epistemology is
Re: epistemology is
[quote=Skepdick post_id=493803 time=1612198032 user_id=17350]
[quote=attofishpi post_id=493802 time=1612197994 user_id=6293]
an attribute about a theory about knowledge?
[/quote]
I know that I don't know.
Is that knowledge?
[/quote]
There are three elements there; a - a fact (instance of hypothetical knowledge), b - various evidence about the universe which you find sufficiently relevant to count as evidence with relation to a, c - how strong b is relative to a - it's sufficiency, the strength of the justification.
#SpiritualMath
[quote=attofishpi post_id=493802 time=1612197994 user_id=6293]
an attribute about a theory about knowledge?
[/quote]
I know that I don't know.
Is that knowledge?
[/quote]
There are three elements there; a - a fact (instance of hypothetical knowledge), b - various evidence about the universe which you find sufficiently relevant to count as evidence with relation to a, c - how strong b is relative to a - it's sufficiency, the strength of the justification.
#SpiritualMath
Last edited by Advocate on Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: epistemology is
I know that I am equally certain and uncertain.
e.g I don't know
How do you know?
How do you know?
How do you know?Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:55 pm There are three elements there; a - a fact (instance of hypothetical knowledge), b - various evidence about the universe that find sufficiently believable to count as evidence with relation to a, c - how strong b is relative to a - it's sufficiency, the strength of it's justification.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: epistemology is
Do we all agree there is NO certainty to our own knowledge?
What about :- I think therefore I am?
What about :- I think therefore I am?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: epistemology is
I don't.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:02 pm Do we all agree there is NO certainty to our own knowledge?
What are the necessary and sufficient criteria for thinking?
I think therefore I am.
If I don't think, therefore I am not?
None of that sophistry is necessary.
The English word "I" says everything there is to be said. Self-reference is recursion.
Recursion is computation. I is sufficient.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: epistemology is
So what knowledge thus far are you certain of?Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:08 pmI don't.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:02 pm Do we all agree there is NO certainty to our own knowledge?
(just 1 will do)
Certainly if one IS thinking, one knows one exists? (is certain of it)
Last edited by attofishpi on Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: epistemology is
[quote=Skepdick post_id=493807 time=1612198785 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
How certain you are of a fact x is fact y, not a subset of fact x.
[/quote]
I know that I am equally certain and uncertain.
e.g I don't know
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
Fact x is the conclusive center of your understanding of all other facts.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
The relationship between those other facts and fact x is where fact y comes in - your level of certainty that the conjunction of ainformation you have is accurate and sufficient.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
There are three elements there; a - a fact (instance of hypothetical knowledge), b - various evidence about the universe that find sufficiently believable to count as evidence with relation to a, c - how strong b is relative to a - it's sufficiency, the strength of it's justification.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[/quote]
With relation to what?
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
How certain you are of a fact x is fact y, not a subset of fact x.
[/quote]
I know that I am equally certain and uncertain.
e.g I don't know
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
Fact x is the conclusive center of your understanding of all other facts.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
The relationship between those other facts and fact x is where fact y comes in - your level of certainty that the conjunction of ainformation you have is accurate and sufficient.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[quote=Advocate post_id=493806 time=1612198510 user_id=15238]
There are three elements there; a - a fact (instance of hypothetical knowledge), b - various evidence about the universe that find sufficiently believable to count as evidence with relation to a, c - how strong b is relative to a - it's sufficiency, the strength of it's justification.
[/quote]
How do you know?
[/quote]
With relation to what?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: epistemology is
why r you posts so messy Advocate pleeeeasse answer?
the definition of fact
There is no possible definition of fact that is compatible with solipsism. Evidentiary weight comes from replicable certainty, either by logic or empirical measurement.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: epistemology is
wots that got to do with your shit quoting post skills - or wot ever is goin on?
Re: the definition of fact
Solipsism is unfalsifiable. ALL definitions of 'fact' are compatible with it.
Experiments. Thought experiments. What's the difference?
Re: epistemology is
[quote=Skepdick post_id=493822 time=1612200237 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=493815 time=1612199503 user_id=15238]
With relation to what?
[/quote]
Yourself.
[/quote]
My experience is a duality, a conjunction of interior and exterior understandings and sensations. Physical space is the correlation of the senses. Self is the internal correlation of all my experiences, over time.
The fundamental duality of my experience is that external ideas are persistent. This is known by replication of my experience over time. Logic is that certain relations between concepts can apply in all relevant circumstances (such as math when dealing with the attribute of quantity). The conjunction of the replication of my exterior sensory experience and the "laws of the universe" derived from rules that just keep working (aka heuristics) provides me with the potential for actionable certainty. My wants are approached by way of obtaining information, organizing it effectively (mostly by a process of vet/cull), and predictive accuracy. Critical thinking is a set of knowledge tools that best attain actionable certainty "for all intents and purposes". Bayesian reasoning is the best (simplest apt) metaphor for the process in which that occurs. My understanding of the universe generally in conjunction with the outcomes i get when i reasonably expect predictive accuracy, give me epistemological warrant for my updates.
How do you do it? Is it a broken magic 8-ball? I bet it's a broken magic 8-ball.
[quote=Advocate post_id=493815 time=1612199503 user_id=15238]
With relation to what?
[/quote]
Yourself.
[/quote]
My experience is a duality, a conjunction of interior and exterior understandings and sensations. Physical space is the correlation of the senses. Self is the internal correlation of all my experiences, over time.
The fundamental duality of my experience is that external ideas are persistent. This is known by replication of my experience over time. Logic is that certain relations between concepts can apply in all relevant circumstances (such as math when dealing with the attribute of quantity). The conjunction of the replication of my exterior sensory experience and the "laws of the universe" derived from rules that just keep working (aka heuristics) provides me with the potential for actionable certainty. My wants are approached by way of obtaining information, organizing it effectively (mostly by a process of vet/cull), and predictive accuracy. Critical thinking is a set of knowledge tools that best attain actionable certainty "for all intents and purposes". Bayesian reasoning is the best (simplest apt) metaphor for the process in which that occurs. My understanding of the universe generally in conjunction with the outcomes i get when i reasonably expect predictive accuracy, give me epistemological warrant for my updates.
How do you do it? Is it a broken magic 8-ball? I bet it's a broken magic 8-ball.
Re: the definition of fact
[quote=Skepdick post_id=493823 time=1612200462 user_id=17350]
Experiments. Thought experiments. What's the difference?
[/quote]
Externality. Also, duh.
Experiments. Thought experiments. What's the difference?
[/quote]
Externality. Also, duh.
Re: epistemology is
There is nothing knowledge can be but certainty. There is nothing certainty can be but replication. There is nothing replication can be but experience.
Working back up: Our experience provides knowledge. Our knowledge provides predictive potential. Our predictive potential provides feedback. Feedback provides epistemological warrant.
Or: Our experience is of desires. Desires are for specific changes. The specific changes we want to make in the world determine what information we need about the world and the level of certainty we need to have in it. When we reach sufficient certainty toward the specific intended change, that's the final purpose of all knowledge.
Working back up: Our experience provides knowledge. Our knowledge provides predictive potential. Our predictive potential provides feedback. Feedback provides epistemological warrant.
Or: Our experience is of desires. Desires are for specific changes. The specific changes we want to make in the world determine what information we need about the world and the level of certainty we need to have in it. When we reach sufficient certainty toward the specific intended change, that's the final purpose of all knowledge.