How do we KNOW knowledge?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Sure. And there are many branches within it.

Yes. I need to be careful to respect the OP, before I dig in.

Kylie says: (refer opening post and the focus on scientific knowledge )

'....there is no such thing as a single innate Logic ....'

Do you mind if we begin with?

1. Innate
2. Logic

How do you define these and how does OD define them?

Is this idea of a single innate Logic perhaps rooted in a form of Monism?*

---
* Monism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

An Axiom:

3. a proposition in logic or mathematics that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

ax·i·om

(ăk′sē-əm) A principle that is accepted as true without proof; a postulate.

You are discussing number three. I am discussing number one and two.

I thought we were talking about logic. Surely #3 is the pertinent definition to use.

Claiming someone has hair can't be determined unless one understands that hair is hair and what " a full head of hair" is.

Although true, this is not an insurmountable obstacle, and requires no gods. I think we all know what hair is and what a full head of hair is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I thought we were talking about logic. Surely #3 is the pertinent definition to use.

I think I explained that.

Although true, this is not an insurmountable obstacle, and requires no gods.

What do you base the conclusion that it requires no God/gods upon?

I think we all know what hair is and what a full head of hair is.

Yes, due to A is A. IF not, how would we know hair is hair and what hair is and what it is not?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are taking an equally annoying approach which necessitates using the very tools that you claim are not necessary or universal. You use the innate logic I am "presupposing" to make an argument against them thus self defeating your own argument..

If I use a hammer to break another hammer, that doesn't make hammers universal or necessary. Nor have I defeated my own hammer.

You have to start with the innate logic that there is a either a true or false statement and that they can't both be true and false at the same time in the same sense.

No, I assume that without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

You don't think that 2 + 2 = 4 is not innate mathematics?

I don't know what you mean by innate. If we adopt the axioms of standard arithmetic, the statement is true.

Is there a world where 2 + 2 = anything but 4?

Sure. Our world. If we adopt the axioms of modular arithmetic in Z3, where the only elements are {0, 1, 2} then 2 + 2 = 1. 4 doesn't even exist in that mathematical system.

IN that we can formulate different logics that yield different results only supports my position.

Depending on what you mean by 'innate' then it doesn't support your position that multiple consistent, but contradictory, logics exist.

 

[bhsmte]

There are those that are considered "experts" or those that know a field or subject that hold authority in a subject matter. This material comes from books, presentations, instruction.




How does it appear that way? A is A is foundational to all reason, something must be either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time in the same sense is foundation to all reason and you can't reason without it. Experiences could never make sense if not for the foundational laws of logic which give us the foundation for making sense of our experiences.


People reach different conclusions in regards to all things. That is why the foundational laws of logic are not human constructs. All humans have different ideas about many many things. If it were not for these foundational laws we could not make sense enough to even recognize rules or laws.

I assume you would agree to the following then according to the positions you have stated you have regarding all people using the same logic:

It would appear than, that people reach different conclusions in regards to the existence of Gods and or religion, because of that person's life's experiences and not logic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What do you base the conclusion that it requires no God/gods upon?

Because definitions are simply shared understandings among human beings. I learned what hair was, or a full head of hair, from my parents. Fortunately, what they taught me accords with what other people in my culture call 'hair' and 'a full head of hair'. People see hair and call it 'hair'. The meaning is defined by humans. No gods are involved in this process of definition.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I use a hammer to break another hammer, that doesn't make hammers universal or necessary. Nor have I defeated my own hammer.

You are making a category error with this argument. A physical action compared to a conceptual one.

No, I assume that without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

IF you are making an assumption without the reality of it you can't really "study" any consequences that stem from it as being anything pertaining to reality. You can't in fact, get away from the actual reality of it to even assume it.

I don't know what you mean by innate. If we adopt the axioms of standard arithmetic, the statement is true.

We don't assume that 2 + 2 = 4. It is a reality. Prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is only an assumption or an adapted standard.

Sure. Our world. If we adopt the axioms of modular arithmetic in Z3, where the only elements are {0, 1, 2} then 2 + 2 = 1. 4 doesn't even exist in that mathematical system.

This is only a modification or a formulation. It is not based on reality. If something is used it must first adhere to reality and then be modified or adjusted to make room for an alternate system.

