How do we KNOW knowledge?

[juvenissun]

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?

It goes this way:

YOU define a good mom. Then you get it done.
So you know.

Other's opinions are not important.

That is how we really know anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

The better question might be why does it work? How do we determine what is right and what isn't? We basically have the innate ability to form logical thought and reason to determine correct correlations with reality. Without the ability to reason logically and the fact that the universe has order and can be intelligently known we would not have Science at all.

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

The nature of Science is to discover the workings of the material universe we live in. Sometimes our discoveries are very accurate and at other times we find we must make corrections to our findings. We could not do so with out the ability to use reason and logic and a universe that has order and can be comprehended.

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.

Yes, and everyday we use our ability to use the innate logic we are equipped with to understand that if we jump up in the air there is an element we labeled gravity that will pull us back down so that we don't keep going up.

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

Strange isn't it? We as human being have the ability to understand the universe and get accurate results? It was like the universe was just created for us to be able to understand it and we ourselves equipped with that ability.

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

Do you wonder why?

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?

Depends on what has been demonstrated to be accurate and if that is a confirming demonstration.

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

How do you know the truth? Don't you know that truth exists due to the logic and reason we are equipped with? Truth can only be known to exist if we have the ability to know that truth exists and that false exists and that is done with the innate reason and logic that transcends mankind and Science.

 

[Loudmouth]

We basically have the innate ability to form logical thought and reason to determine correct correlations with reality.

How do we know that they are accurate correlations?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do we know that they are accurate correlations?

In the Christian worldview we know that they are accurate due to the fact that we use the principles of logic that tell us that something is what it is and isn't something else, that there are true and false statements that can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense and that it has to be true or false which arises from we being created in God's image which is where we believe logic originates.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the Christian worldview we know that they are accurate due to the fact that we use the principles of logic that tell us that something is what it is and isn't something else, that there are true and false statements that can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense and that it has to be true or false which arises from we being created in God's image which is where we believe logic originates.

Then why do you use logical fallacies, like the argument from ignorance?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why do you use logical fallacies, like the argument from ignorance?

I as with others we do at times use logical fallacies but the fact that they can be recognized as such is still in support of my point.

 

[Loudmouth]

I as with others we do at times use logical fallacies but the fact that they can be recognized as such is still in support of my point.

Are you using a personal definition of "support" that is the opposite of every other English speaker?

When your argument is based on logical fallacies it means that your point is NOT supported, by every definition.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you using a personal definition of "support" that is the opposite of every other English speaker?

When your argument is based on logical fallacies it means that your point is NOT supported, by every definition.

I think this is where this thought process comes in with some theists:

Everything supports my position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you using a personal definition of "support" that is the opposite of every other English speaker?

When your argument is based on logical fallacies it means that your point is NOT supported, by every definition.

Are you implying that the logic which claims something is what it is and isn't what it is not is a logical fallacy, are you implying that the logic that something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense is a logical fallacy as well as a statement is either true or false without middle ground is a logical fallacy?

 

[ananda]

We know something when we experience it for ourselves.

Everything else is merely hearsay.

 

[bhsmte]

We know something when we experience it for ourselves.

Everything else is merely hearsay.

Since personal experiences can be flawed, would you then agree; when can think we know something and in fact be wrong about what we think we know?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you implying that the logic which claims something is what it is and isn't what it is not is a logical fallacy, are you implying that the logic that something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense is a logical fallacy as well as a statement is either true or false without middle ground is a logical fallacy?

I am implying that you use personal definitions and logical fallacies to create false claims and conclusions.

 

[ananda]

Since personal experiences can be flawed, would you then agree; when can think we know something and in fact be wrong about what we think we know?

Your statement would be true if we assume that there is such a thing as "objective reality".

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am implying that you use personal definitions and logical fallacies to create false claims and conclusions.

I am using the argument of logic and reason being an innate ability. Where is the personal definition rather than an agreed upon definition being used? What false claims do you feel exist in the argument for:

Something is what it is and isn't what it is not, something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense and a statement is either true or false without middle ground is a logical fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am using the argument of logic and reason being an innate ability.

You are using logical fallacies which means that you are not using logic or reason.

Where is the personal definition rather than an agreed upon definition being used?

You are arguing that logical fallacies are really logical. You are claiming that arguments based on logical fallacies are supported by logic and reason.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are using logical fallacies which means that you are not using logic or reason.

Show me where the above is a logical fallacy.

You are arguing that logical fallacies are really logical. You are claiming that arguments based on logical fallacies are supported by logic and reason.

I am not arguing that, provide where the argument above is using logical fallacies.

 

[bhsmte]

Your statement would be true if we assume that there is such a thing as "objective reality".

Correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying, when we personally know something to be true from personal experience, we can never be wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me where the above is a logical fallacy.

"In the Christian worldview we know that they are accurate due to the fact that we use the principles of logic . . ."--Oncedeceived

You don't use the principles of logic. You use logical fallacies and ignore the principles of a logical and reasoned argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"In the Christian worldview we know that they are accurate due to the fact that we use the principles of logic . . ."--Oncedeceived

You don't use the principles of logic. You use logical fallacies and ignore the principles of a logical and reasoned argument.

Asserting that I do and not giving the reasons of how what I have presented is a logical fallacy is only that ... asserting. I gave the principles of logic and reason please show me how they are logical fallacies.

 

[ananda]

Correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying, when we personally know something to be true from personal experience, we can never be wrong?

Correct.

A person's personal, subjective experience of reality is completely true for that person.