Subjective Deduction Part 2

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:21 pm

I divided the parts of the knowledge theory into more managable bits.

Part 2 in Google Doc format: Length 6 pages
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Crx ... sp=sharing

Part 1 forum analysis pointed out my first part is very similar to Locke. My analysis and remarks on this are on page 3 of part 1. The link to "Part 1's post is here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19202&p=258008#p258008

BOLDED SECTION IS COVERED IN THIS POST:

This is a summary so you can get a general idea of what to expect. This is NOT the google doc. If you do not read the google doc, you will not understand anything.

Part 1: Link if you need a refresh https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cH ... sp=sharing
1. Beliefs are inductions. Knowledge is a rational analysis of beliefs to determine whether our beliefs are contradicted by reality.
2. Justification for a belief cannot be inductive. If a belief is inductive, and justification is inductive, then a belief that is not rationally ascertained is used to argue for another belief that is not rationally ascertained.
3. Conclusion: A theory of knowledge which uses deductive Justification should be a rational argument for one's beliefs not being contradicted by reality.

4. I must demonstrate deductive justification is possible.
5. Descartes Cogito comes close, but misses the mark.
6. Taking my own Descartes like turn, I discover "I discretely experience" is deductively justified.
7. Conclusion: An awareness of a discrete experience I call, cognitive knowledge.

Part 2
8. How do I take cognitive knowledge and apply it to reality without contradiction? I know the identity of what I call a sheep, how do I know "that thing" is a sheep?
9. There are two types of knowledge. There is cognitive knowledge, or the ability to create discrete experiences. The second is applicable knowledge, or an attempt to match one's cognitive knowledge to reality without contradiction. Cognitve=image of what I call a sheep Applicable=that thing over there matches my Cognitive sheep with deductive justification.
10.Conclusion: If my observations match to the properties in my identity which I have defined as essential, and my observation can match to no other non-synonymous identities, I applicably know my identity matches reality without contradiction through deductive justification.

Part 3
11. How do different people reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge?
12. People must first agree on a cognitive context, such as definitions, and an applicable context such as senses or measurement used.
13. Conclusion: Once the contexts are established, the same deductive process is used to applicably know things as a group.

Part 4-End
14. Not everything can be deduced, is there a way to use the understanding of deductive justification to establish a cogent method of induction?
15. I demonstrate a hierarchy of induction based on its distinct level of separation from deductively justified cognitive and applicable knowledge.
16. Conclusion: The hierarchy can be used as a rational dismissal of "counter arguments" from a lower level of the hierarchy. This solves the brain in a vat argument.

I will wait a few days to release a forum post about part 3 to avoid forum spam.
Last edited by wirius on Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Harbal » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:38 pm

wirius wrote: 11. How do multiple people reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge?
Could you just clarify: what is a multiple person?

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:28 pm

Harbal wrote:
wirius wrote: 11. How do multiple people reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge?
Could you just clarify: what is a multiple person?
Sure Harbal. I meant how do two distinct groups reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge. This can be friends, families, groups, societies. For example, if one group cognitively knows "this" as a tree, and another group cognitively knows "this" as a bush, how do they reconcile their differences?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4197
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:33 pm

wirius wrote:
Harbal wrote:
wirius wrote: 11. How do multiple people reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge?
Could you just clarify: what is a multiple person?
Sure Harbal. I meant how do two distinct groups reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge. This can be friends, families, groups, societies. For example, if one group cognitively knows "this" as a tree, and another group cognitively knows "this" as a bush, how do they reconcile their differences?
Through a botanical text?

Oh, and yes. 'Multiple people' is a redundancy.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:25 am

Dalek Prime wrote: Through a botanical text?

Oh, and yes. 'Multiple people' is a redundancy.
Yeah, changed the crappy grammer. How do different people agree what should be in the botanical text? Most things were debated before being set in stone in the context of "science". Even then, what could be classified as a tree today could be classified as a Bush tomorrow. Or people could just decide not to use science's definitions and make their own. There needs to be a rational answer on how to handle such conflicts, which I can go further into if you understand the core of the section.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:38 am

wirius wrote: 1. Knowledge is a tool to rationally determine whether our beliefs are contradicted by reality.
2. Knowledge theories based on inductive justification are not rational.
3. Conclusion: Form a theory of knowledge which uses Deductive Justification..
You get off to a bad start.

Knowledge is what is gained by using tools of observation and investigation.
Induction is perfectly 'rational'. The question with induction is whether or not you have enough empirical data to use this method for reliable results and the formation of reliable knowledge.