Depending on what you mean by 'innate' then it doesn't support your position that multiple consistent, but contradictory, logics exist.

Yes, it most certainly does. We base logic on reality and if it contradicts what we logically know is true we are only formulating a system that does not reflect reality.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you are not understanding what I am saying. The laws of logic do not need us to exist. That is my point in fact. If we did not exist A would still be A and things would still be either true or false and they couldn't be true and false at the same time in the same sense. That is what I mean when I say that the Laws of Logic are not human constructs and that they are true whether or not we can perceive them as true. However, we have that innate knowledge within us. If we were not equipped with this knowledge no experience could be made sense of, or understood. We would have no foundation for knowing or knowledge.

Lets discuss how this "innate knowledge within us" is useful in reaching accurate conclusions about the existence of God(s) and or religion.

If we all have the same "innate knowledge" I would assume this knowledge would yield the same conclusions in regards to God and or religion. Since this is obviously not the case, this innate knowledge doesn't appear to be useful or yield accurate results about God or religion, for the simple fact humans reach a whole host of different conclusions.

If this innate logic was placed in us by a God (as it would appear is your position) why so many different conclusions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because definitions are simply shared understandings among human beings. I learned what hair was, or a full head of hair, from my parents. Fortunately, what they taught me accords with what other people in my culture call 'hair' and 'a full head of hair'. People see hair and call it 'hair'. The meaning is defined by humans. No gods are involved in this process of definition.

Definitions are not the same as a property being a property. We could call hair a different name or define it anyway you wish but what it is is what it is. It doesn't require us to understand what it is to be. Hair is Hair is A is A. We have to know that A is A to understand Hair is Hair.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, it most certainly does. We base logic on reality and if it contradicts what we logically know is true we are only formulating a system that does not reflect reality.

It would appear then, that even though you claim we all use the same logic, there is another factor in play, that can cause this logic to make inaccurate conclusions.

What would that factor be?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I assume you would agree to the following then according to the positions you have stated you have regarding all people using the same logic:

It would appear than, that people reach different conclusions in regards to the existence of Gods and or religion, because of that person's life's experiences and not logic.

Do you claim that for people to believe in Gods or religion they lack the ability to reason or use logic?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you claim that for people to believe in Gods or religion they lack the ability to reason or use logic?

Avoiding the question I see.

When did I say what you claim above, please quote me.

You have stated "we all use the same logic" and you have also stated; "the Christian worldview is the best explanation of this logic".

Taken that under consideration of your personal positions, the questions are simple:

-If we all use the same logic, why do people come to different conclusions regards God(s) and or religion?

-what factor is in play, that allows people to reach different conclusions in regards to God(s) and or religion, considering your position is we all use the same logic?

There must be something within each person, that brings them to believe differently, even while using the same logic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are making a category error with this argument. A physical action compared to a conceptual one.

If I use logic to show that a logical argument is faulty, this does not show that logic is universal. Nor does it defeat my logic.

We don't assume that 2 + 2 = 4.

No, it follows from our assumptions and axioms about mathematics.

It is a reality.

No, it isn't. Show me a 2. There's no such thing. It is a concept invented to describe the world. 2's don't exist. I can have two apples in my hand, but I can't have 2 in my hand. 2 is not real.

Prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is only an assumption or an adapted standard.

2 + 2 = 4 follows from assuming the Peano axioms of ordinary arithmetic. If you assume different axioms, you will get different results.

It is not based on reality

.

Oh, I suppose when it's 10 o'clock, and 3 hours pass, it's then 13 o'clock? Is that the 'real' answer?

When we assume the axioms of the natural numbers 10 + 3 = 13
When we assume the axioms of clock arithemetic [basically Z(12)], then 10 + 3 = 1


If we approach the earth at 200 million meters per second, and fire a bullet at the earth that goes 200 million meters per second with respect to our ship, how fast does the earth see the bullet approaching?

The naïve answer of "400 million meters per second" is wrong. It is not based on reality. I guess 200 + 200 is not 400.

We base logic on reality and if it contradicts what we logically know is true we are only formulating a system that does not reflect reality.

Is the Pythagorean Theorem true or false, with respect to reality?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Avoiding the question I see.

When did I say what you claim above, please quote me.

You have stated "we all use the same logic" and you have also stated; "the Christian worldview is the best explanation of this logic".

