True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:46 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:28 pm Take any given decision that you have to take. The decision manifests two possible futures.
I will not discuss this again because we've already done that. At any point there are an infinite number of possible futures. There is never only one choice. Even in those cases where there are only two alternative things one can do, (go left or go right) there is always the third, (stop and go nowhere).
An infinite number of possible futures exists, but it may be thought of as an infinite number of elements of binary possibilities.

Going or not going is one pair of possibilities.
Being seated while not going or not being seated while not going is a pair of possibilities.
Going left or not going left is another pair of possibilities.
But real-life choices are almost never restricted to only two alternatives. When deciding which direction to go there are an infinite number of possible directions I can choose, and I am aware of them all and must make my choice from them all. If I had tp stand there and choose one at a time, "shall I go 1 degree north, or some other direction, or shall I go 2 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go 3 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go .... ad infinitum, I'd never make a choice.

Human conscious choice is not at all like a computer decision tree.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:25 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
You are describing science and missing philosophy as a source of knowledge. Philosophy sits on top of science.
No, I described knowledge. There is no other kind of knowledge in any field than that which I described. Anything else put over as knowledge is just superstitious nonsense.
No. What you observe could be different from what others obseve. The reality has infinite folds.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Iwannaplato »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
It seems, then, that your post, for us in any case, is not knowledge. I mean, we can see the post, but the opinions in it about the nature of knowledge are not shown directly to our senses, except as words. The truth value is not shown to our senses - however that might happen - just the assertions that your opinions are the case. And since you later have a binary T/F determination it's utter nonsense.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:20 pm It seems, then, that your post, for us in any case, is not knowledge.
I don't know who, "us," is. You are right, the post is not for whoever they are supposed to be.

The post is only for the less than one percent of human beings who can understand it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12232
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
Your view is too shallow and narrow.

Knowledge based on "actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge" without further qualification is too crude.

Once upon a time many of the various empirical illusions were accepted as true knowledge but when analyzed they turned out to be illusory, thus 'false knowledge'. It is likely what we claimed as "true knowledge" could be illusory because we have yet the competence or tool to investigate them.
For example, not long ago Physics accept that the most basic thing in existence is an objective 'particle', then quantum mechanics discover the basic elements of things can either be a wave or particle, thus subjective.

In addition, loads of what is "true" knowledge based on actual evidence and studied as in Science were abandoned as false subsequently upon new evidence.
Thus whatever we regarded as "true" knowledge at present could be 'false' in the future upon new evidence that oppose it.

The best practical definition for what is knowledge is Justified True Beliefs [btw not Plato's] to be qualified to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK [with Pure Mathematics, Geometry] is the most credible at present and it is the standard all other types of knowledge should be compared with.
Whatever is true knowledge [initiated as opinions or beliefs] must be verified and justified within a specific FSK to qualify as qualified-knowledge.

Due to the multi-variate conditions of such human based FSKs, the truth of knowledge thus come in degrees from 0.1% to 99.95 of veracity.
If the scientific FSK is rated at 80% degree of veracity, then economic truths would be say 60%, legal truths 50%, etc.
Theism based on faith which is non-empirical would be 0.0001% as with other supernatural claims.

Point is one cannot simply claim what is true knowledge without qualifications to the above conditions and limitations.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:22 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
Your view is too shallow and narrow.
Unfortunately for those who would like to include nonsense as knowledge, while there are infinite possible wrong ideas, for any fact there is only one correct idea. If you don't like reality's narrowness, you are free to join the world of the superstitious who believe widely, just anything, as you apparently do.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by attofishpi »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:35 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:40 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:46 pm
I will not discuss this again because we've already done that. At any point there are an infinite number of possible futures. There is never only one choice. Even in those cases where there are only two alternative things one can do, (go left or go right) there is always the third, (stop and go nowhere).
An infinite number of possible futures exists, but it may be thought of as an infinite number of elements of binary possibilities.

Going or not going is one pair of possibilities.
Being seated while not going or not being seated while not going is a pair of possibilities.
Going left or not going left is another pair of possibilities.
But real-life choices are almost never restricted to only two alternatives. When deciding which direction to go there are an infinite number of possible directions I can choose, and I am aware of them all and must make my choice from them all. If I had tp stand there and choose one at a time, "shall I go 1 degree north, or some other direction, or shall I go 2 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go 3 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go .... ad infinitum, I'd never make a choice.

Human conscious choice is not at all like a computer decision tree.
See that is the failing of human decision making - thinking their decisions are NOT always binary. Sure, you may have a myriad of choices, but the ultimate choice you make will ALWAYS be binary.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:35 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:40 pm

An infinite number of possible futures exists, but it may be thought of as an infinite number of elements of binary possibilities.

Going or not going is one pair of possibilities.
Being seated while not going or not being seated while not going is a pair of possibilities.
Going left or not going left is another pair of possibilities.
But real-life choices are almost never restricted to only two alternatives. When deciding which direction to go there are an infinite number of possible directions I can choose, and I am aware of them all and must make my choice from them all. If I had tp stand there and choose one at a time, "shall I go 1 degree north, or some other direction, or shall I go 2 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go 3 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go .... ad infinitum, I'd never make a choice.

Human conscious choice is not at all like a computer decision tree.
See that is the failing of human decision making - thinking their decisions are NOT always binary. Sure, you may have a myriad of choices, but the ultimate choice you make will ALWAYS be binary.
Between what two things?

Do you know what an analog computer is? They make choices that are analog, not binary. It was an analog computer that produced the first "strange attractor," an algorithm (describing weather), which involved many variables from which binary determination is not possible. Human minds are not digital computers. They are like all analog phenomena, non-binary with multiple variables and no specific state.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).
Actually that is ONLY where knowledge starts. That is the place where the basis of knowledge is founded. But with this alone there is no useful knowledge.
You might look in a microscope, and see germs, but you cannot "see" a germ causing an illness. You have to go further and use you imagination and intuition. The presence of bacteria might be a necessary condition for some diseases by it is not a sufficient cause, as most bacteria cause no disease at all. And ALL germ theory from Pasteur to Koch to Semel Weiss was all developed without ever seeing any bacteria at work causing disease.
The same sort of thing is true of just about all observations in most areas. For example you can plot the movement of the stars and planets but it takes thought and interpretation to arrive and a knowledge of Cosmology. It shold be known that basically all the same observations were know to Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler, yet all four of the them had completely different cosmologies from that same data.

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
Obviously with this list - if that is all you have, then you cannot bring about any knowledge. But knoweldge that is useful has to include some of these things to arrive at truth, you can't do with with observations alone.
Obvously revelation mystical insight diviniation and sentiment are crocs of shit - but most scientists would accept most of the other things listed here as aids to bring observations to coherence.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by attofishpi »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:11 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:35 am
But real-life choices are almost never restricted to only two alternatives. When deciding which direction to go there are an infinite number of possible directions I can choose, and I am aware of them all and must make my choice from them all. If I had tp stand there and choose one at a time, "shall I go 1 degree north, or some other direction, or shall I go 2 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go 3 degrees north or another direction, or shall I go .... ad infinitum, I'd never make a choice.

Human conscious choice is not at all like a computer decision tree.
See that is the failing of human decision making - thinking their decisions are NOT always binary. Sure, you may have a myriad of choices, but the ultimate choice you make will ALWAYS be binary.
Between what two things?
It's obvious, and I'm pretty sure we already had this conversation. Ultimately, after a myriad of choices you will decide YES or NO to one particular choice.

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:11 pmDo you know what an analog computer is? They make choices that are analog, not binary. It was an analog computer that produced the first "strange attractor," an algorithm (describing weather), which involved many variables from which binary determination is not possible. Human minds are not digital computers. They are like all analog phenomena, non-binary with multiple variables and no specific state.
Do you know that your WIFI uses an analog carrier signal (electromagnetic wave) to transmit digital data! Relevance to the point moot!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Iwannaplato »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:08 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:20 pm It seems, then, that your post, for us in any case, is not knowledge.
I don't know who, "us," is. You are right, the post is not for whoever they are supposed to be.

The post is only for the less than one percent of human beings who can understand it.
did you really not understand. You were speaking about direct access to experience (via the senses) in your post, that that is the only way to knowledge. But your post, while yes, sensed by readers, refers to truths about reality that cannot be verified by reading the post. The post is extremely abstract, making statements, but not increasing direct experience of reality in a way to support those claims.

'Us' refers to the readers of your post.
It doesn't seem to me that only 1 % can understand your post. I think the percentage would be much larger. However they might not agree, and might even use your own post's being positions as knowledge as an example.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).
Actually that is ONLY where knowledge starts.
That's right. Stopping there is what is wrong empiricism and why I was careful to say, "based on," evidence, because it is reasoning about the evidence that produces knowledge. The danger is all those sophists and philosophers who base their knowledge on anything other than evidence resulting in mysticism and superstition.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
Obviously with this list - if that is all you have, then you cannot bring about any knowledge. But knoweldge that is useful has to include some of these things to arrive at truth, you can't do with with observations alone.
Obvously revelation mystical insight diviniation and sentiment are crocs of shit - but most scientists would accept most of the other things listed here as aids to bring observations to coherence.
You are right that some scientists do accept some other things, besides evidence, as the basis for their reasoning which is why so much that goes by the name, "science," today is nonsense.

Out of curiosity, which of those things in my list do you think are valid sources of reason?
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by trokanmariel »

I believe that a knowledge of daylight can be constructed, from the premise that daylight is a yin-yang system. It exists over land, but disappears unlike land, and yet is on top.

By being on top, as a disappearing symmetrical, daylight is hypocritical.
Post Reply