Knowing vs Believing

[1137]

I did not experience the Void.....I wasn't there.
I did not experience the creation of light.....I wasn't there.
I don't recall my birth...I was there.

So at what line drawn are you certain?
If not or never....your fututre posts will lack.... the line drawn.

What point are you failing to get across here?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What is objective knowledge?

I think it's kinda like a 'fact'.

And a fact is something which 'is true no matter if everyone else in the world denies it.'

So objective truth is 'anything which I claim to align with God's Opinion and is impervious to every other human's gainsaying.'

So a fact (objective truth) is indistinguishable from a personal hallucination, I guess.

It really is dizzying. I have not yet met a mind, no matter how powerful, which could convince me that 'knowledge' is anything other than a claim that one's personal opinion somehow transcends one's personal opinion.

Even genius types have told me that knowledge is 'justifiable true belief'... which definition makes absolutely no sense to me. It just says the same thing. Knowledge is anything which is... you know... um... actually true.

Yikes. Language does indeed have the power to deceive us, I think.

 

[Thief]

What point are you failing to get across here?

No fail on MY part.

Don't you 'know' how to draw a line?

 

[1137]

Also we can do the whole brain in a vat thing, can we really know anything? Arguments from scepticism and solipsism do get the point across I suppose. But either we experience objective reality or are incapable of it, and if the latter is true it's irrelevant. It's rather difficult to assume nobody you interact with is conscious, but admittedly we don't know that. So for this thread we start with the belief that we can know anything at all, because if we can't we are all locked in a paradoxical existence being hypocrites for sharing ideas here.

I don't think we can know anything, but I believe in fun . And if we can't know then we cannot argue that some deity objectively exists.

 

[sandandfoam]

But either we experience objective reality or are incapable of it,

I think we can usefully distinguish experience of reality from knowledge of it.

 

[Falvlun]

I think it's kinda like a 'fact'.

And a fact is something which 'is true no matter if everyone else in the world denies it.'

Exactly. And then the problem becomes "How do we know that something is true?" Where does this certainty come from?

So objective truth is 'anything which I claim to align with God's Opinion and is impervious to every other human's gainsaying.'

So a fact (objective truth) is indistinguishable from a personal hallucination, I guess.

Hey! I see what you did there.

It really is dizzying. I have not yet met a mind, no matter how powerful, which could convince me that 'knowledge' is anything other than a claim that one's personal opinion somehow transcends one's personal opinion.

That's actually a rather neat way to put it.

I usually just go with "A belief that we are 100% certain is true"-- implying that the jump from belief to knowledge is only based upon how certain we feel it to be, rather than some other objective measure.

Even genius types have told me that knowledge is 'justifiable true belief'... which definition makes absolutely no sense to me. It just says the same thing. Knowledge is anything which is... you know... um... actually true.

Yikes. Language does indeed have the power to deceive us, I think.

I completely agree.

I do like "Justified true belief" since that at least attempts to address the issue that the things we claim to know might not actually be true-- that our certainty may be misplaced, or at least, that we truly cannot be certain.

Justification-- reasons and rationales-- for beliefs are necessary. I think it unhealthy to have beliefs for which you do not have reasons. And I also believe that there are good reasons and not so good reasons.

The problem of course is that there is no really objective standard to distinguish good reasons from bad ones and then we will just be fighting over whose opinion is correct which is right where we started at.

It's pretty hopeless, really.

 

[Katzpur]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, the word "know" is used quite loosely with regards to things of a spiritual nature. This is especially true among members of my Church and it has always bothered me. I don't feel comfortable in saying that it's impossible for something to "know" something he or she can't prove, but I am personally a lot more inclined to say something more along the lines of "I am convinced that..." To me, that's a stronger statement than "I believe..." is, and it implies that I have come to believe as strongly as I do through something more than blind faith, that even though I may not be able to prove my beliefs to be true, the evidence in their favor is, to me, sufficiently compelling to convince me. That's not to say that I couldn't be wrong.