Taken that under consideration of your personal positions, the questions are simple:

-If we all use the same logic, why do people come to different conclusions regards God(s) and or religion?

-what factor is in play, that allows people to reach different conclusions in regards to God(s) and or religion, considering your position is we all use the same logic?

There must be something within each person, that brings them to believe differently, even while using the same logic.

I have answered this, the laws of logic are A is A, things are either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time. That has nothing to do with our beliefs in anything other than A is A, things are either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time.

 

[bhsmte]

I have answered this, the laws of logic are A is A, things are either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time. That has nothing to do with our beliefs in anything other than A is A, things are either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time.

No you have not answered the question and keep evading a simple question.

It is quite clear, that some people on this earth conclude the following: Lets call A = what logic leads each person to believe in regards to the realities of the universe we live in.

A=Christian God
A=multiple Gods
A=non personal/universal God
A=non belief in Gods

And I could go on and on with various conclusions about specific religions descriptions of these Gods, but we don't have time for that.

So considering the reality of the above, in regards to people's conclusions about God(s) and or religion:

Why do people reach different conclusions on what A is above, if we all use the same logic?

What is the personal factor in play, if people reach these different conclusions regarding A, if we all use the same logic?

 

[essentialsaltes]

things are either true or false

P: If I remove a hair from someone with a full head of hair, they still have a full head of hair.

Is P true or false? According to you, it has to be one or the other.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I have answered this, the laws of logic are A is A, things are either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time. That has nothing to do with our beliefs in anything other than A is A, things are either true or false and can't be true and false at the same time.

OD,

I am a tad out of practice at this, but are you referring to the principle which was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in Principia Mathematica?*

---
* Principia mathematica, by Alfred North Whitehead ... and Bertrand Russell. pp. 116 - 117

 

[Kylie]

Agreed.

If you can't you can't. Does that mean it is not important to contemplate?

Oh, it is important to contemplate. But the fact remains that it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Now please move on from it.

Isn't that the whole purpose of Scientific endeavors...to know why something is the way it is? I mean you are most welcome to continue to take the laws and order of the universe as a priori and for granted but it seems to me at least, that it is rather like sitting on God's lap, and claiming He doesn't exist because He isn't where you are looking. IMHO.

You are trying to claim that we need to understand why the universe has the laws it does in order to study why it has the laws it does. Circular reasoning. Stop it.

Yes, there is satisfaction in agreement at times.

Yes.

I think impossible.

In all likelihood.

Is this discussion not in relationship between the act of knowing and knowledge? WE have to have a predictable universe and logic and reason to accumulate knowledge.

But you are insisting that we apply it to one very specific situation - why the laws of the universe are the way they are. There are a great number of things that we can know without needing to know why the laws are the way they are.

Good.

Certain theories were wrong in some areas but right in the theories themselves. Gravity for instance.

You mean Newton's theory of gravity? But it was never right. It was only ever "close enough". Your watch doesn't keep accurate time. But when it loses only five minutes a year, we can claim it is "close enough".

So since this does not count as an example of a scientific theory which gave ACCURATE information despite being wrong, would you care to try again?

String theory. We still don't know if it is true, but there are accurate points to the theory, some think it is completely wrong while others still think it offers a valid answer. There are elements of that theory that have been shown to be inaccurate but there are still elements that seem to be valid.

Again, no. It has not been verified yet, so at the moment it is just a very exciting idea which may be correct. I am not aware of anyone saying that string theory is correct.

It rather depends on the evidence don't you think?

You can assume that it was measurable, testable and verifiable evidence.

There is disbelief and then there is disbelief. Some people hold that evolution is not correct not due to the evidence but due to the premise that life is a result of an unplanned, unguided process. Some people believe that vaccines cause autism due to the fact that their child was a perfectly normal active and inquisitive child before a vaccination and a few days later has autism. Now it may be true that it had nothing to do with the vaccination but it is hard to tell a mom and dad that when they had a normal child one day and a few days later they didn't. I am only going on what I've read so I don't have any first hand knowledge on these accusations. Regardless, most beliefs are not just unreasonable unjustified beliefs because as humans we really do want to know the why of things, the reason behind things and if those things we believe are true.

