How is knowledge aquired?

[Received]

Ain't saying who's better. I just think Kuhn's book is a classic I personally need to read.

So do you know about the "legendary" (but still according to some myth) debate between Popper and Wittgenstein?

 

[WisdomTree]

Ain't saying who's better. I just think Kuhn's book is a classic I personally need to read.

So do you know about the "legendary" (but still according to some myth) debate between Popper and Wittgenstein?

Maybe, unless I fell asleep in that class...

 

[Received]

Quite entertaining:

When Ludwig met Karl... | Books | The Guardian

 

[Paradoxum]

We do this all the time.

Take any scientific field during its development. Standards have to be set. For example one ampere of electricity was determined to be a certain number of electrons moving past a fixed point by one of the early pioneers of electronics. A Priorists claim at that pont in time that this could be considered a priori knowledge.

One Amp is just one Amp because that is what we call it. It isn't true or false just like a table being called a table isn't true or false.

The question is what is justified knowledge. It must be true.

 

[WisdomTree]

One Amp is just one Amp because that is what we call it. It isn't true or false just like a table being called a table isn't true or false.

The question is what is justified knowledge. It must be true.

Justified Belief, not Justified Knowledge. Knowledge is a belief that is true and is justified to be true.

 

[Received]

Of course, this sets up knowledge for relative standards (which to me is fine), given that what counts as "justified" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Resha Caner]

But for something to be knowledge it must be true. It is absurd to say you have justified knowledge that the sun goes round the earth. If it isn't true then it obviously isn't a justified belief. You can't just set some random percentage and claim it is knowledge.

Sure you can. There was nothing in the OP definition that required knowledge be absolute - which is what many people assume. The only way to get that is revelation.

I'll reference what I said in the 1st post of the dead thread:
Knowledge is in the eye of the beholder, and the rest is largely an attempt to sell - usually by trying to justify an objective standard. In human terms I think that impossible.

 

[TScott]

One Amp is just one Amp because that is what we call it. It isn't true or false just like a table being called a table isn't true or false.

The question is what is justified knowledge. It must be true.

What you said was that you can't just set some random percentage and claim it as knowledge. What I'm saying is that it's done in all fields of science, and epistemology for that matter. You could say it's fundamental to knowledge in that it is how all great ideas come about.

Certainly experience plays a predominant role in the process of obtaining knowledge, but reason also enters into the process, sometimes filling gaps that need to be filled in order to complete the process.

 

[Paradoxum]

Justified Belief, not Justified Knowledge. Knowledge is a belief that is true and is justified to be true.

Your right, I misspoke.

Sure you can. There was nothing in the OP definition that required knowledge be absolute - which is what many people assume.

The original poster of the thread has clarified that he means knowledge must be the truth.

The only way to get that is revelation.

So by experience?

I'll reference what I said in the 1st post of the dead thread:
Knowledge is in the eye of the beholder, and the rest is largely an attempt to sell - usually by trying to justify an objective standard. In human terms I think that impossible.

Then again this sounds like skepticism of the possibility of knowledge.

What you said was that you can't just set some random percentage and claim it as knowledge. What I'm saying is that it's done in all fields of science, and epistemology for that matter. You could say it's fundamental to knowledge in that it is how all great ideas come about.

Do they call it knowledge though. I didn't think they did in science. Even if they do that doesn't mean it is correct to call it knowledge.

Certainly experience plays a predominant role in the process of obtaining knowledge, but reason also enters into the process, sometimes filling gaps that need to be filled in order to complete the process.

Maybe that is true, I'm just not sure if any belief can be fully justified to the point where there is no doubt.

 

[KCfromNC]

TScott from the other thread

What do they "look" like? What in the world are you talking about KC? If you are intent on arguing about this at least try to make some sense. If you are intent in arguing nonsense, then I won't bother. We see color, as you already stated different frequencies of light are sensed by the neurons in our visual system just like we sense anything else that we see. We don't see any of the other things you are talking about.

Please point out where I can find a green so I can discuss and observe it in more detail. I can't, because it isn't a physical object we can see, so it doesn't look like anything. Color is a property of objects, just like weight and temperature. Green things emit or reflect wavelengths of light in a certain range.

You keep asking the same question but I have no idea if you consider my previous answer insufficient or not. Nor do I understand why you're so vehemently objecting to it.

Really? How do you program semantics?

This is hardly a new area of research. See ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/techreports/nl-6.pdf for something from the 70s. I know work has progressed since then.

How do you program a computer to enjoy something?

By having them tell you they enjoy something or not based on a set of physical processes. Just like humans do.

 

[TScott]

Do they call it knowledge though. I didn't think they did in science. Even if they do that doesn't mean it is correct to call it knowledge.

Who are "they"? And what is "correct"?

Also, earlier in this post you mentioned that in the OP Wisdom Tree said that one of the requisites for knowledge was that it had to be "true". But the fact is that you will find there is no universally agreed upon definition of knowledge. We can use the Platonic definition that it is justified true belief, but that just shifts the question as to what is truth. It may not be relevant, as to how we define truth, and Plato may have the best definition after all. If that is the case then knowledge can also include beliefs that may not be universally accepted as truth, as well as beliefs that are only justified by the individual who is accepting the "knowledge". IOW, they may not be facts, like 5+4=9, but instead truths like "murder is wrong".

