnotised?

For "knowledge" to be a useful term it must come to a point where the certainty of the "truth" value is reduced from an objective level to one of usefulness.
And it is in this usefulness that the term is watered down from philosophical discussions to casual parlance.

But then this leads to occasions when one feels they have "knowledge" - e.g. based on a personal assessment of the truth value - but they later discover it to be a misconception - i.e. false.


Perhaps the truth value for something to be considered "knowledge" need only be in relation to the use that the knowledge is being put to.

E.g. I might have some knowledge of atoms - which helps me to explain some chemical interactions. But I don't "know" about atoms as I have never seen an electron, a neutron, a proton, quark etc. But for the purpose of explaining some chemical interactions I have "knowledge".
What I think I know is true to the extent in which I am using it.
And I guess this goes back to Glaucon's point that knowledge is only identifiable as such when used: you can not demonstrate knowledge merely by talking and having someone listen.

 

Oh, but that's not exhaustive of what can be certain.
Even then, we were just discussing these matters as contrasted to empirical propositions.

In any case, inductively derived propositions can also be certain, in particular when they are part of, or derived form, deductions.

Ultimately, any valid formal logic proposition is certain.

It's when we get into the empirical when things get iffy....
[thus.. your mention of the mind continuity problem..]

However, some empirical propositions can also be certain. I have in mind here so called 'factual truths'. Mind, as you've noted, the certainty of such facts can be called into question, contingent as they are upon recollection.
Thankfully, we each don't have to memorize everything....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not quite sure how I missed this one....

I can't say that they way we speak about things is incorrect, because that would be to assume and/or support an objective sense of epistemology.
I was simply noting that what a term means can be different from how it is used...

I do agree that meaning 'is' use.
Despite this, language can serve as a mirror, but when it fails to do so, that is simply because either a) we've misused a term or b) we have can choose to 'misuse' a term. So. though I'm tempted here to say that language is a mirror, the only reason why I fall short of asserting this is because it's not necessarily such [though I believe that historically, it was].
Thus, it can be a mirror, but it can also serve other purposes, such as serving as an experiential guide.
[I don't see how language can 'elicit' an experience...]

Ahh. I see.
Interesting line of thought. I'd be happy to say that language mirrors thinking, though I would add that this reflecting is necessarily inaccurate. Which is to say, language is incapable of perfectly mirroring anything.

Doreen, come on now. I know you know what I mean be this.
Without verification, all one has is a hypothesis...


verification

lol

Well, it's very context-sensitive.
For example, I know a deeply religious person whom I would say is certainly rational with respect to their job. Despite this, as I'm sure you're aware, I would simultaneously say that this person is also insane...

 

Quite close indeed.

Linguistically, the subject might say "I know X is true". Basically this means that he has surpassed a certain threshold of certainty.

DEGREE OF CERTAINTY
0% certain <------------------------------------------------------------ (threshold) ============> 100% certain.

Prior to threshold, the subject is in the state of inconclusion. Thus, the subject states "I don't know". Beyond the threshold, the subject is in the state of belief (conclusion). Thus, the subject states "I know".

There is a difference between a statement of knowledge and a state of knowledge. There is a difference between a statement of belief and a state of belief.

A subject might say: "I know X is true."
No matter what, we can say: "He believes X is true."
If we also believe X is true, we say: "He knows X is true."
If we believe X is not true, we say: "He believes X is true, but his belief is a misconception."

 

I hear ya Baron....I am working on Freedom 45

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As far as having knowledge, I do about some things. There are a lot of things I know fuck all about.
That is why I come here, so I can learn something new. I must say though, I have learned that there
are quite a few ppl around here that are full of shit.

 

This is because justification (material that compels a subject past the threshold of certainty) is specific to the subject being compelled. Evidence, verification, proof, call it whatever you want. It is solely up to a particular subject to deem (or agree with) material as justification that X is true.

 

I would say that you gave an answer to the question of when you know someone knows something, but not how.

 

I am not sure there is 1 philosophical level. But there is closer to one in science. Nevertheless I am skeptical most people, scientists included, have really looked at how they come to know various things and whether each path justifies the use of the term knowledge.

I understood that. My point here was that according to your definition of knowledge, it is quite hard for many (most probably) scientists to have knowledge outside their own fields or serious hobbies (in science).

I think, actually, you are incorrect. Theory is something that is very, very strongly supported by evidence. The Theory of Relativity, etc. As opposed to hypothesis.

I will come back to the rest.

I believe you answered Yes to the question of whether knowledge is a mirror. What is it a mirror of?

I am also interested in your definition of Belief. I am looking for something descriptive in a kind of ontological way.

 

Can you give me some examples of some 100% certain truths that are not from propositional logic or math.

What is a belief, ontologically?

What does knowledge mirror?

(I lost control of my socratic demon, but he's back)

 

I hope you can see why this leads me to ask

Does a proposition that you consider knowledge contain truth?

He inserted the straw as far as he could into the opening in his penis.

(was I successful?)

I went for a big gun. I first considered saying

Red elephant.

But we are such poor readers these days, I thought you might not notice the experience.

Then it would seem that propositions in language cannot be trusted 100%.

I asked you about the mirror idea in the previous post. Feel free to consolidate, or not.

Yes, yes. I am not playing dumb or saying one does not need to verify to know. I am trying to flesh out what you think a verification process would be. Then I will try to find counter-examples and pick holes. See, you made me lay it all out and be crass. (though that is partly true, I find I will learn how I think by compare and contrast with the way others do) You say verification and it could mean see if they can answer multiple choice questions on the subject. It could be more exacting and mean they must anwer questions with 'true' statements. It could mean they need to perform correctly in some way. Etc.

tsk, tsk. despite the problem of other minds. Oh, Glaucon.

 

So if I make a computer program that can answer correctly 100s of questions about ice, does that program know things?

You type in questions and it spits out answers on a screen.

 

As I mentioned, any factual truth.
Examples: I was born on Jan. 14 1971; I am sitting at my desk.

Nothing but a mental state of preparedness.

See my last post (#50).
In brief, thoughts.

Yes, you're flipping me out of my namesake here...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not necessarily. But it should.

Also: I disagree with the term "contain".

huh??

Totally lost me..

Not to mirror things, no, of course not.

My answers are consistent.

lol
Fair enough.

How about this:

Upon rising this morning, I was expecting that the sun had risen.
Once I went outdoors, I knew that the sun had indeed risen [via verification].

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

??

I don't follow..