How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You very seldom know for certain that anything is right or wrong. Mostly it is well motivated belief, to quote one physicist. In science belief in the truth of a theory depends upon its ability to accurately predict what will later be observed, or on its ability to account for the data already observed.

One day something might turn up which is genuinely incompatible with Evolution. If that happened there would be some burying of heads in the sand, but gradually belief in its truth would collapse.

Men long for certainty. They claim they have it. They postulate inerrancy in various places, such as scripture, the pope, a favored translation of scripture, science, and so forth . . .

But at bottom, we cannot ever know we have certainty. We can, however, assign probabilities and give provisional assent. I think it is very highly probable that water is composed of molecules made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I give this my provisional assent.

In casual speech, I'll say it is proven. But ultimately I acknowledge it is only very, very probable.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You very seldom know for certain that anything is right or wrong. Mostly it is well motivated belief, to quote one physicist. In science belief in the truth of a theory depends upon its ability to accurately predict what will later be observed, or on its ability to account for the data already observed.

One day something might turn up which is genuinely incompatible with Evolution. If that happened there would be some burying of heads in the sand, but gradually belief in its truth would collapse.

Men long for certainty. They claim they have it. They postulate inerrancy in various places, such as scripture, the pope, a favored translation of scripture, science, and so forth . . .

But at bottom, we cannot ever know we have certainty. We can, however, assign probabilities and give provisional assent. I think it is very highly probable that water is composed of molecules made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I give this my provisional assent.

In casual speech, I'll say it is proven. But ultimately I acknowledge it is only very, very probable.

I know I'm going to frightfully post-modern now, but when I here Sam Cooke singing "Don't much about History...." I think, yeah that's it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Men long for certainty. They claim they have it. They postulate inerrancy in various places, such as scripture, the pope, a favored translation of scripture, science, and so forth . . .

But at bottom, we cannot ever know we have certainty. We can, however, assign probabilities and give provisional assent. I think it is very highly probable that water is composed of molecules made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I give this my provisional assent.

In casual speech, I'll say it is proven. But ultimately I acknowledge it is only very, very probable.

Great so as far as you are concerned you have no certainty for anything you claim and we can therefore assume that nothing you have to contribute is only for musing and has not truth value. Ok. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The matter of debate is not whether the paradox is a paradox, but "what is the correct solution". The various solutions arise from choosing different sets of axioms as the basis of the logical system. Because that's what logic is: choosing sets of axioms and seeing where they lead.

Where ever they lead the path then is empty when we get there. If we can not find the truth of a matter we can not know anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Some things we know for certain, if we stop eating or block our breathing passages we will die.
Many many other things we can not be so certain about, can you hold your unprotected hand in boiling water? I can.

How do you claim to know the difference?

 

[Kylie]

You very seldom know for certain that anything is right or wrong. Mostly it is well motivated belief, to quote one physicist. In science belief in the truth of a theory depends upon its ability to accurately predict what will later be observed, or on its ability to account for the data already observed.

One day something might turn up which is genuinely incompatible with Evolution. If that happened there would be some burying of heads in the sand, but gradually belief in its truth would collapse.

Agreed. There is conceivably SOMETHING which would show evolution to be false. That's the wonderful thing about it. We can show that it is wrong, in principle even if not in practice. And that's the big difference between science and faith. Faith is NEVER falsifiable. And as you have demonstrated, the ability to falsify something is a key requirement in knowing something to be true. Since faith is not falsifiable, how can we ever really be sure?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where ever they lead the path then is empty when we get there. If we can not find the truth of a matter we can not know anything.

It's not empty at all. Of course you can find truths. But they are all tied to a system that one has adopted by choice.

If you adopt the axioms of Euclidean geometry, then the Pythagorean Theorem is true.

If you adopt all of the axioms of Euclidean geometry except the parallel postulate, and adopt one of its alternatives, then the Pythagorean Theorem is false.

For the third time I ask you: Is the Pythagorean Theorem true or false?

 

[yesyoushould]

Know that you know that you know? At least that is what I heard from a Pastor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference between what?

IF we know for certain or not. How do you claim to know the difference?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that the kind of thing that keeps you believing? playing with words? if it is I will leave you to it.

Kind of what I thought.

 

[yesyoushould]

Is that the kind of thing that keeps you believing? playing with words? if it is I will leave you to it.

Deceit is for the deceitful. Love is for all.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Great so as far as you are concerned you have no certainty for anything you claim and we can therefore assume that nothing you have to contribute is only for musing and has not truth value. Ok. I'll keep that in mind.

Misrepresentation is your strong suit, I see.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

How do you claim to know the difference?

I think that is what Nadia tried to explain, when she explained what she is certain about and not? Come on now?

Some things we know for certain, if we stop eating or block our breathing passages we will die.
Many many other things we can not be so certain about, can you hold your unprotected hand in boiling water? I can.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Misrepresentation is your strong suit, I see.

How do you feel I misrepresented you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think that is what Nadia tried to explain, when she explained what she is certain about and not? Come on now?

Well now Lewis, I understand that there are things she is certain about and somethings she isn't. I think that is a very accurate description of reality. We have certainty and we have that in levels. Do you agree?

How do we come to know what we are certain about and how do we know it?

That is the point.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well now Lewis, I understand that there are things she is certain about and somethings she isn't. I think that is a very accurate description of reality. We have certainty and we have that in levels. Do you agree?

How do we come to know what we are certain about and how do we know it?

That is the point.

That may be your point, at this tail end of the thread -- but it is a radical deviation from the actual focus if the thread, which is:

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?

( my bold)

As I have leaned in on the philosophical stuff you were busily arguing, how about dealing directly with the OP?