Truth and Knowledge

[Akita Suggagaki]

So much of what we consider knowledge is actually belief.

 

[pitabread]

So with a concept of a supreme creator, matters in that domain are beyond the mind to comprehend. We don't have the tools to get our heads around the why or how, and shouldn't demand non existence on the basis of our inability to understand.

This is a contradiction. If the claim is that one can determine the "truth" via a creator speaking to us (somehow, which is still not clear), then claiming it's likewise beyond our ability to understand contradicts that idea.

We can't simultaneously claim to have truth but at the same time claim to not understand the very same.

Back to topic - read John 10 to understand
more about the voice of God within and listen to this video right through for a contemporary and dramatic example.

I Am Week 5

Care to summarize or point to the relevant time stamp? It's an over half hour video and I don't want to sit through the whole thing if I only need to watch 5 minutes to get to the material that is relevant.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It seems to me that mathematical truth is the closest we can get to objective truth.

I could not disagree more. Mathematical truth is entirely subjective. Mathematics is an abstraction that we have invented to try to understand multiple relationships in the real world but it does not approximate reality and is entirely based upon a human subjective POV. It does not even adhere to any objective human perceptions of reality. In the physical universe for instance, there is nothing that can be said to correlate to a negative number. Reality does not contain anything less than nothing. There is either nothing or more than nothing.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This is a contradiction. If the claim is that one can determine the "truth" via a creator speaking to us (somehow, which is still not clear), then claiming it's likewise beyond our ability to understand contradicts that idea.

We can't simultaneously claim to have truth but at the same time claim to not understand the very same.



Care to summarize or point to the relevant time stamp? It's an over half hour video and I don't want to sit through the whole thing if I only need to watch 5 minutes to get to the material that is relevant.

I dont agree with your definition of contradiction.

We can simultaneously have truth and not be able to explain in detail how we got it in a way that satisfies the skeptic.

If you were seriously seeking you would watch it right through.

 

[pitabread]

I dont agree with your definition of contradiction.

We can simultaneously have truth and not be able to explain in detail how we got it in a way that satisfies the skeptic.

It comes down to plausibility of the explanation. Your claim is that it's (somehow) objective that a creator can speak to a person through their Spirit.

Yet, by the same token how would we distinguish between this purported external 'speaking' versus experiencing intrinsic thoughts, feelings and emotions?

When I apply Occam's Razor to this scenario, I see no reason to accept the former in lieu of the latter.

If you were seriously seeking you would watch it right through.

It's poor forum etiquette to link to a lengthy video without at least a synopsis or relevant timestamp.

I've been burned numerous times in the past by posters linking videos that either have no relevance or the relevant sections are a handful of minutes long.

If you won't even post a brief summary as to why the video is relevant to this discussion, I'm not inclined to spend over half an hour to watch it.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd say that there is a single objective truth. Whether or not we can find it is another matter. But that truth is there.

Only because you say that though ... and what you say there, is just another belief.

 

[SelfSim]

So much of what we consider knowledge is actually belief.

Knowledge is more like a repository our minds acquire as we go through life. Its up to us to distinguish beliefs and then whether or not to fill that repository with mostly beliefs(?)

Beliefs tend to be of not so much utility value when it comes to say, building computers for example, so that kind of knowledge must not be just pure beliefs.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It comes down to plausibility of the explanation. Your claim is that it's (somehow) objective that a creator can speak to a person through their Spirit.

Yet, by the same token how would we distinguish between this purported external 'speaking' versus experiencing intrinsic thoughts, feelings and emotions?

When I apply Occam's Razor to this scenario, I see no reason to accept the former in lieu of the latter.



It's poor forum etiquette to link to a lengthy video without at least a synopsis or relevant timestamp.

I've been burned numerous times in the past by posters linking videos that either have no relevance or the relevant sections are a handful of minutes long.

If you won't even post a brief summary as to why the video is relevant to this discussion, I'm not inclined to spend over half an hour to watch it.

I gave a synopsis - it's right on topic about hearing God's voice - but not as you know it...

30 minutes is nothing if you are truely thirsty.

 

[pitabread]

I gave a synopsis - it's right on topic about hearing God's voice - but not as you know it...

Posting the topic of the video is not the same as a synopsis of the same.

