How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Oncedeceived]

You may be unaware of the importance of intellectual honesty when you try to engage in discussion with others.

When you become known and your positions become known to others (statements you have made) they tend to go along with you and don't just disappear when you want them to.

I don't expect my position to be ignored.. What I expect is my arguments or questions to be taken out of the discussion and not by that position. That is similar to this: I believe that ducks exists so every question or discussion will always come back to thinking ducks exist.

Me:
Scientists think that the universe was born from what they call the Big Bang.

You and others:

You think that ducks exist.

I do think that ducks exist but they are irrelevant to the statement in the thread. Understand?

 

[True Scotsman]

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?

Correspondence to reality. That is the standard. That means that all knowledge must be traceable to something that is directly observable or the perceptual level of knowledge. That is what Aristotle taught us. That is why a proper starting point to knowledge is invaluable. No one departs from reality on the perceptual level. It is at the level of concepts that people go awry. That is because the conceptual level is volitional and the perceptual level is not.

It is precisely because we can make errors at the conceptual level of cognition that we need a method of adhering to reality. That method is logic. logic is the process of keeping our ideas tied to reality by means of connecting our concepts to percepts. That is why an objective theory of concepts is so important.

We know that evolution happens because we can observe it directly. The nature of DNA guarantees that evolution will happen. We can observe changes happening in DNA over time. We can observe cells dividing and the process by which genetic material gets mixed, combined, recombined and passed along. We can observe natural selection happening.

 

[Loudmouth]

The purpose of threads is to discuss what is being presented in the thread.

This is what you presented in this thread:

"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."

You have claims of supernatural creators.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't expect my position to be ignored.. What I expect is my arguments or questions to be taken out of the discussion and not by that position. That is similar to this: I believe that ducks exists so every question or discussion will always come back to thinking ducks exist.

Me:
Scientists think that the universe was born from what they call the Big Bang.

You and others:

You think that ducks exist.

I do think that ducks exist but they are irrelevant to the statement in the thread. Understand?

Very poor analogy, but nice try.

Whether we like it or not, our reputations are built from the observations of others and they don't go away, they stay with us, in all of our discussions on these boards.

 

[Loudmouth]

Me:
Scientists think that the universe was born from what they call the Big Bang.

Us: Scientists observed that there was a relationship between distance and redshift. This lead to the hypothesis that the entire universe is expanding. Further experiments supported the hypothesis. Scientists concluded, after following the evidence, that the universe expanded from a singularity.

I do think that ducks exist but they are irrelevant to the statement in the thread. Understand?

"we being created in God's image which is where we believe logic originates"--Oncedeceived, this thread

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is what you presented in this thread:

"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."

You have claims of supernatural creators.

I made no claims outside of the Christian worldview. I said that according to the Christian worldview logic is cohesive and has a valid explanation within its viewpoint. Now while I am a Christian and hold to those views, it was not a claim outside of it. I would assume that you could make the same declaration while not holding to that position or making that claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

I made no claims outside of the Christian worldview. I said that according to the Christian worldview logic is cohesive and has a valid explanation within its viewpoint. Now while I am a Christian and hold to those views, it was not a claim outside of it. I would assume that you could make the same declaration while not holding to that position or making that claim.

Here comes the usual dance where you avoid your own beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Us: Scientists observed that there was a relationship between distance and redshift. This lead to the hypothesis that the entire universe is expanding. Further experiments supported the hypothesis. Scientists concluded, after following the evidence, that the universe expanded from a singularity.


"we being created in God's image which is where we believe logic originates"--Oncedeceived, this thread

Don't take it out of context. IN the Christian worldview does not make claims outside of that position. You could say the same thing and it would not mean that you were making claims. It states that in this view this is how it is perceived.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't take it out of context. IN the Christian worldview does not make claims outside of that position. You could say the same thing and it would not mean that you were making claims. It states that in this view this is how it is perceived.

This is how YOU perceive it, and that is what the context shows.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here comes the usual dance where you avoid your own beliefs.

I never avoided my own beliefs, my own beliefs were not being discussed. I presented the Christian worldview on logic. Making no claims as to their truth or validity. I hold to the view but was questioning others about their views.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never avoided my own beliefs, my own beliefs were not being discussed. I presented the Christian worldview on logic. Making no claims as to their truth or validity. I hold to the view but was questioning others about their views.

Once again, twisting into a pretzel to avoid your own words and beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is how YOU perceive it, and that is what the context shows.

Here is a claim:

I claim that the logic and reason that humans are equipped with is more logical in the Christian worldview than the view that anti-theists hold.

Now I have made a claim. I must then support that claim.

Stating that the Christian view is this...doesn't make a claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a claim:

I claim that the logic and reason that humans are equipped with is more logical in the Christian worldview than the view that anti-theists hold.

Then show that humans were created by a supernatural deity. Where is the evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then show that humans were created by a supernatural deity. Where is the evidence?

That wasn't my claim. My claim was that logic and reason were more logical within a Christian worldview. Stick to my claims Loudmouth.

 

[bhsmte]

That wasn't my claim. My claim was that logic and reason were more logical within a Christian worldview. Stick to my claims Loudmouth.

When you use the term; "Christian worldview" does that include humans being created by the Christian God?

 

[Loudmouth]

That wasn't my claim. My claim was that logic and reason were more logical within a Christian worldview. Stick to my claims Loudmouth.

" it has to be true or false which arises from we being created in God's image which is where we believe logic originates"--Oncedeceived

The christian worldview is that humanity was created supernaturally by God. Where is the evidence for this claim?

 

[Kylie]

So we have opposing views...I think we do anyway. Lets assume we do have opposing views, we both know innately that one of us must be wrong. We know this because all statements must be true or false. Agreed?

Let's clarify here...

We have opposing view on the idea that you using logical fallacies can still support your case? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Kylie]

How do you know it is right? Do you not agree that 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.

The fact that it works is very strong evidence that it is right.

IF it were not ordered and we didn't have the ability of reason and logic how would we test it?

We couldn't.

I am not disputing the facts that 1. we have the ability to use reason and logic and 2. the universe operates on predictable laws.

So I take this as an agreement with said statement?

I agree that:

1. We have the ability to use reason and logic.
2. The universe operates on predictable principles.
3. Science is based on the application of reason and logic (and a few other things) on the predictable operation of the universe.

What reason do you attribute this order and predictable laws to?

No idea. It may be an emergent property of the universe. There could be an infinite number of universe, all with different properties, and we are in a universe with properties that happen to be predictable and within the range required for human life because if they were different, humans couldn't exist to observe it.

Wondering in your view what you attribute the orderly universe existing versus a chaotic one which might be predicted by the Big Bang?

Don't change the subject. We are talking about how we can verify knowledge as true. If you want to talk about why the universe has the properties it does, that's a different discussion, and you can start your own thread for it. (If you do, you can take your response to my previous point there as well.)

Yes, and we seem to agree that without logic and reason and an ordered and comprehensible universe said testing could not exist. Correct?

Such tools are the best tools we have to perform the investigation of the universe.

So I can take from this that you do not speculate to how an ordered and comprehensible universe can be known by the human species or how this ability originated?

Not in this thread I don't. That's a discussion for a different thread. Don't derail this one.

This is begging the question.

No it isn't. It's pointing out that if we have an idea which accurately describes the way the universe works, then the idea's ability to provide accurate descriptions is evidence that it is correct.

Do you think that an incorrect idea is capable of providing accurate descriptions?

Do you know of anytime in the history of Science that something has been shown to be false after being accepted to be true?

Yes, but that is irrelevant.

Do you know of any time in the history of Science that something has been shown to be false and afterwards is still accepted to be true?

My point was that only a fool would believe something that is false IF HE KNOWS IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE AND YET HE STILL BELIEVES IT ANYWAY.

I totally agree. As observers how are we capable of recognizing that there exists only true and false statements?

You missed my point.

A statement that is true - says, stars are roughly spherical because of the effects of gravity, although other factors like the rate of spin can alter the spherical shape to a degree - is going to be true, no matter if there are beings capable of recognising this or not.

Again I agree. Just as if we did not exist A would still be A, things would still be either true or false and they could not be otherwise. How do you explain that as observers we know this?

Because we are not so arrogant as to think that we are required for things to be the way they are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When you use the term; "Christian worldview" does that include humans being created by the Christian God?

It does. It is a presuppositional element in the Christian worldview.

 

[bhsmte]

It does. It is a presuppositional element in the Christian worldview.

A super natural deity then, correct?