Your two points do not deserve any conclusion, and certainly not that one! Deduction is circular. It can only draw conclusions from existing knowledge, not give new knowledge.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:08 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
wirius wrote: 1. Knowledge is a tool to rationally determine whether our beliefs are contradicted by reality.
2. Knowledge theories based on inductive justification are not rational.
3. Conclusion: Form a theory of knowledge which uses Deductive Justification..
You get off to a bad start.

Knowledge is what is gained by using tools of observation and investigation.
Induction is perfectly 'rational'. The question with induction is whether or not you have enough empirical data to use this method for reliable results and the formation of reliable knowledge.

Your two points do not deserve any conclusion, and certainly not that one! Deduction is circular.
Hi Hobbes, thanks. The above is only a very loose summary of points I mentioned in part 1. Its only meant for people to have a loose idea of what I'm saying so that way they can go to the paper I linked and find exactly what I'm stating. That being said, they were hastily put together and crappy. :) I'll fix em up.

As for your points:
(Addressing point 1)
"It is beneficial to have a rational conclusion that a belief is not contrary to reality, as acting upon a belief which is contrary to reality results in wasted time and resources, or harm to self or society. To solve this problem, people devised a logical analysis to determine which beliefs are correlative with reality, and those which are not. This methodology is labeled 'knowledge.'" (in part 1)

While it is true that knowledge can be gained by using tools of observation and techniques, so can mere beliefs. I am arguing that knowledge is a clearly constructed method invented to rationally analyze our beliefs in the hopes of ascertaining if our beliefs are not contradicted by reality.

(Addressing point 2)
While I do believe induction can be rational, induction as a basis for one's knowledge theory is not rational. I point out in part 1 this is the reason why the JTB theory of knowledge failed. A belief is an induction. If my justification for holding a belief is an induction, then its essentially a belief justifying another belief. This is why I attempt a knowledge theory which relies on deduction for its justification. It is only after I can establish deductive justification that I can then examine induction deductively in part 4. So yes, I do agree induction can be rational, but it cannot be the starting point of rationality for a knowledge theory.
Last edited by wirius on Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:27 am

wirius wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
wirius wrote: 1. Knowledge is a tool to rationally determine whether our beliefs are contradicted by reality.
2. Knowledge theories based on inductive justification are not rational.
3. Conclusion: Form a theory of knowledge which uses Deductive Justification..
You get off to a bad start.

Knowledge is what is gained by using tools of observation and investigation.
Induction is perfectly 'rational'. The question with induction is whether or not you have enough empirical data to use this method for reliable results and the formation of reliable knowledge.

Your two points do not deserve any conclusion, and certainly not that one! Deduction is circular.
Hi Hobbes, thanks. The above is only a very loose summary of points I mentioned in part 1. Its only meant for people to have a loose idea of what I'm saying so that way they can go to the paper I linked and find exactly what I'm stating. I'll review the summaries with more details if that's a sticking point.

As for your points:
(Addressing point 1)
"It is beneficial to have a rational conclusion that a belief is not contrary to reality, as acting upon a belief which is contrary to reality results in wasted time and resources, or harm to self or society. To solve this problem, people devised a logical analysis to determine which beliefs are correlative with reality, and those which are not. This methodology is labeled 'knowledge.'" (in part 1)

While it is true that knowledge can be gained by using tools of observation and techniques, so can mere beliefs. I am arguing that knowledge is a clearly constructed method invented to rationally analyze our beliefs in the hopes of ascertaining if our beliefs are not contradicted by reality.

(Addressing point 2)
While I do believe induction can be rational, induction as a basis for one's knowledge theory is not rational. I point out in part 1 this is the reason why the JTB theory of knowledge failed. A belief is an induction. If my justification for holding a belief is an induction, then its essentially a belief justifying another belief. This is why I attempt a knowledge theory which relies on deduction for its justification. It is only after I can establish deductive justification that I can then examine induction deductively in part 4. So yes, I do agree induction can be rational, but it cannot be the starting point of rationality for a knowledge theory.
No indiction is the ONLY source of knowledge. Rationalising is the process by which observation and experiment leads to knowledge.
You do not understand deduction, and have not addressed by objection.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:47 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No induction is the ONLY source of knowledge. Rationalising is the process by which observation and experiment leads to knowledge.
You do not understand deduction, and have not addressed by objection.
Lets both define induction and deduction to make sure we're on the same page first.

Deduction-the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
Induction-the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

_________________________________________________________
So classic deduction would be:

1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal.

Therefore: Socrates is mortal


A classic induction would be:

1. Socrates is a man
2. Some Men are single

Therefore: Socrates is single.

_________________________________________________________

If we are in agreement as to the definitions, here is why I argue induction cannot be the only source of knowledge.

