Did you forget? It's an example of knowing that doesn't require science.
It's also completely arbitrary knowledge, imo.
Someone's label doesn't affect his biological identity. You can interchange names all you like, and all that changes are... names.
Not really what I consider to be "knowledge" in this context. Perhaps "trivia" is a better word here.
And it doesn't matter if it's a small example, even a trivial example. It is an example of how to know something without science - by talking to people.
So, do you think that "talking to people" is a more reliable method of learning about the phenomena at play in the universe, as opposed to "asking the universe"?
The whole point here, was how reliable science is a method for learning and if there are alternatives to it that are also reliable.
So... is "talking to people" a good alternative to the scientific method?
Memory is not part of physical reality?
I said that someone's name is not a phenomena of reality that requires any explaining in that sense. How you concluded from that statement that it is my opinion that memories aren't part of physical reality, is kind of baffling.
Human action is not part of physical reality? A document is not part of physical reality? What is it then? From what mystical source do names come?
Same as above. I didn't say any such thing.
Their "real" name? I know what a legal name is (e.g. Willingdon Beauty). I know what a nickname is (e.g. Old Major). I know what a scientific name is (e.g. Sus scrofa domesticus). You'll have to explain to me what a "real" name is.
Real name = legal name.
As in, if my legal name is Tom Johnson and when someone asks my name, I reply "Tim Brighton", then I am not giving my "real" name.
Did that really need any explaining?
You know it because he's "world-renowned"? How is that a scientific way of acquiring this knowledge?
Because I understand how the scientific method works, what credentials are, what university courses (that I didn't take) are,..... In short: I know what it means to be an "expert" in something. So I also know what it means to
not be an expert in something.
This gives you a pretty solid base to form a valid conclusion on who will know more about a given subject then you do.
This is a red herring. Your example was Stephen Hawking, not all of physics and engineering.
No. My example wasn't "just" Stephen Hawking. It was Stephen Hawkings
knowledge concerning physics (in general - I didn't narrow it down to a specific theory or hypothesis)
So, your answer must be confined to knowing that what Stephen Hawking did is not nonsense or a lie
I was talking about his knowledge
about physics.
Not about what his personal contributions are or what his personal ideas are.
Here is my exact original quote again, to remind you, with bolding for emphasis:
For example, I don't require any special arguments or reasons or whatever, to realise that ,let's say, a Stephen Hawking is vastly more knowledgeable concerning physics then I am.
And here you're conflating the general with the specific. Further, since you didn't seem to understand the context of my statement about "power", I clarified that maybe "ability" is a better word.
I say that it evens out, only because you asked me, and I quote: "
So, do you think we could then identify what has the maximum possible knowledge/power? If not, of what you know, what do you think has the most knowledge/power?"
You are talking in general, and
in general that is a question I cannot answer. Because
some people will be better at X,
other people will be better at Y, etc...
Most of us have our own field of expertise and / or what some people call "talent".
In such a setting, there isn't a single person I can point to to call him/her "the most powerfull" or "the most knowledgeable".
(i.e. you can know physicists/engineers know more than you because of the computer you're typing on)
O wauw, that is again not at all what I said....
I said that Stephen Hawking knows more about
physics then I do.
Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate physics is.
You then said "but it can ALL be nonsense".
1. even if it is, Hawking would still know more about physics then me
2. i replied, as a
seperate point, saying it most definatly isn't "ALL" wrong, because in that case my pc wouldn't work, gps wouldn't accurately pinpoint my location and nukes wouldn't explode.
But, whatever, I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy watching the twists and turns.
It seems these supposed twists and turns, were just fabricated due to strawmen.