If you can briefly explain how the video supports your point, I would consider watching it. If you can't, then I'll give it a pass thanks.

30 minutes is nothing if you are truely thirsty.

It might be 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Like I said, I've been burned on these sorts of things before.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I spent years of being burned before connecting to the truth, you don't sound hungry.

I told you John 10 - and a testimony you will never forget for the rest of your life.

I am not really into debate - action is greater than words.

 

[pitabread]

I spent years of being burned before connecting to the truth, you don't sound hungry.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not looking to be converted, if that's what you're wondering, which is the vibe I'm getting from your posts.

I was looking to discuss the claim you made in this thread (especially in light of the thread's topic), but if you'd rather not then that's fine.

 

[Gene2memE]

So much of what we consider knowledge is actually belief.

In philosophy, there is an interpretation of knowledge that it is a subset of belief. Generally defining knowledge as a belief that is both justified and true.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. I'm not looking to be converted, if that's what you're wondering, which is the vibe I'm getting from your posts.

I was looking to discuss the claim you made in this thread (especially in light of the thread's topic), but if you'd rather not then that's fine.

Sounds like knowledge by revelation which brings us to mysticism. Unless something like pre-knowledge or knowledge of something distant can be verified we are talking about some kind of internal realization, insight or awareness. Whether it came from God, some other spirit, or natural intuition or even fantasy is a determination of faith. Or so it seems to me.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So my own understanding of God and the universe and myself, my personal theology and belief, seem like knowledge to me even though I cannot prove anything. It seems pretty hard to draw a line sometimes between what I think I know and what I only believe.

 

[public hermit]

As a Christian, I find it annoying when someone is trying to have a genuine discussion about truth and knowledge and Christians respond with "Jesus is truth!" Not every moment is one in which evangelical and apologetic impulses need to be indulged.

So much of what we consider knowledge is actually belief.

The traditional (western) account of knowledge goes back to Plato and is generally rendered Justified-True-Belief (JTB).

Accordingly, someone knows proposition p, if and only if, the following three conditions hold:
1. They believe p
2. p is true
3. They are justified in believing p

For all practicable purposes, (1) and (2) seem obvious enough, so most of the debate has focused on (3). What conditions need to be met for justification to obtain? All of this was upended with one paper by Edmund Gettier in which he showed that one could be in a position where all three conditions obtain, and yet that person would still not know.

There are a number of other theories of knowledge, but this is a good place to start.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Theory of justification - Wikipedia

As far as theories of truth go, the correspondence theory is the big player. Statements or propositions are true, if and only if, they correspond with the facts (i.e. states of affairs). The next runner-up is the coherence theory of truth. Coherence deals more with the structure of the whole, instead of isolated propositions. The idea is having a set of propositions that are logically consistent and share mutual inferential support. The pragmatic theory of truth is more interested in what works. And, there are others, e.g. deflationary theory of truth.

Truth - Wikipedia

As far as "objective truth" is concerned, @Kylie hit on something with the idea that one is justified in believing something is true if it can be independently checked and verified by others. To be clear, an individual can be justified in believing something that is not subject to being independently checked and verified by others. I am justified in believing I had a dream last night that I went to church in my underwear, so long as my cognitive faculties are working properly and I'm not prone to telling lies about my dreams (which this example would be evidence of). No one is going to be able to verify that belief, but I have no reason to doubt my own belief (i.e. I am justified in having said belief) so long as I don't have a potential defeater to undermine it. Unless one is a thorough-going skeptic, which most people aren't, justification covers a lot more territory than simply what others can verify, or even potentially verify.

Nonetheless, back to Kylie's point, when it comes to "objective truth" the best we can seem to do is go by intersubjective agreement. The idea is that the greater intersubjective agreement there is about p, the more likely p is objectively true. There are general areas where intersubjective agreement is vast and from there things go downhill.

The two areas where there is the most intersubjective agreement is in the areas of math and logic. Most people who understand the terms will agree that 2+2=4, regardless of social location, religion, cultural background, political leanings, etc. The vast majority of people who understand what the terms and functions mean will agree that 2+2=4. If they disagree then we will assume either they didn't understand or they have a cognitive malfunction.

The same is true for basic logical principles. The vast majority of people (except for some philosophers who need a dissertation topic or need some sexy topic to get published) will agree with the so-called "law of non-contradiction" that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same way, and at the same time. There are numerous other examples, but these should do.

