the practical definition of knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:34 am Whichever scientist[s] defined their reality, it must ultimately comply with the requirements of the scientific FSK thus ensure consistency.

In your case, you are relying on your own personal FSK and not the current scientific FSK.
That is an appeal to authority.

Who determines the requirements of the FSK and how?

Who determines compliance?
Going back in circle again!

The scientific FSK is already established.
Any paper which qualify as scientific and published in a reputable scientific journal would have complied with the necessary requirements of the current scientific FSK else it would have been rejected by the recognized peers.
Some papers may have got through due to cheating but they will sooner or later be discovered as fake.
Some will be abandoned when new found evidences that prove otherwise - note this is a case of the old scientific reality replaced by a new scientific reality [as defined].
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:49 am Going back in circle again!

The scientific FSK is already established.
Yeah! And so what? That's a status quo bias.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:49 am Any paper which qualify as scientific and published in a reputable scientific journal would have complied with the necessary requirements of the current scientific FSK else it would have been rejected by the recognized peers.
Some papers may have got through due to cheating but they will sooner or later be discovered as fake.
Some will be abandoned when new found evidences that prove otherwise - note this is a case of the old scientific reality replaced by a new scientific reality [as defined].
Are you stupid. Probably...

Because I already asked you this question...

If a new FSK arrives on the scene tomorrow. What framework would you use to determine whether the scientific FSK or the new FS is more credible and reputable?

Which FSK determines whether the old definition of reality is better than the new definition of reality and (most importantly) HOW and WHY?!?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 am Why are you so stupid?
Don't scientists start with a hypothesis and starts polishing it with tests till there is agreement by consensus.
You must be talking to yourself, moron.

What do scientists test AGAINST?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 am You are asking the wrong question.
At present scientists already had established the definition of the reality of what is blue.
OK! And what did they test that definition AGAINST?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 am The first thing to do is to recognize all the things that are acknowledge as 'blue' as how it is already done at present.
Then determine the wavelength range of this so-called color 'blue'.
To test you can do that by observation by comparing by what is classified as blue.
THIS DEFINITION OF BLUE
If you are not happy with it, then measure the wavelength of the above and match it with the standard wavelength that is blue.
And what do scientists test wavelengths AGAINST?
You are the real moron.

How can you be so ignorant, note;

hypothesis
For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. (Image credit: Sergey Nivens | Shutterstock)
A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded. A hypothesis also includes an explanation of why the guess may be correct, according to National Science Teachers Association.

Hypothesis basics
A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, and then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.
https://www.livescience.com/21490-what- ... hesis.html
As usual I have to provide an education to you and wasted a lot of my time.
That was why I hesitated to respond earlier.
It was bad luck I started.

Suggest you go back to school on your own.
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:55 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 am Why are you so stupid?
Don't scientists start with a hypothesis and starts polishing it with tests till there is agreement by consensus.
You must be talking to yourself, moron.

What do scientists test AGAINST?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 am You are asking the wrong question.
At present scientists already had established the definition of the reality of what is blue.
OK! And what did they test that definition AGAINST?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 am The first thing to do is to recognize all the things that are acknowledge as 'blue' as how it is already done at present.
Then determine the wavelength range of this so-called color 'blue'.
To test you can do that by observation by comparing by what is classified as blue.
THIS DEFINITION OF BLUE
If you are not happy with it, then measure the wavelength of the above and match it with the standard wavelength that is blue.
And what do scientists test wavelengths AGAINST?
You are the real moron.

How can you be so ignorant, note;

hypothesis
For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. (Image credit: Sergey Nivens | Shutterstock)
A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded. A hypothesis also includes an explanation of why the guess may be correct, according to National Science Teachers Association.

Hypothesis basics
A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, and then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.
https://www.livescience.com/21490-what- ... hesis.html
As usual I have to provide an education to you and wasted a lot of my time.
That was why I hesitated to respond earlier.
It was bad luck I started.

Suggest you go back to school on your own.
Dumb Philosopher.

What is that which scientists observe?
What is that which scientists define?
What is that which scientists hypothesise ABOUT?
What is that which scientists perform experiments AGAINST?
What is that which scientists make predictions ABOUT?
What is that which scientists create knowledge ABOUT?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 7964
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:55 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:47 am
You must be talking to yourself, moron.

What do scientists test AGAINST?



OK! And what did they test that definition AGAINST?


And what do scientists test wavelengths AGAINST?
You are the real moron.

How can you be so ignorant, note;

hypothesis
For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. (Image credit: Sergey Nivens | Shutterstock)
A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded. A hypothesis also includes an explanation of why the guess may be correct, according to National Science Teachers Association.

Hypothesis basics
A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, an idea that was advanced in the mid-20th century a British philosopher named Karl Popper, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, and then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.
https://www.livescience.com/21490-what- ... hesis.html
As usual I have to provide an education to you and wasted a lot of my time.
That was why I hesitated to respond earlier.
It was bad luck I started.

Suggest you go back to school on your own.
Dumb Philosopher.

