How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Kylie]

We had a thread about this, but it was closed. Speaking to the thread's original poster, Lewiscalledhimmaster, I decided to start my own version, as I thought it was an interesting idea for a thread, and so, with his blessing, I have started my own.

It is often claimed that we know things. In this thread I would like to discuss how can can claim to know these things. What is needed before we can claim that we know something is true? What criteria need to be met? And do we accept as true some things which meet these criteria and yet discount others that also meet the criteria?

Specifically, I'd like to discuss scientific knowledge. When scientists claim to know what causes the sun to shine, for example, what justification do they give for that? And what of other things, like the claim we KNOW that evolution occurs. There are many people who who agree and many who disagree with this claim. On what basis do you KNOW that the claim is either right or wrong?

 

[juvenissun]

We had a thread about this, but it was closed. Speaking to the thread's original poster, Lewiscalledhimmaster, I decided to start my own version, as I thought it was an interesting idea for a thread, and so, with his blessing, I have started my own.

It is often claimed that we know things. In this thread I would like to discuss how can can claim to know these things. What is needed before we can claim that we know something is true? What criteria need to be met? And do we accept as true some things which meet these criteria and yet discount others that also meet the criteria?

Specifically, I'd like to discuss scientific knowledge. When scientists claim to know what causes the sun to shine, for example, what justification do they give for that? And what of other things, like the claim we KNOW that evolution occurs. There are many people who who agree and many who disagree with this claim. On what basis do you KNOW that the claim is either right or wrong?

You can claim you know something when what you know is able to accomplish what you want to achieve.

That is all. Beyond that, you do not know.

 

[Kylie]

You can claim you know something when what you know is able to accomplish what you want to achieve.

And what does this mean?

 

[SkyWriting]

Specifically, I'd like to discuss scientific knowledge. When scientists claim to know what causes the sun to shine, for example, what justification do they give for that? And what of other things, like the claim we KNOW that evolution occurs. There are many people who who agree and many who disagree with this claim. On what basis do you KNOW that the claim is either right or wrong?

There is no such basis. Starting with experimental science, scientists can
call on their knowledge base and use it to make predictions about future
observations. Because all are sinners, the original claim is a prideful boast
of ones own insights and other get aggravated and use the claim to make
better observations of their own.

This is the process of scientific review where others challenge a claim
and support it or disprove it for themselves.

The topic is never settled.

Einsteins claims about relativity are challenged regularly is every way
that researchers can think of. Eventually some tenants of knowledge
because accepted as a general rule, or even a "law of nature" on occasion.

But even the "laws" are re-tested.

Science doesn't ever prove anything.

It can only make predictions about future potential observations.

Some areas of science, the so called "historical sciences" ie geology
or astronomy, are accepted tenants that are used to make predictions about
future observations. The only "experiment" is a future observation
about how things are.

For example, when we went looking for background radiation believed
to be leftover from the big bang, the results were 10 times less in
magnitude than the predictions made.

The first "maps" of the radiation were not real images, but just a
representation of statistical analysis that reduced the background
noise from the instruments to the lowest possible impact.

But a lot of money had been spent so they produced a "fake"
map anyway, since the public had paid for the research.

It's all pride and money. Nothing is ever proven in science.
You can go out and choose to believe that something is "proven"
to you, but nobody is required to believe you based on popularity
or majority or on any basis.

We use "the majority rules" in a democracy for simplicity sake and
because we've agreed that it causes the least harm. Not because
the majority has any inside knowledge on truth.

 

[juvenissun]

And what does this mean?

If you know how to become a mother, and you get it done, then you know it.
If you (think that you) know how to become a good mother and you haven't done that, then you do not know it.

 

[Ryukil]

I hate philosophical questions like this because all it does is cause people to pick and choose what they want to believe.
And it also just goes too far. How do I know I'm not actually a carrot? How do I know!? You think that's a dumb question? Well obviously that's just because you're not as smart as I am and don't recognize the profundity of the question!

