LinuxGal Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Once again, What is knowledge? You want the entire subject of epistemology in a nutshell? There is reality, and there are mental models of that reality. Knowledge is when your mental model conforms with reality without contradiction. You seem to be defining knowledge as a consistent and complete mental model of reality.
Calm Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 No, I consider claims that the climate science is "settled" to be offensive.Why "offensive"?
LinuxGal Posted November 29, 2014 Posted November 29, 2014 Why "offensive"? Because I embrace Karl Popper's argument that if a theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. By saying a theory is "settled" you're closing any further inquiry. It then becomes a religion. 1
Teancum Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 I thought you would never ask. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Now we have no reason to discuss it further until you refute this position, held by most philosophers today. I wish you well.So essentially nobody knows what truth is.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 So essentially nobody knows what truth is.That was an entire article on what truth is, and it summarized the opinions of many philosophers today. Sounds like at least "somebody" to me. As I said, truth is not what you think it is. It is not that nobody knows what truth is, it's just that saying something is true is not saying anything too important really. It's pretty much just saying "I agree with that". 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 That was an entire article on what truth is, and it summarized the opinions of many philosophers today. Sounds like at least "somebody" to me. As I said, truth is not what you think it is. It is not that nobody knows what truth is, it's just that saying something is true is not saying anything too important really. It's pretty much just saying "I agree with that".So basically the type of affirmation we make during a temple recommend interview?
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Because I embrace Karl Popper's argument that if a theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. By saying a theory is "settled" you're closing any further inquiry. It then becomes a religion.Hugh Nibley often quoted Popper, and essentially agreed with you here. However, as Nibley also pointed out: "'All science,' says Karl Popper, 'is eschatology,' concerned fundamentally with the questions of religion." -- Nibley "Zeal without knowledge." Popper is now considered to be somewhat outdated, but we should take note of the dangers of scientism as a virtual religion. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 No, I consider claims that the climate science is "settled" to be offensive.Yet, the call to perfection is a classic fallacy. Sometimes we have no choice but to go with current scientific consensus, which may change later. Waiting for a settled or perfect resolution (which can never come) merely invites disaster. Sometimes we simply need to get off the dime and make a decision.
pogi Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) There is reality, and there are mental models of that reality. Knowledge is when your mental model conforms with reality without contradiction. You seem to be defining knowledge as a consistent and complete mental model of reality. The problem with this definition of knowledge is that it only works if there is someone who can confirm with absolute certainty what is real. Who is that exactly? If this person really exists, and they confirm your mental model of reality, would you then have knowledge or is it simply based on trust? How can you compare your mental model of reality with THE reality, when THE reality is not certain? No scientist claims absolute certainty, it is all probabilities. The almost infinite unknowns and unmeasurable or unobservable variables make a certain reality impossible with science. All we have is experience. We form mental models of reality based on personal experience and in trusting what really smart people tell us about reality. Until we can measure all variables and understand how they relate for ourselves, we cannot know THE reality with any real certainty. All we have for now is mental models of reality based on experience and trust. Edited November 30, 2014 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 So basically the type of affirmation we make during a temple recommend interview?That's true- I agree with that. We know what the word means, we know how to use it. The real problem is with verificationism and the correspondence theory. I think it is a very good article which spells out the problems with "truth" very well.
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Because I embrace Karl Popper's argument that if a theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. Religion is not supposed to be scientific. The more I tell you this the less you understand it.
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Religion is not supposed to be scientific. The more I tell you this the less you understand it. Myths are stories we tell each other to explain why the thunder rolls, why the earth shakes, why the sun is swallowed by the moon. Religious myths were based on "revelations" which I suspect were really just wild guesses, but in any event, they have been replaced by scientific myths which are based on experiment and observation. The reason I prefer scientific myths is this: If you did a complete reboot of human history, and erased all records and memories, taking us back to the stone age, then when we started over, our religious myths would be entirely different. There would be no flood story, no Eden story, no savior. But when our scientific myths emerged, they would be precisely the same as the ones we have today. We would have immunology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics once again, and it would be exactly the same, because it is based on what is really there.
Teancum Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 That was an entire article on what truth is, and it summarized the opinions of many philosophers today. Sounds like at least "somebody" to me. As I said, truth is not what you think it is. It is not that nobody knows what truth is, it's just that saying something is true is not saying anything too important really. It's pretty much just saying "I agree with that".I will confess I got about half way through it and my eyes glossed over. It was heady stuff. My will give it another shot.
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 The problem with this definition of knowledge is that it only works if there is someone who can confirm with absolute certainty what is real. Who is that exactly? If this person really exists, and they confirm your mental model of reality, would you then have knowledge or is it simply based on trust? My definition of knowledge is a mental model that conforms to reality without contradiction. A contradiction can be discovered by the person claiming the knowledge, or by a third party performing the act of falsification. An example would be a claim that a bat is a bird. Examining a bat reveals that it is a mammal. So this is not confirmation, this is the precise opposite, which is falsification.
Ahab Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 I thought you would never ask.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/Now we have no reason to discuss it further until you refute this position, held by most philosophers today. I wish you well.Not sure I understand what they are suggesting. To my mind saying it is true that snow is white means more than to "say" snow is white, because truth is about more than the saying of something. For it to be true that snow is white, snow must be white, otherwise it would not be true to say snow is white. And to be perfectly clear we should also understand the meaning of the words snow, and white, and is.
pogi Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) My definition of knowledge is a mental model that conforms to reality without contradiction. Again, reality according to whom? Who is this person that we can measure all knowledge against? A contradiction can be discovered by the person claiming the knowledge, or by a third party performing the act of falsification. An example would be a claim that a bat is a bird. Examining a bat reveals that it is a mammal. So this is not confirmation, this is the precise opposite, which is falsification. Whose stipulation of species are you measuring the "contradiction" or "falsification" against? The field of taxonomy is a mess of abstraction that nobody can agree on. When you throw in the concept of evolution, the idea of "species" is kind of silly. They are just arbitrary boundaries placed on organisms which are not evolutionarily restricted by man-made boundaries. We cannot even agree on what life is let alone what species is. If the idea of nominalism is true, species do not literally exist. There is no unchanging and universally agreed upon reality by which we can compare our knowledge against. That is the problem. "... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48) "No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) "Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) "The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956) "The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001) "First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require - but cannot be settled by - empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003) "An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)" "We show that although discrete phenotypic clusters exist in most [plant] genera (>80%), the correspondence of taxonomic species to these clusters is poor (<60%) and no different between plants and animals. ... Contrary to conventional wisdom, plant species are more likely than animal species to represent reproductively independent lineages." Edited November 30, 2014 by pogi 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) No, I consider claims that the climate science is "settled" to be offensive. Why is the scientific literature offensive? I can cite the peer-reviewed evidence from respected Journals like the Nature Journal, the Science Journal, Oxford Journals, NASA. I think you been listening to Rush Limbaugh. Edited November 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Why is the scientific literature offensive? I can cite the peer-reviewed evidence from respected Journals like the Nature Journal, the Science Journal, Oxford Journals, NASA. I think you been listening to Rush Limbaugh. I don't think you understand what I said. I said any claim that science is "settled" (as in closed for further discussion) is offensive because it moves the field from open inquiry to dogma.
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Whose stipulation of species are you measuring the "contradiction" or "falsification" against? The field of taxonomy is a mess of abstraction that nobody can agree on. When you throw in the concept of evolution, the idea of "species" is kind of silly. They are just arbitrary boundaries placed on organisms which are not evolutionarily restricted by man-made boundaries. We cannot even agree on what life is let alone what species is. If the idea of nominalism is true, species do not literally exist. There is no unchanging and universally agreed upon reality by which we can compare our knowledge against. That is the problem. Are you telling me that we are not qualified to judge that bats are in the class Mammalia and that fowls are in the class Aves?
Ahab Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Are you telling me that we are not qualified to judge that bats are in the class Mammalia and that fowls are in the class Aves?Can't you just answer his question?Who or what group of people do you look to for a confirmation of what is real in reality?
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Who or what group of people do you look to for a confirmation of what is real in reality? I'll say it again, I'm not looking for confirmation, I'm waiting for the falsification hammer to fall. Anyone can perform the falsification by obtaining different results in the experiment. When it does, I start over. This is how science is rigged, like a big house of cards. Ironically, it makes the structure much more firm. Think of the alternative, say the Book of Mormon, which has absolutely no method of falsifying it. The plates are missing, the geographical claims are vague, and even when it is shown that the text uses the idioms of New Testament writers which the Nephites had no access to, the counter-claim is that the same Holy Spirit that inspired the NT writers inspired Moroni, etc. So it turns into a game where every piece of DNA evidence, every piece of archaeological evidence that weighs against the BoM is dismissed out of hand by people who "know" it's true based on an interior sensation that follows prayer. This is a recipe for decline and oblivion.
Vance Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 My definition of knowledge is a mental model that conforms to reality without contradiction. A contradiction can be discovered by the person claiming the knowledge, or by a third party performing the act of falsification. An example would be a claim that a bat is a bird. Examining a bat reveals that it is a mammal. So this is not confirmation, this is the precise opposite, which is falsification. So, modern defined animal classification can be used to debunk anciently written statements. You go girl.
Vance Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 . . . and even when it is shown that the text uses the idioms of New Testament writers which the Nephites had no access to, More of the juvenile approach. You can NOT know that your statement is accurate. You can only state that you "believe" it to be accurate.
Vance Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 I hope I can make myself clear. Science has determined that our universe had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in linear time. Actually, science has made no such determination. It is simply the current theory. 1
Recommended Posts