What is that which scientists observe?
What is that which scientists define?
What is that which scientists hypothesise ABOUT?
What is that which scientists perform experiments AGAINST?
What is that which scientists make predictions ABOUT?
What is that which scientists create knowledge ABOUT?
What is THAT you are asking about?

All the questions you raised I have provided answer[s] which you rely on as a base to ask further questions.
Just as I had provided the answers to your continuous questions upon my answers, you could have answered them yourself if you have the necessary depth and width of knowledge and put in some effort to research and read up.
There is still a long way with more questions and answers, but there is no final nor absolute answer.

It is a good trait to keep asking Why, What, When, Where and How like a small child pestering his parent or other elders, teachers, tutors or the more knowledgeable.
But you are not a child anymore and I am not your personal tutor, so you must take the responsibility upon yourself to seek your own answers, after all the questions you raised are not that difficult.

From the responses that wasted a lot of my time, you are lazy, dumb and ignorant.
Skepdick
Posts: 9153
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:56 am What is THAT you are asking about?
So you do acknowledge THAT it exists?

I have absolutely no preferences on what we call it.


Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:56 am All the questions you raised I have provided answer[s] which you rely on as a base to ask further questions.
Just as I had provided the answers to your continuous questions upon my answers, you could have answered them yourself if you have the necessary depth and width of knowledge and put in some effort to research and read up.
There is still a long way with more questions and answers, but there is no final nor absolute answer.
I didn't want my answers. I wanted yours.

That's why I asked you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:56 am It is a good trait to keep asking Why, What, When, Where and How like a small child pestering his parent or other elders, teachers, tutors or the more knowledgeable.
But you are not a child anymore and I am not your personal tutor, so you must take the responsibility upon yourself to seek your own answers, after all the questions you raised are not that difficult.
Nobody said they are difficult. I am just curious what an anti-realist studies, describes and hypothesises about.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4724
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:17 pm An abstract noun, such as 'knowledge', looks like the name of some thing - a so-called abstract thing. But what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Is an abstract thing like a real thing - only different? (The delusion runs deep and strong in philosophy.)

Pending evidence for the existence of so-called abstract things, a claim beginning 'knowledge is...' can't be a description of a thing of some kind that exists somewhere, somehow - a thing that can be described. And a definition of a thing is merely a description.

Epistemology is and has always been a complete - if idly entertaining - waste of time. We just use the word 'knowledge' and its cognates, and related words, such as 'ignorance, in perfectly explicable ways. There's nothing mysterious about our linguistic practices.
Well, you have certainly proved you don't have any knowledge.
puto
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:44 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by puto »

Philosophy Now Magazine has an overabundance of knowledge. Enough said.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5304
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Sculptor »

Knowledge is a narrative about what is the case in a form assessible to the human consciousness and within parameters of human interest.
Advocate
Posts: 2848
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Sculptor post_id=555288 time=1642172542 user_id=17400]
Knowledge is a narrative about [i]what is the case[/i] in a form assessible to the human consciousness and within parameters of human interest.
[/quote]

ie justified belief
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5304
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:02 pm Knowledge is a narrative about what is the case in a form assessible to the human consciousness and within parameters of human interest.
ie justified belief
No
Knowledge is the antithesis of belief.
Any moron can justify a false belief. This does not make it knoweldge.
Advocate
Posts: 2848
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Sculptor post_id=555401 time=1642201393 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=555390 time=1642193844 user_id=15238]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=555288 time=1642172542 user_id=17400]
Knowledge is a narrative about [i]what is the case[/i] in a form assessible to the human consciousness and within parameters of human interest.
[/quote]

ie justified belief
[/quote]

No
Knowledge is the antithesis of belief.
Any moron can justify a false belief. This does not make it knoweldge.
[/quote]

Belief is of two kinds, justified (knowledge) and unjustified (faith). The ultimate truth or falsity of the belief is a separate question that depends on particular evidence in a particular use-case.
popeye1945
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by popeye1945 »

Knowledge is what your biology tells you it is. One's experience at times may not agree with physical reality but, knowledge is true to the biology that experiences it. Alter the biology and you alter the experience of apparent reality. Each individual, each different species experiences apparent reality somewhat differently due to their different biological states.
trokanmariel
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by trokanmariel »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:24 am
Advocate wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:20 pm Knowledge is justified salience.
To define knowledge is knowledge as knowledge is definition. One cannot know except through limits, limits allow for definition. Definition, as limits, is both "what is", through the limit containing the phenomenon, and "what is not", through the limit excluding phenomena.
I did a supernatural citation, during reading your answer. The supernatural citation was the original assertion version, of your commentary, that limitation is definition.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Iwannaplato »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:03 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:02 pm Knowledge is a narrative about what is the case in a form assessible to the human consciousness and within parameters of human interest.
ie justified belief
No
Knowledge is the antithesis of belief.
Any moron can justify a false belief. This does not make it knoweldge.
Any moron can also make a narrative about what is the case in a form accessible....etc. In philosophy, generally, belief does not mean what it means outside of philosophy. It simply means something one believes, correctly or incorrectly, based on solid justification or lacking that. Usually it is JTB, justifed true belief. Or a rigorously justified belief. Or the best justified belief at this time.
Post Reply