 

[SkyWriting]

I hate philosophical questions like this because all it does is cause people to pick and choose what they want to believe.
And it also just goes too far. How do I know I'm not actually a carrot?

My dog's love carrots. A big one would be a treat.
Let me know how this turns out............

 

[Ryukil]

Eventually you just get into the realm of Ickeism.
David Icke thinks that our world is a hologram projected from the rings of Saturn and amplified by the Moon, which is actually a giant space station.
He also believes that world leaders are people overshadowed by Reptilian space creatures from another dimension.
Prove it wrong!

An example of Ickeism is when I saw Ken Ham in an interview. He said that we couldn't know how far away the stars are, i.e., we can't trust our eyes, because we are sinners. So if a star is further than 6,000 light years, we are obviously wrong because we are sinners.
But I wonder if the light bouncing off the pages of the Bible to the devout Christian's eyes can be trusted? Yeah..... Ickeism.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is the problem of epistemology. Philosophers have considered several different ways of looking at knowledge. My eyes tend to glaze over as I consider and try to understand the options.

 

[bhsmte]

Should be entertaining.

 

[SkyWriting]

David Icke thinks that our world is a hologram projected from the rings of Saturn and amplified by the Moon, which is actually a giant space station.

There is a shadow of true theory in that theory.

On the surface of a black hole our reality displays into 2 dimensions.
The projection theory goes that our 3 dimensional cosmos is a projection from this
2 dimensional surface.

Is the Cosmos Just a Big Hologram? - The Daily Beast

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We had a thread about this, but it was closed. Speaking to the thread's original poster, Lewiscalledhimmaster, I decided to start my own version, as I thought it was an interesting idea for a thread, and so, with his blessing, I have started my own.

It is often claimed that we know things. In this thread I would like to discuss how can can claim to know these things. What is needed before we can claim that we know something is true? What criteria need to be met? And do we accept as true some things which meet these criteria and yet discount others that also meet the criteria?

Specifically, I'd like to discuss scientific knowledge. When scientists claim to know what causes the sun to shine, for example, what justification do they give for that? And what of other things, like the claim we KNOW that evolution occurs. There are many people who who agree and many who disagree with this claim. On what basis do you KNOW that the claim is either right or wrong?

I assume you mean the 'navel gazing' type of knowledge, not the practical kind.

From an existential point of view we have to decide "what we know" and have confidence in it if we are to survive. For example, I am in the middle of a serious blizzard here and I didn't have enough gas for the snow thrower. I knew I had to get some, so I cleared off my car and went and got some.
I knew if I didn't I would be in serious trouble, but I knew that if I got some I wouldn't. I exercised that knowledge and solved my problem, just like I knew I would. Now granted that's a pretty mundane use of knowledge, but most of what I know, and do, is pretty mundane.


P.S. My navel is buried under layers of winter clothes. I'll check it when I finish with the snow.

 

[Kylie]

There is no such basis. Starting with experimental science, scientists can
call on their knowledge base and use it to make predictions about future
observations. Because all are sinners, the original claim is a prideful boast
of ones own insights and other get aggravated and use the claim to make
better observations of their own.

And yet it works. Why does it work if it isn't right?

This is the process of scientific review where others challenge a claim
and support it or disprove it for themselves.

The topic is never settled.

Constantly getting more and more accurate though. That's the nature of science.

Einsteins claims about relativity are challenged regularly is every way
that researchers can think of. Eventually some tenants of knowledge
because accepted as a general rule, or even a "law of nature" on occasion.

Of course. Every time you do something in which you expect the outcome to be a certain way, you are testing them. I test gravity every time I jump up in the air.

And every time a scientists uses Einstein's theories they are testing them. And funnily enough, they always get accurate results.

But even the "laws" are re-tested.

Are you saying that science should never test things?