 

[1137]

No fail on MY part.

Don't you 'know' how to draw a line?

No really, I don't understand what you're getting at. What line? are you really arguing that you don't know you were born? Cause that's what I got.

 

[Katzpur]

I know that the Judaic/Christian god doesn't exist, but I don't claim to know that no god exists.

And how do you "know" this when other people claim to "know" that He does? Do you think you're using the word "know" differently than believers in the Judeo/Christian God are?

 

[1137]

I think we can usefully distinguish experience of reality from knowledge of it.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Thief]

No really, I don't understand what you're getting at. What line? are you really arguing that you don't know you were born? Cause that's what I got.

You attempt to read between the lines on all other occasions.....
and you fail here?

Go back....take a deep breath...try #39 post again.

 

[1137]

I did not experience the Void.....I wasn't there.
I did not experience the creation of light.....I wasn't there.
I don't recall my birth...I was there.

So at what line drawn are you certain?
If not or never....your future posts will lack.... the line drawn.

I've read it. You seem to be claiming that you're not certain you were born and trying to make an argument from that absurdity. And since you won't clarify your point...

 

[Thief]

I've read it. You seem to be claiming that you're not certain you were born and trying to make an argument from that absurdity. And since you won't clarify your point...

This post of yours clearly demonstrates resistance on your part.

 

[1137]

This post of yours clearly demonstrates resistance on your part.

Silly me, thinking you had some worthwhile idea. Well if you decide to simply clarify your point and continue, you let me know.

 

[Willamena]

What is objective knowledge?

A tautology.

 

[Thief]

Silly me, thinking you had some worthwhile idea. Well if you decide to simply clarify your point and continue, you let me know.

You will never know.
If you can't clarify post#39....you're stuck.

The clarity is there.

 

[Falvlun]

Also we can do the whole brain in a vat thing, can we really know anything? Arguments from scepticism and solipsism do get the point across I suppose. But either we experience objective reality or are incapable of it, and if the latter is true it's irrelevant. It's rather difficult to assume nobody you interact with is conscious, but admittedly we don't know that. So for this thread we start with the belief that we can know anything at all, because if we can't we are all locked in a paradoxical existence being hypocrites for sharing ideas here.

I don't think we can know anything, but I believe in fun . And if we can't know then we cannot argue that some deity objectively exists.

I agree with you. I personally abhor the "brain in the vat" argument. I believe that, for the most part, we should trust our senses and assume that they are giving us accurate information. I also believe that the scientific method is the best way to get good reasons for believing something is accurate.

But, there are some necessary things to point out:
1. Reality is likely more complex than our senses can sense, no matter how accurate. Imagine you have 20/20 vision. Your eyes see as perfectly as human eyes can. They are therefore accurately depicting reality... but only the reality that they are designed to see. They cannot see in the ultraviolet or the infrared. And there can be senses even more fantastic, that can sense things that we cannot imagine sensing.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. We should rightly assume that our senses our accurate, but we shouldn't be so presumptuous as to believe that they are complete, that they are telling us everything.

2. Usually what we consider to be 'facts' are simply things that the majority of people agree upon. And it needn't even be a majority of the people of the world-- it is often simply the majority of a culture, a community, a subset of professionals, etc. These 'facts' therefore are often subject to change. It was considered a fact that the sun moved around the earth. It fit the currently available perceptions and the worldview at the time. That changed. So we see that simply labeling something a fact, even an objective fact that has external reasons for supporting it, does not necessarily make it so.

3. Things we accept as true are often things that we personally do not have any experience with. We accept that an atom is made up of 3 separate parts, the electron, the neutron, and the proton. Have you actually seen this? So, we do often accept the testimony and evidence of others as a satistisfying reason for belief.

4. Not everyone has the same experiences or abilities. This means that someone may be able to smell better than you can. This means that someone might meet a person across the globe that you will never ever hear about. Does this mean that the smell that the olfactorally gifted person is smelling doesn't really exist since you cannot confirm it? Does that person not exist, since you have never experienced him? Are you able to feel the love a mother has for her child? Does this mean that she has no good reason for believing her love exists?

Simply because something is a subjective, personal experience, something that you are not privvy to, does not make it any less real. It might make it less provable. But it doesn't make it a bad reason to believe it, for the person who has had that experience.

 

[Thief]

I agree with you. I personally abhor the "brain in the vat" argument. I believe that, for the most part, we should trust our senses and assume that they are giving us accurate information. I also believe that the scientific method is the best way to get good reasons for believing something is accurate.

But, there are some necessary things to point out:
1. Reality is likely more complex than our senses can sense, no matter how accurate. Imagine you have 20/20 vision. Your eyes see as perfectly as human eyes can. They are therefore accurately depicting reality... but only the reality that they are designed to see. They cannot see in the ultraviolet or the infrared. And there can be senses even more fantastic, that can sense things that we cannot imagine sensing.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. We should rightly assume that our senses our accurate, but we shouldn't be so presumptuous as to believe that they are complete, that they are telling us everything.

2. Usually what we consider to be 'facts' are simply things that the majority of people agree upon. And it needn't even be a majority of the people of the world-- it is often simply the majority of a culture, a community, a subset of professionals, etc. These 'facts' therefore are often subject to change. It was considered a fact that the sun moved around the earth. It fit the currently available perceptions and the worldview at the time. That changed. So we see that simply labeling something a fact, even an objective fact that has external reasons for supporting it, does not necessarily make it so.

3. Things we accept as true are often things that we personally do not have any experience with. We accept that an atom is made up of 3 separate parts, the electron, the neutron, and the proton. Have you actually seen this? So, we do often accept the testimony and evidence of others as a satistisfying reason for belief.

4. Not everyone has the same experiences or abilities. This means that someone may be able to smell better than you can. This means that someone might meet a person across the globe that you will never ever hear about. Does this mean that the smell that the olfactorally gifted person is smelling doesn't really exist since you cannot confirm it? Does that person not exist, since you have never experienced him? Are you able to feel the love a mother has for her child? Does this mean that her love does not exist?

Simply because something is a subjective, personal experience, something that you are not privvy to, does not make it any less real. It might make it less provable. But it doesn't make it a bad reason to believe it, for the person who has had that experience.

Now that was a doubled minded.

You begin with 'brain in a vat' as if it might be less than it should be.....
and yet....that is what we are!

Then proceed to explain that we should be open to things proven by experiment....
right after announcment we should rely on our senses.

Why not rely upon your reasoning?
It is what you are.
No self trust?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The problem of course is that there is no really objective standard to distinguish good reasons from bad ones and then we will just be fighting over whose opinion is correct which is right where we started at.

It's pretty hopeless, really.

Not if you embrace some particular prophet of God (or become one yourself.)

In that case, you can know the objective truth about anything at all. You have direct access to God's Own Noggin, and that's the only place where objective truth can exist, I think.

Of course the skeptics and followers of opposing prophets may snicker at you, but don't worry. Your prophet will come along soon enough to inform you that they are all confused and misguided.

 

[Falvlun]

Now that was a doubled minded.

You begin with 'brain in a vat' as if it might be less than it should be.....
and yet....that is what we are!

Then proceed to explain that we should be open to things proven by experiment....
right after announcment we should rely on our senses.

Why not rely upon your reasoning?
It is what you are.
No self trust?

Reasoning is assimilating the various forms of stimulii that come our way, whether from senses, experimentation, listening to others' experiences, etc. Reasoning is the synthesizing of all of this stimulus and coming to a conclusion. Reasoning does not exist in a vacuum: it requires input.

If you found my post two-sided, then that is because it is. I am, at heart, a synthesizer. Science alone is not enough. Senses alone is not enough. But utilize both, and that's probably for best.