Your argument essentially (as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong!):

1. Inductions are conclusions which do not necessarily follow from the premises
2. Induction is the only source of knowledge

Therefore: Knowledge is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premises.

If that is the case, what separates such "knowledge" from beliefs? Because beliefs are inductions, how does inductive rationalization serve us in establishing which beliefs are rationally contradicted by reality, and those that aren't? What separates your induction from my induction, if both of our conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises?

My argument is this:

1. Deductions are conclusions which necessarily follow from the premesis
2. Deductions must be the basis of knowledge
Therefore: Knowledge is a conclusion which necessarily follows from the premises.

When faced against each other, I would argue deduction trumps indeduction as an induction is not rationally nessecarily so, while a deduction is rationally necessarily so.

Impenitent
Posts: 1664
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Impenitent » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:01 am


wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:38 am

Thanks Imp, I've been waiting for the analytic/synthetic distinction point. I want to demonstrate I do not advocate it. First, there is no "apriori" in my argument, for I do not address "truth". Assuming there is a truth would require defining truth, which I have not done in the paper. I had it in there at once time, but took it out because it was big. If you read all the way through part four, I can give you my definition of truth.

To address the distinction between Hume and myself, let me explain that while I cite there are two knowledges, niether are assumed to be truth, only beliefs which are justified by not being rationally contradicted by reality.

So in the case of cognitive knowledge, yes, I can construct math, logic, etc. That does not mean I can apply that to reality without contradiction however. Cognitive knowledge is the ability of the mind to give focus to any distinct part of reality. Look at a field of grass. You can look at one blade of grass in the field, or a piece of a that blade of grass in the field. In doing so, you are in your mind creating a "that". A memory of that "that" is your cognitive knowledge. As such, there are no limits as to how you can part and parcel reality. What you cognitively know is deductively justified because it cannot be contradicted.

This is NOT apriori. Apriori assumes that because we can logically conclude math, it makes it knowledge that we know without experience. Cognitive knowedge assumes nothing about its application to reality. I could discretely experience a pink elephant. I know that I see it. But what I cannot know from my ability to discretely experience is whether that pink elephant is something which is not contradicted by reality. That is where applicable knowledge comes in.

Though I may be able to logically conclude math within my discrete experience, I do not applicably know it can be applied to reality until I test it. Einstein cognitively knew his theory of relativity, but did not applicably know it until they observed the physical phenomena after an eclipse and deduced it matches to his theory. I may cognitive know I discretely experience the properties I could identity in my mind as a pink elephant, but when I apply that cognitive knowledge to reality, I find reality contradicts my application by it vanishing as I pass my hand through it.

To simplify how the two knowledges relate to one another, "cognitive knowledge=dictionary". That dictionary can be discretely experienced as we desire, essentially made into whatever we want. But, to applicably know that "that" which we define is something which is not contradicted by reality requires a separate deductive justification. I demonstrate in the reading how this is possible.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:24 pm

wirius wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No induction is the ONLY source of knowledge. Rationalising is the process by which observation and experiment leads to knowledge.
You do not understand deduction, and have not addressed by objection.
Lets both define induction and deduction to make sure we're on the same page first.

Deduction-the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
Induction-the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

_________________________________________________________
So classic deduction would be:

1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal.

Therefore: Socrates is mortal


A classic induction would be:

1. Socrates is a man
2. Some Men are single

Therefore: Socrates is single.

_________________________________________________________

If we are in agreement as to the definitions, here is why I argue induction cannot be the only source of knowledge.

Your argument essentially (as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong!):

1. Inductions are conclusions which do not necessarily follow from the premises
2. Induction is the only source of knowledge

Therefore: Knowledge is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premises.

If that is the case, what separates such "knowledge" from beliefs? Because beliefs are inductions, how does inductive rationalization serve us in establishing which beliefs are rationally contradicted by reality, and those that aren't? What separates your induction from my induction, if both of our conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises?

My argument is this:

1. Deductions are conclusions which necessarily follow from the premesis
2. Deductions must be the basis of knowledge
Therefore: Knowledge is a conclusion which necessarily follows from the premises.

When faced against each other, I would argue deduction trumps indeduction as an induction is not rationally nessecarily so, while a deduction is rationally necessarily so.
Simply: you don't know what you are talking about.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:09 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Simply: you don't know what you are talking about.
If I don't know what I'm talking about, then feel free to point out where I am wrong. I welcome the discussion! I assume we all like philosophy here, and to me, that means questioning our assumptions and bouncing ideas off one another. You might be right Hobbes, but no one will ever know it if you don't show me why.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:01 am

wirius wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Simply: you don't know what you are talking about.
If I don't know what I'm talking about, then feel free to point out where I am wrong. I welcome the discussion! I assume we all like philosophy here, and to me, that means questioning our assumptions and bouncing ideas off one another. You might be right Hobbes, but no one will ever know it if you don't show me why.
I've already pointed it out, but you seem not to have noticed.

