can i know something not proven?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by pretzelwise, Mar 15, 2003.

  1. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Agreed except for the bit about faith not being knowledge. Faith is precisely what knowledge depends on for its status as knowledge. As Popper said -

    “What we should do, I suggest, is give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge. And admit that all human knowledge is human: that it is mixed with our errors, our prejusices, our dreams, and our hopes: that all we can do is grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach. We may admit that our groping is often inspired, but we must be on our guard against the belief, however deeply felt, that our inspiration carries any authority, divine or otherwise. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far it may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority. And we must retain it. For without this idea there can be no objective standards of enquiry; no criticism of our conjectures; no groping for the unknown; no quest for knowledge.”

    Karl Popper – The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    I'm defining "faith" as "belief in a thing without or contrary to valid evidence." Like I said, I think knowledge and certainty are possible in a given context. Human knowledge is human- humans are rational animals. We know things through reason and logic, you can't disprove reason and logic without being illogical, so those stand as our cannon for truth. I don't think one must be omnipotent in order to prove something. It seems your theory would make nothing provable?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    The fact that nothing is ultimately provable by rationality alone is not my theory. It's just a logical finding from epistemology, reached by every philosopher who ever went looking for certainty outside of themselves. It's just an unfortunate fact of life. Still it does mean we can be quite certain of our uncertainty, which is something.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    No, actually being certain of uncertainty is a self-contradiction. Objectivist epistemology does hold that certainty is possible, which is one of the reasons it's considered a radical philosophy. Actually, most contemporary philosophers hold that certainty is possible, but only within a social language context like "it is certain that all kangaroos are marsupials." But Objectivists claim certainty of reality is possible, through non-contradiction, axioms, considering all appropriate evidence in the context, etc. I found this introduction to the concept, written by Ron Merrill, to be helpfull.http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ron_Merrill_writes/Articles/AxiomsTheEightfoldWay.htm But to really understand it, you'd probably have to look into Rand and Peikoff's more comprehensive treatments of the idea and how to apply it. I think this is one of the more interesting aspects of Objectivism.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2003
  8. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    Oh yeah, and you're correct nothing is provable by rationality alone. There is no a-priori knowledge. It's the combination of reason and empirical sense data that's key.
     
  9. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    As Goedel showed we cannot prove all the things that are true. Therefore to believe only what has been proved is to be certain of not knowing the whole truth. Also if 'knowledge' is defined as what is provably true, and proofs must be constructed from promises and postulates then our knowledge will always be uncertain (or based, as you say, on circularity eg "it is certain that all kangaroos are marsupials.")

    However if we forget proof then this gets us back to the original question - can we have true knowledge of something without a proof of it? I think so. After all I know I'm happy but I'd have no idea how to prove it.

    The objectivists will not have a leg to stand on until they can disprove idealism.

    I agree that being certain of ones uncertainty is a self-contradiction if one is talking about proof. However I'm pretty certain of my uncertainty regarding everything else except my incertainty of certainty about anything else besides my uncertainty about it. I just can't prove it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2003
  10. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    I hear people saying "evolution isn't a proven fact", in that case I definately know something thats not proven.
    Indications and logic is all you need.
     
  11. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    You only know it because you make unwitting metaphysical assumptions.
     
  12. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well of course you can never prove *everything* that is true. In order to know, as you say, "the whole truth", one would have to be omnipotent. All I need to prove is those truths which are relevent to me in context, which is totally possible. Objectivism need not disprove idealism, aliens, the matrix, astrology, witchcraft, leprochans, walking-under-latter theory, or any other such ideology because the burden of proof is on the possitive assertion, meaning one need not prove something is false when there is no valid evidence to support that it's true. In fact, Rand and Peikoff refuted most of the errors of idealism- they devoted a lot of time to dealing specifically with the ideas of Emanuel Kant, who they saw to be the origin of most of those errors. They refuted the categories, the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, and solved the problem of universals. She was a 20th century philosopher, so of course she was aware of all those ideas and spent a lot of time on them. You can look in The Ayn Rand Lexicon to flip through alphabetically and see what she wrote about specific topics like existentialism. The primary refutation of idealism is probably her idea of the "axiom of conciousness", which says in order for truth to be possible I must assume I am concious of reality. Truth is what has to be true in order for truth to exist in a context.
     
  13. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I do not know Rand but to pick up on this 'axiom of consciousness' then proving the existence of consciousness if not the same as proving the ultimate reality of the physical. In fact it has no bearing on it at all.
     
  14. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    To be concious is to be conscious of something. This correlates to the primacy of existence axiom, "existence exists," and the law of identity axiom A is A, a thing is what it is. The essay I link to above defines 8 such axioms which are necissary in order for truth to be possible. All of these axioms must be assumed to be true, for to argue against any of them is to contradict one's self. In order for truth to be possible in a particular context, I must assume my perceptions correspond to reality. The whole idea is Aristotle's creation more than Ayn Rands, but she did build on this framework and developed the axiom of conciousness greatly, I'm probably not doing the idea justice, as I'm kind of new to secular philosophy, but that's how I understand it anyway.
    In the expanded eddition of IOE, there are transcripts of a lengthy question and answer session conducted between Rand and a selected group of philosophers, mathemeticians, etc. There's one question someone asked that began "If Descarte's demon were to wave his magic wand.." I don't remember the rest of the question, but I remember her answer was something like "If Descarte's demon existed, we'd all be lost." I think that might be helpfull to understanding her epistemology, at least, it was for me.
     
  15. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I'm not a fan of Aristotle. IMO Plato was much more correct. I would agree that by any rational (i.e. intellectual and conceptual) view of existence there are certain axioms that might be assumed to be self-evident. But only by adopting dualism. If the cosmos is ultimately a singular/monist thing, as I believe most philosophers argue, then physical existence is epiphenominal on it. That isn't to say we don't physically exist, it's just to say that physical substance is a secondary property of the cosmos, not a primary one.

    The reality of phenomenal existence remains unproved as far as I know (except by first adopting axioms which implicity assume that it's proved). Many people would not even agree that consciousness requires that there be a consciousness of 'something'.
     
  16. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    Objectivism rejects dualism. Seeks to transcend body/soul dichotomy. Yeah, your view is the popular one right now. I see mysticism as more in the realm of abnormal psychology. What do you gain by "believing" it's possible to turn led into gold etc? How does this further a person's life? What motivates people to seek a life improper for humans? These are the more interesting questions for me.
    I've been lately very interested in Norse mythology. I do believe religion is a primitave form of philosophy, an attempt to understand the world in the absence of a fully developed system of logic. But I think pride in surrendering one's life to war (for the glory of battle rather than fighting for freedom etc) and pride in acheiving the vision of one's intellect are two different kinds of "happiness". A Viking's belief in the power of witchcraft and my belief in science are different kinds of belief. I don't see knowledge as possible by any other method than "mere logic" because emotions are not a form of cognition. You can know something not proven by someone else, you just have to prove it yourself. If you guess at something and it turns out you were correct, that doesn't mean you knew it before hand. Gaining broader contexts of knowledge doesn't invalidate prior knowledge, it clarifies it.
    So I don't have any evidence that a Norseman's mind or your mind work significantly different than mine does. The differences in our opinions can easily be explained by free will. There are some things I "know" about how my mind works, and how human minds work, and some things that I do not understand. This doesn't invalidate my existence, it's something to build on because my premises are strong enough to support infinite new knowledge without invalidating prior knowledge. I think that's the key to a strong epistemology. Psychologically I think it's analogous to integrity, honesty, etc.
    I say there can be no communication between the hands and the heart without the mind as a mediator. Humans are rational animals, we think by integrating. So I think the psychological goal is self actualization, as Carl Rogers called it. I don't think you can ever seperate those things. "If I don't pray and beg forgiveness for my sins I'll go to Hell, if I don't wash my hands seven times whenever I see an add for dentil floss my mother will die, if the government is not given power to regulate the economy the lower and middle classes will suffer and we could have another Great Depression, if I don't cover my head with tin foil the space aliens who own all the big corporations can controll my mind." Why live believing things unprovable?? It's silly!!!!
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2003
  17. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    You seem to think I don't believe in logic. This is not so. Neither do I think we should believe in things for no logical reasons. (I try hard to avoid doing so).

    However we already know that truth extends further than proof so we know that proof does not define truth. We also know that the natural sciences have their metaphysical limitations, and that while they provide useful evidence they do not provide metaphysical answers (by definition - thus I prefer 'metascientific' as a word).

    We also know that all observation is theory laden and thus open to re-interpretation. I shall go on believing my interpretation until someone shows me to be wrong, just as you will. We are both looking at the same evidence and yet interpret it differently. Thus we believe differently. We have no choice. There is no proof or disproof of greater forms of consciousness, of human consciousness, of freewill, of causal completeness, of strict detirminism, and of many other things that people just believe (or don't) with no proofs at all. We all believe stuff all the time without proof. We have to. (The problem that Buddhism explicitly circumvents since proof is replaced by experience)

    Also personal understanding cannot always be proved. Eg. I believe things that I'm intellectually incapable of proving to anyone else, but which have not been disproved and seem perfectly logical to me.

    I agree that believing in things is daft in the absence of good reasons. But I disagree that "believing in unprovable things is silly". You wouldn't have anything you could call knowledge if you didn't do this. Your beliefs (whatever they are) aren't true simply because they fit the popular paradigm, they're just more socially acceptable. Someone who believes in 'God' (as long as they don't claim illogical attributes) is just as likely to be right as someone who doesn't, and both of them hold a belief in something not yet proved or disproved. If you have any belief either way on this then you believe in something unproved. (Whoops - I don't mean to start a God argument)

    I suppose underneath this argument is my opposition to scientism, which seems to be taking hold of the Western world with no proof at all.

    I hope this is on the point - I'm not sure.
     
  18. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    What do you mean by "proof is replaced by experience"? Proof and all knowledge is derived from experience. Conciousness is experience, thus its validity as an inescapable axiom. Conciousness of something is real experience of reality.
    The only reason someone is "wrong" when they say they believe in God is because in reality there is no such *concept*. What most people mean when they say "God" isn't a well defined concept derived from experience which describes anything definite. I think when most people say "God" they mean the universe + a mesh of unidentified emotions, memories from childhood, parts of themselves they've allowed to be disasociated from themselves, etc. That's why the religious experience is so intense for some people, their prayers are an appeal to the part of themselves that is alive, injured, and deeply buried.
    But then, since the God concept isn't defined or definable it means different things for different people. That hypothesis is just how I would describe what I regard as the more sincere theists.
    So for me atheism isn't just "belief that there is no God" it's more moving beyond the concept of God.
    Also that's why a lot of the things people are refering to when they say "God" are actually true and real phenomena. I just think lumping it all together into the "package deal" non-concept of God is cheating oneself out of truly helpfull information. Believing things without seeking proof is giving up too easy, I think. It's just defeatism. You can know, you can prove things with certainty through logic. It just takes a lot of work and effort and integrity.
    The reason this interests me so much is I feel that's what everyone really wants, but most avoid the facts of an objective reality just out of fear. I see this as the great tragedy of my generation. Maybe the ultimate source of all tragedy, I equate it with the concept of low self-esteem. Context dropping, evasion of reality, abdication of human soul (soul=conciousness), abdication of reason and judgment, I see those as all interconnected. So I think the God debate is a good example of why you can't know something in the absence of proof. You can feel that something unproven is true, and even believe it, but not know it with undeniable certainty. But knowledge and certainty are possible within a context, and that context can be a person's relationship to her or his own experience.
     
  19. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I just meant direct knowledge rather than third-person reasoning and conceptualisation. In other words I KNOW some things that I can never prove, as do you (although probably most of them are trivial). I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'validity' of consciousness


    I agree (but am confused about final sentence) The whole problem with talking about God is that everyone is talking about a different concept, some of which are rational and some of which are daft.

    Agree again. Believing things without seeking proof is lazy. However I don't think that this means that without proof one shouldn't believe in anything. IMO this is irrational and the teaching of it a prime cause of depression and nihilism in young people and the mindless dehumanisation/mechanisation of society.