Also in the process of acquiring knowledge we may find the need to manipulate the facts. One of my favorite quotes of Einstein's was that if the facts don't match the theory, change the facts.

Maybe that is true, I'm just not sure if any belief can be fully justified to the point where there is no doubt.

And that would include the "belief" of what knowledge is?

 

[TScott]

TScott from the other thread
Please point out where I can find a green so I can discuss and observe it in more detail. I can't, because it isn't a physical object we can see, so it doesn't look like anything. Color is a property of objects, just like weight and temperature. Green things emit or reflect wavelengths of light in a certain range.

You keep asking the same question but I have no idea if you consider my previous answer insufficient or not. Nor do I understand why you're so vehemently objecting to it.

This is hardly a new area of research. See ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/techreports/nl-6.pdf for something from the 70s. I know work has progressed since then.

By having them tell you they enjoy something or not based on a set of physical processes. Just like humans do.

Sure, LISP syntax has become a standard in AI, but you must understand then that LISP is using what it calls "atoms" which are representative tokens, in it's simulation of semantics.

This is a fascinating subject, and I'd love to discuss it further with you, but I'm afraid we would be derailing this thread. When I get time later I'll start another thread in which we can discuss human consciousness vs. AI; semantics vs. syntax.

 

[christ disciple]

Justified Belief, not Justified Knowledge. Knowledge is a belief that is true and is justified to be true.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but knowledge, from what I understand, simply consist of information. Whether the information is justifiable or not is another matter. "ever increasing in knowledge, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth".

Therefore knowledge that has been justified would be considered truth. If not justified then would be considered non truth or a lie. Partial truths are lies. As far as absolutes are concerned being for mentioned by others. One must realize that relative truth can not exist without absolute truth for all truth begins as absolute (objective), but then deviates from its course due to subjective parameters.

 

[Paradoxum]

Who are "they"?

Well I think I was reply to what you said about scientists. Its not that I was being vague.

And what is "correct"?

The idea exists in reality. If I say there is a chair behind that door, and there is a chair behind that door, then I am correct.

Also, earlier in this post you mentioned that in the OP Wisdom Tree said that one of the requisites for knowledge was that it had to be "true". But the fact is that you will find there is no universally agreed upon definition of knowledge. We can use the Platonic definition that it is justified true belief, but that just shifts the question as to what is truth.

The question is still what it means for it to be justified. What is truth is also a valid question.

It may not be relevant, as to how we define truth, and Plato may have the best definition after all. If that is the case then knowledge can also include beliefs that may not be universally accepted as truth,

Of course.

as well as beliefs that are only justified by the individual who is accepting the "knowledge". IOW, they may not be facts, like 5+4=9, but instead truths like "murder is wrong".

I'm not sure what you mean by only justified for the individual. It is either a justifying reason or not. I agree that moral statements are different from mathematical ones, but I'm not sure your description of their difference is correct.

Also in the process of acquiring knowledge we may find the need to manipulate the facts. One of my favorite quotes of Einstein's was that if the facts don't match the theory, change the facts.

Well I don't know what that means and if it is a joke.

And that would include the "belief" of what knowledge is?

Probably.

 

[TScott]

The idea exists in reality. If I say there is a chair behind that door, and there is a chair behind that door, then I am correct.

But what if you say there is a chair behind the door, but the chair is not behind the door you meant, but instead behind another door? Since you didn't specify what door, the information you gave was actually correct. Would this still qualify as knowledge?

 

[Paradoxum]

But what if you say there is a chair behind the door, but the chair is not behind the door you meant, but instead behind another door? Since you didn't specify what door, the information you gave was actually correct. Would this still qualify as knowledge?

No because I know what I meant and I would be able give more detail about what door if necessary.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure, LISP syntax has become a standard in AI, but you must understand then that LISP is using what it calls "atoms" which are representative tokens, in it's simulation of semantics.

Seems like code for "it's not how human brains do it so it's not real".

 

[christ disciple]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but knowledge, from what I understand, simply consist of information. Whether the information is justifiable or not is another matter. "ever increasing in knowledge, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth".

Therefore knowledge that has been justified would be considered truth. If not justified then would be considered non truth or a lie. Partial truths are lies. As far as absolutes are concerned being for mentioned by others. One must realize that relative truth can not exist without absolute truth for all truth begins as absolute (objective), but then deviates from its course due to subjective parameters.

As far as acquiring knowledge, one would need the capabilities of encoding, decoding, and processing in order to acquire knowledge. Not necessarily in this order, but that would imply that the system was already set in place and preprogrammed. I would suggest that we are preprogarmmed with set of innate abilities for such. "God breathed life into man and made him a living soul", complete with instructions.

Understanding the programming which allows us to access knowledge would imply we need access to the programmer, would it not?

 

[TScott]

Seems like code for "it's not how human brains do it so it's not real".

See new thread...

 

[Davian]

I voted for empiricism, but I'm going to be difficult about this. Sorry. You left out one category: revelation.

Even if you were to restrict this to what humans can do of themselves to acquire knowledge, I would probably vote for a combination of empiricism and rationalism.

In terms of acquiring knowledge, how is revelation not covered by empiricism and rationalism? I mean, until revelation can be *actually* be shown to be communication with a deity.