Induction has led all of science. There would be no scientific knowledge without it, and certainly no chance of any knowledge whatever with deduction alone.
With deduction all information is already contained in the premises. All you are doing is opening up a series of foregone conclusions.

Consider.
All blogumps are mimsies
Slerps are bloglumps
Therefore dinkbat the slerp is also a mimsie.

Deduction can only make conclusions from previously decided definitions. From deduction you can only extend the inclusiveness. When the definitions are meaningless, so are all the conclusions. Premises can only be verified probabilistically by induction.

Consider.
All swans are white.
Ginny is a swan
Therefore Ginny is white.

By induction we learn that in Australia there is a breed of black swan. Your deduction is useless, because observation has rendered it useless.

Socrates is a man.

The idea that men is a valid category is the result of induction, by observation.

All men are mortal.

This is an induction based on the probabilistic fact that men have always been observed to get old and die. It might be the case that some men shall never die, or that there are men in existence unknown to you that have lived for centuries. none of this can be dismissed, yet induction has it that "all men are mortal" is true. Deduction would have to deny the humanity to any immortal. But that is not an extension of our knowledge; the prime syllogism is simply a circular argument offering no knowledge whatever.

The conclusion Socrates is mortal is an empirical fact. We know he died. End of story.

wirius
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Subjective Deduction Part 2

Post by wirius » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:20 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I've already pointed it out, but you seem not to have noticed.

Induction has led all of science. There would be no scientific knowledge without it, and certainly no chance of any knowledge whatever with deduction alone.
With deduction all information is already contained in the premises. All you are doing is opening up a series of foregone conclusions.

Consider.
All blogumps are mimsies
Slerps are bloglumps
Therefore dinkbat the slerp is also a mimsie.

Deduction can only make conclusions from previously decided definitions. From deduction you can only extend the inclusiveness. When the definitions are meaningless, so are all the conclusions. Premises can only be verified probabilistically by induction.

Consider.
All swans are white.
Ginny is a swan
Therefore Ginny is white.

By induction we learn that in Australia there is a breed of black swan. Your deduction is useless, because observation has rendered it useless.

Socrates is a man.

The idea that men is a valid category is the result of induction, by observation.

All men are mortal.

This is an induction based on the probabilistic fact that men have always been observed to get old and die. It might be the case that some men shall never die, or that there are men in existence unknown to you that have lived for centuries. none of this can be dismissed, yet induction has it that "all men are mortal" is true. Deduction would have to deny the humanity to any immortal. But that is not an extension of our knowledge; the prime syllogism is simply a circular argument offering no knowledge whatever.

The conclusion Socrates is mortal is an empirical fact. We know he died. End of story.
Hobbes, are you arguing against me based on my summary and examples, or on the premises of my paper? First, my summary is not an argument, its just a general highlight of what I'm attempting. Second, the induction/deduction examples are just examples of the difference between deduction and induction, so we could be on the same page.

What I am asking for is to show why my approach to knowledge as written in the paper section is incorrect. In the beginning, I enter into a descartes like thought process, attempting to develop a knowledge method using deduction as its justification. In what steps of that thinking is my logic flawed? Notice in the paper I am not denying induction, I am not simply addressing it yet because I feel a deductive bases must be established first before I can seriously address induction.

In my paper I note the JTB theory of knowledge fails because of its inductive justification and note that any methodology that relies at its heart on induction ultimately fails because it cannot separate itself fundamentally from a fancy belief.

So, taking your swan example, I would state it is not knowledge. "All swans are white" has no deductive justification. How do I know all Swans are white? How do I know Ginny is a Swan? Sure, we can deduce the conclusion IF the premesis are FIRST known. Can you demonstrate how you know those first premesis apart from induction? If you cannot, then the conclusion is a deduced belief upon premises that we do not know. Such deduction is not knowledge, but merely a lucky consequence if the first two premesis happen to be legitimate.

Deduction itself does not generate knowledge. In my paper, I am claiming what separates a belief from knowledge is justification. Justification must be deductively concluded, and not inductively concluded otherwise we end up with the same swan example problem I just mentioned. I will post again in a few minutes explaining how my theory can address the swan example to format it more correctly as a deductive knowledge claim. But I have to ask, please make criticisms on the paper in the future. I know its not intentional, but your previous criticism seems to be a straw man argument as you don't seem to be addressing my actual points. I shortened down part one to only 4 pages, so its not so much of a strain. :P If we're not discussing the paper, we're not really discussing what I'm trying to say.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests