Knowing

[sandandfoam]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

 

[swamplizard]

There is knowledge and there are beliefs. Beliefs fall into "levels" of consciousness/unconsciousness, whereas knowledge is innate and does not depend upon one's mind.

Just my boggy rambling stephenw,
best,
swampy

 

[ImmortalFlame]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

Conviction isn't what's important. It's the reasoning behind the position.

 

[Revoltingest]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.
In your view is all knowledge provisional?

Yes.

To paraphrase George Box, "All theories are wrong, but some are useful.".
Our understanding continually improves.....usually.

 

[sandandfoam]

Conviction isn't what's important. It's the reasoning behind the position.

What was the flaw in the reasoning of those before Galileo?

 

[bobhikes]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

Not provisional but based on human experience. As our experiences change so does our knowledge but the original knowledge is not lost.

We still know we believed the world was flat and that the sun moved around the earth. Now we know better.

 

[Willamena]

What was the flaw in the reasoning of those before Galileo?

It wasn't actually a flaw. Ptolemy's cosmology still works.

 

[Valjean]

What was the flaw in the reasoning of those before Galileo?

Failure to conceive of and explore other possible explanations for the Sun's apparent East-West transit.

 

[ChristineES]

If you really want to get technical, then there is very little we do truly know. There are a lot of things that I, personally, used to "know" only to find out that I was mistaken. Look how hard scientists have to work to prove something exists. It took many, many years and experiments to prove, for instance, that atoms exist and they are still learning new things about atoms.
Life is about searching and ultimately, discovery.
Good thread, Stephenw

 

[sandandfoam]

Failure to conceive of and explore other possible explanations for the Sun's apparent East-West transit.

Doesn't this apply to every conclusion?

 

[sandandfoam]

Not provisional but based on human experience. As our experiences change so does our knowledge but the original knowledge is not lost.

We still know we believed the world was flat and that the sun moved around the earth. Now we know better.

And if we accept that in the future we'll know better again how what word would you use to describe our present knowledge if not provisional?

 

[bobhikes]

And if we accept that in the future we'll know better again how what word would you use to describe our present knowledge if not provisional?

To be honest I looked for a word and couldn't find one but I don't like provisional because it indicates the knowledge is lost.

The knowledge is built on by new experiences. The work done by the people who proved the sun rotates around the earth still has great value in what we know today. Their work is the basis for today's work, proving something wrong does not disqualify its importance.

 

[Nakosis]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

All knowledge is base on belief to some degree. They believed they could trust their perceptions/observations. Which was in seeing the Sun move across the sky. The felt their knowledge was reasonable and justified.

They were lacking some information. Taking that into account, their "knowledge" was reasonable and accurate enough to make use of.

They based their knowledge on personal observation. How is what we term knowledge any different. As we gain information and make additional observations of course what we accept as knowledge is going to change. Our "knowledge" today may seem as silly 2000 years from now as some of what was accepted as knowledge 2000 years ago seems silly to us.

I think the problem with religion comes when one accepts something as knowledge based on the authority of people they have no real reason to trust.

Knowledge doesn't have to be precise just accurate enough to be useful.

One ought to be willing to question constantly the accuracy of what they've accepted as knowledge.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

Do you have some kind of alternative theory which explains why the sun rises and sets?

 

[9Westy9]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

There is a non provisional knowledge but I believe that it's impossible to know for sure

 

[sandandfoam]

Do you have some kind of alternative theory which explains why the sun rises and sets?

I'm sure it's something to do with my waking up...but that's another thread

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure it's something to do with my waking up...but that's another thread

Well, if knowledge is "the current best theory," then even 10 years down the road when we've better information and a better theory, it's still the current best theory.

 

[Looncall]

What was the flaw in the reasoning of those before Galileo?

Part of the problem is that they were trying to make their conclusions suit mystical notions such as Aristotle's ideas of perfect motion, crystal spheres and so on. Whatever else he may have been, Aristotle was a terrible physicist. It was unfortunate that his ideas were taken up by religions.

 

[Alex_G]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

Yes, i think so. But not in the sense that something considered today is thus automatically expected to be improved upon in future, even though its a possibility. As all our efforts are essentially a process of creating best fit models, there will always in theory be that wiggle room, that potential for improvement, even if it does not ever occur, in which case you could reason there to be no evident wiggle room, until the time of its illumination.

I think that the nature of knowledge is contingent on our sensibilities of rational thought such that changes to the content over time represent its dynamic relationship to our rationality, such that one might not expect rigid inflexibility in the face of reason, nor arbitrary change to be features of real or progressive knowledge.

As a side note, i think that conclusions arrived at by means of some rigid deductive logic, provided true premises, are likely to be as true as ever in the future. This sort of knowledge, as demonstrative in many mathematical formulas will be much less provisional, and as fixed as it gets. Its when you start reasoning inductively, with certain creative leaps and concept formation, such that happens often with interpretation of raw data, you will get knowledge that is more likely to be of a provisional nature.

 

[Sunstone]

600 years ago people 'knew' the sun moved around the earth with the same conviction we know the earth moves around the sun.

In your view is all knowledge provisional?

Some knowledge appears to be absolute -- such as knowledge derived from mathematics and pure logic (given a few assumptions). But any knowledge based on experience is, like experience, limited and therefore it must be regarded as provisional. At least, that's how I see it.