ANd suhc people are basing their conclusions on logical fallacies. Sure, a parent COULD say, "I vaccinated my child, and shortly afterwards, they were diagnosed as autistic!"

But I could also say, "I started wearing woolen jumpers instead of jackets, and shortly afterwards I was involved in a car crash!" There's no evidence that the two are related. Don't confuse correlation with causality.

NO, it is exactly what I was saying earlier.

No it isn't.

Firstly you said: "The truth exists DUE TO the reason and logic we are equipped with." You said DUE TO. That means AS A RESULT OF. You are directly claiming that the truth exists due to the fact that we have logic and reason. You are specifically claiming that one thing causing another thing. Our possession of reason and logic is causing there to be truth according to this claim.

Then you turn around and state that things can be true whether we are here with our reason and logic or not.

The two claims are in direct opposition. It's as if you first claimed that water boils due to it being heated, and then claiming that water would boil whether we heated it or not.

No, you are not understanding what I am saying. The laws of logic do not need us to exist. That is my point in fact. If we did not exist A would still be A and things would still be either true or false and they couldn't be true and false at the same time in the same sense. That is what I mean when I say that the Laws of Logic are not human constructs and that they are true whether or not we can perceive them as true. However, we have that innate knowledge within us. If we were not equipped with this knowledge no experience could be made sense of, or understood. We would have no foundation for knowing or knowledge.

I agree. Are you retracting your earlier claim that truth exists DUE TO the fact that we have reason and logic?

Your connection of arrogance and the way things are seems unrelated to me but it is interesting that you think it is.

It is arrogance to think that truth is DUE TO some quality of humanity, as this implies that humanity is required for the truth to exist.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It is arrogance to think that truth is DUE TO some quality of humanity, as this implies that humanity is required for the truth to exist.

Kylie,

Science does not yet have the software to encounter our essence en theos

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

You are making a category error with this argument. A physical action compared to a conceptual one.
​

If I use logic to show that a logical argument is faulty, this does not show that logic is universal. Nor does it defeat my logic.

How would you show a logical argument is faulty? What foundation do you use to do so?

We don't assume that 2 + 2 = 4.
​

No, it follows from our assumptions and axioms about mathematics.

So if we assumed that 2 + 3 = 4 it would follow our assumptions and axioms about mathematics?

It is a reality.
​

No, it isn't. Show me a 2. There's no such thing. It is a concept invented to describe the world. 2's don't exist. I can have two apples in my hand, but I can't have 2 in my hand. 2 is not real.

Mathematics is based in conceptual symbolism reflecting the reality of the conceptual nature of reality. The number two is reflective of their being one apple and one apple yet it is not the physical reality of either apple or is the symbolic numeral the reality of two apples. The numeric symbol of two is universal and is the conceptual equivalent of the concept of one plus one a reality. The fact that numeric symbolism represents so accurately reality and the make up of the universe being understood in this manner reflects a mind behind it all. It would appear that there can be no reality which is not obedient to the basic laws of mathematics. The fact that there are laws of conceptual nature in logic, mathematics in algebra provides that mathematics must adhere to these foundations.

Prove that 2 + 2 = 4 is only an assumption or an adapted standard.
​

2 + 2 = 4 follows from assuming the Peano axioms of ordinary arithmetic. If you assume different axioms, you will get different results.

Are you claiming that mathematics has no rules or laws then?

It is not based on reality
​

.

Oh, I suppose when it's 10 o'clock, and 3 hours pass, it's then 13 o'clock? Is that the 'real' answer?

When we assume the axioms of the natural numbers 10 + 3 = 13
When we assume the axioms of clock arithemetic [basically Z(12)], then 10 + 3 = 1

Numerical symbolism for time is the numerical numbers given for the 24 hour period given to a day. Time is the reality that the "clock arithmetic" the symbol for it.

If we approach the earth at 200 million meters per second, and fire a bullet at the earth that goes 200 million meters per second with respect to our ship, how fast does the earth see the bullet approaching?

The naïve answer of "400 million meters per second" is wrong. It is not based on reality. I guess 200 + 200 is not 400.

So?

We base logic on reality and if it contradicts what we logically know is true we are only formulating a system that does not reflect reality.
​

Is the Pythagorean Theorem true or false, with respect to reality?

Could have anyone else but Pythagoras discovered it?