Science doesn't ever prove anything.

It can only make predictions about future potential observations.

And yet the predictions science makes are accurate, I wonder why?

Some areas of science, the so called "historical sciences" ie geology
or astronomy, are accepted tenants that are used to make predictions about
future observations. The only "experiment" is a future observation
about how things are.

For example, when we went looking for background radiation believed
to be leftover from the big bang, the results were 10 times less in
magnitude than the predictions made.

The first "maps" of the radiation were not real images, but just a
representation of statistical analysis that reduced the background
noise from the instruments to the lowest possible impact.

But a lot of money had been spent so they produced a "fake"
map anyway, since the public had paid for the research.

You got a source for this?

It's all pride and money. Nothing is ever proven in science.
You can go out and choose to believe that something is "proven"
to you, but nobody is required to believe you based on popularity
or majority or on any basis.

No, but if a person disagrees with something and says that it is wrong, and then it is demonstrated to be accurate, wouldn't that person be a fool for continuing to disagree?

We use "the majority rules" in a democracy for simplicity sake and
because we've agreed that it causes the least harm. Not because
the majority has any inside knowledge on truth.

And truth does not care about how many people believe it. Reality is not determined by the popular vote.

 

[Kylie]

If you know how to become a mother, and you get it done, then you know it.

Safe to say I know how to become a mother.

If you (think that you) know how to become a good mother and you haven't done that, then you do not know it.

And here you are getting into the vagueness I mentioned in the old thread. What does "Good" mean? Can you give me a definition? My daughter is healthy and happy, polite and intelligent. She lives in a house filled with love. I make sure her needs are met. Is that not a good mother? Or do you have some other subjective opinion of what good mothering must entail?

 

[SkyWriting]

And yet it works. Why does it work if it isn't right?

Cancer works. Is it right?
Your body is full of parasites. Is that right?

 

[SkyWriting]

Reality is not determined by the popular vote.

Actually that is the only standard
given that we each have our own version.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually that is the only standard
given that we each have our own version.

True, and here's a good example from real life.

I gave a speech in our church men's club. It was hilarious and broke the club up. Our director was ill and another church elder filled in for him. He chided me during his evaluations for not being more serious, as he felt that I had the talent to speak to the congregation, if the need should arise.

What he didn't know was that our director, who was also the pastor, had told the club that he wanted more humor in our speeches. He used a lot of humor in his sermons and was never boring to listen to.

So this man was imposing his idea of reality and propriety on others without understanding the basis laid down by the one actually in authority.

 

[Kylie]

Cancer works. Is it right?
Your body is full of parasites. Is that right?

Oh, naughty naughty.

You are shifting the meaning of right. You know full well that I meant right as in "correct."

You are trying to shift the meaning to MORALLY right.

I'm not going to play your games. Come back when you can be honest about the discussion.

Actually that is the only standard
given that we each have our own version.

Okay. Go and jump off a building and convince yourself that gravity isn't real. I bet you just float up into the air!

 

[juvenissun]

Safe to say I know how to become a mother.



And here you are getting into the vagueness I mentioned in the old thread. What does "Good" mean? Can you give me a definition? My daughter is healthy and happy, polite and intelligent. She lives in a house filled with love. I make sure her needs are met. Is that not a good mother? Or do you have some other subjective opinion of what good mothering must entail?

So, we do NOT know if one is a good mother or not.
Forget what good is or should be. The emphasis is on that we do not know. You may think you know. But it is arguable.

 

[Kylie]

So, we do NOT know if one is a good mother or not.
Forget what good is or should be. The emphasis is on that we do not know. You may think you know. But it is arguable.

So let me get this straight...

You ask me if I KNOW I'm a good mother, and then demand that we forget about the term "good".

Does this make any sense to you?

How about we go back to the beginning.

Am I a good mother? Define what you mean by "Good" and then we'll talk. What criteria do I need to meet to be classified as a good mother?