The next area where there is widespread intersubjective agreement, but also some disagreement, is the various sciences. When it comes to the hard sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry, there will much agreement and some disagreement depending on the topic. In biology there will also be widespread agreement, but also some considerable disagreement, again depending on the area concerned. When it comes to the soft sciences, e.g. psychology and sociology, there will be some agreement, but mostly within "schools," and widespread disagreement, depending.

The next areas where there is some intersubjective agreement, but widespread disagreement is the areas of philosophy (political philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, social philosophy) and religion. Obviously, you will have intersubjective agreement in various philosophical schools and various religions, but they are all marked by rampant disagreement. This is not to say there is no objective truth regarding these areas, only that our ability to access the objective truth is questionable if we are using intersubjective agreement as our means of identifying objective truth.

Edit: By the by, this wonderful thread is just one more example of why they need to re-open the Philosophy forum. Just saying. Again.

 

[SelfSim]

What we mean by our word "knowing" is complex matter, it's one of the more complicated words we have. Philosophers have tried to define that word in a meaningful way for a long time (of course all they can really do is arrive at an agreed-upon definition that they will use in their own contexts, they can never discover "what the word means" because words just don't work like that).

Scientists on the other hand, require an operational meaning, rather than trying to adjudicate the word by a purely general population convention .. or, in other words, what we can demonstrate we mean, not what we'd like to mean. So, I would say the test of "knowing", at least when restricted to testable outcomes, is akin to the odds a person would give on being right (like, "95% certain"), where the odds can be deemed as correct if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know.

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100%, (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the rather foolish standard (IMO) that to "know" something, it must always end up being true.

Philosophers arrived at "justified true belief" as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean rather than what they really mean .. it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all.

 

[SelfSim]

The traditional (western) account of knowledge goes back to Plato and is generally rendered Justified-True-Belief (JTB).
Accordingly, someone knows proposition p, if and only if, the following three conditions hold:
1. They believe p
2. p is true
3. They are justified in believing p

More generally, (and more recently), Bertrand Russell restated Aristotle's 'Laws of Thought' as, (Reference: Wiki: Law of Thought):

i) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
ii) The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
iii) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'

All of which are built on the same assumed, untestable, undistinguished posit of: 'truth exists'.
They therefore come across as a bunch of worthless truism-based word-salad (IMO).

 

[public hermit]

More generally, (and more recently), Bertrand Russell restated Aristotle's 'Laws of Thought' as, (Reference: Wiki: Law of Thought):

i) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
ii) The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
iii) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'

All of which are built on the same assumed, untestable, undistinguished posit of: 'truth exists'.
They therefore come across as a bunch of worthless truism-based word-salad (IMO).

Oddly enough, everything you just said would be meaningless if those three were not true.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Thanks for all that, Hermit. i will explore the links.

 

[SelfSim]

Oddly enough, everything you just said would be meaningless if those three were not true.

Again .. it depends on what you mean by 'true'. I claim that meaning is dependent on our minds.

The meaning of 'true' is assignable .. philosophers prefer word-salad, which will always mean different things to different minds, (which is easily objectively testable). Would those 'three' principles also be 'true' in the case of someone with a mental illness who's reality is occasionally delusional? If not, how can that be, if the truth really exists independently from the set of all human minds? Why do those so called 'principles' then, seemingly, deliberately discard their minds from that set of human minds which actually came up with the meanings of the words they use to communicate?

Scientists do not adjudicate on the meaning of 'truth' based on such opinions, beliefs or truisms. Therefore the meaning of scientific truth is different from what those three 'principles' cite. Science can never test them (as I cited).. yet when a scientist speaks of truth, other scientists recognise what that scientist means .. and its not based on any of those three so-called 'principles' simply because they aren't objectively testable.

What I originally wrote in that post relies on logic. I concur that logic is closely related to those philosophical principles .. yet science comes up with a different meaning of 'true'. Science deals with reality. Philosophy doesn't appear to .. in spite of the thousands of years it has been grappling with its own believed tenets which now apears to be distilled into those three so-called, (useless IMO), 'principles'. They are useless in isolation of science but when used by science's objective method, they then acquire their usefulness (eg: as they are in the math models of physics).