    Not sure what you mean here. I agree that most avoid the facts of reality - but would accuse (most) supporters of scientism of this, as well as (most) believers in God.

    This seems contradictory, or at least it suggests that personal revelation can constitute proof, which I thought you did not think.

    In the end the greatest responsibility we have in our lives is the choice of our beliefs, for they are what entirely determine our behaviour. I cannot believe that we should restrict ourselves to what we can prove. Perhaps the problem is that we don't define 'proof' much better than we define 'God'.

    PS I'm trying to tread carefully here - not being a deist in the normal sense. I have always argued against believing in things that cannot be proved scientifically. But science has not proved anything important yet except concerning the relationship between scientific concepts, and many scientific views are based to varying degrees on faith in that the claims made of them reach beyond evidence and proof. (causal completeness, epiphenominalism, strict physical determinism, non-existence of greater consciousness, existence after death etc etc. )
     
  20. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    In some cases, yes.

    For example, I know that I love my family. Technically, I can't provide concrete evidence that I love them. After all, you could attribute my close ties to family as an attempt to keep my name in their will. It isn't true, but you could accuse me of it. But I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I love my family.
     
  21. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    Re: Re: can i know something not proven?

    If keeping your name in your family's will was so important that your family's position was high in your hierarchy of values, it seems to me that it would still be valid to say that you loved them.. but that you loved them only for their money. Love is a matter of degree, you can say you love ice cream and prove it by spending money on ice cream but then you can prove that you love your sister more by spending your money or time to help her out of a jam and going without ice cream for a while. Love isn't altruistic, it's selfish- the most selfish thing of all- your own values. So something doesn't have to obliterate your ego in order to be "true love" as some people think, this would not be a very real or valid love at all. But that really is a facinating topic!
     
  22. bold standard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    Canute I think you're on the right track in a lot of ways. But the nihilism stems from the false idea that proof of reality is impossible, not that it's necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by "personal revelation", I think what I believe in as the source of proof would better be described as "personal discovery" because consciousness is volitional, not passive.
    Intuition, hypotheses, envisioning possibilities, and exploring unknown territory are all important parts of life and science. But I think it's important to distinguish that from knowledge. It leads to knowledge but it isn't knowledge yet. I would define proof as simply showing that something follows logically from reality, without any pitfalls or traps or appeals to emotionalism or mysticism. I think certainty and knowledge about some things is necessary for human life, especially in a society where one's mind is always coming under threat. But I'm not saying that you shouldn't act on something or deal with an idea until you've attained certainty. I think you should first have evidence, but that's not yet knowledge.
    How often have you assumed something on intuition or an emotional whim and then been proved wrong later? Knowledge isn't that way, it's inviolate, no contradictions exist in the actual universe, it must be viewed as objective. There can be no reasonable alternative to this view. Just expirement with it, the contradictions in trying to come up with any alternative are self evident. If truth means corresponding to reality and there is no objective reality there is no truth and if there's no truth is it true that there's no truth or is it false? Is it false that it's false? etc, you've completely wiped out your mind by this point nothing is true anymore and you can't say you even exist to ponder it. But you know that you exist and you know that truth is true etc. So all other knowledge just follows from this pattern- it is personal. Knowledge and certainty only applies to individuals. Humans are creatures of self-made soul.
     
  23. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    The nihilism stems, I think, from being told that nothing is true beyond the proofs of science, and that science has solved most of the puzzles of existence, both of which are nonsense. How often are kids told about all the things we don't know - it's not relevant to passing exams. In stating that consciousness is volitional you contradict the prevalent scientific view, although the case is not yet proved either way.

    Agree - although not sure about your definition of knowledge.

    Knowledge is very definitely NOT inviolate. Everyone has to revise their 'knowledge' on a regular basis, and often discover that what they thought was knowledge turns out to be just belief - tyhe two are virtually indistinguishable. There is no proof of the fact that the universe does not contain contradictions or illogicalities. It probably does not, but I would argue that it does if you adopt a strictly physicalist view of it. Logically 'truth' can exist in the absence of physical reality, but I'm not sure which way you mean 'objective'. Agree that knowledge and certainty are ultimately personal constructs. Mostly we seem to agree.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2003

Share This Page