What is the nature of knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by James Markham »

Wleg, I'm not sure I really understand how your definition of knowledge can differ from your definition of information, unless you believe the terms to be interchangeable. Personally I think there is a need to refer to the correct interpretation of information as something, and historically that something has been the word knowledge, and although there is a lot of debate over the precise definition of the term knowledge, there is no argument that it doesn't aspire to refer to the mental possession of something that is actually and definitely true.

It's been suggested that knowledge is justified true belief, but I would go further and say that actual knowledge is a word best reserved for those interpretations of information that are unfalsifiable, such as "I exist", and as I said originally, there are very few statements that fit this criteria.

So as far as I'm concerned, I think what you are defining is simply informative experience, which still can only be classed as belief, demonstrated by the fact you say the interpretation of information can be proved false.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

Sorry, this post was written before I read James' last post
you on the other hand seem to be saying that all interpretations of information are knowledge, but that some is correct where as others are not, is this right?
Yes, our knowledge or state of mind can be realistic or unrealistic.
To say that knowledge is a state of mind and it can be correct or incorrect, realistic or unrealistic, sounds like a definition of belief or opinion to me. Knowledge would usually be characterized as true belief. Belief as a state of mind is common in philosophy and so is knowledge as true belief. I think that belief is a state of mind and occurs as an attitude towards propositions.

I think that defining knowledge as such an attitude toward propositions is under-inclusive, since it doesn't adequately describe knowing how to do something.

As an example, I used to love doing mathematical proofs. It provided many 'aha' moments, as duszek calls it. I used to think maybe the feeling (aha) itself was knowledge - sort of like a state of mind. Until I realized that every once in a while I would have a false 'aha' moment, or solve a problem without that feeling. Just because the feeling accompanied the successful solution of a problem, did not mean that it caused it. So then I thought maybe just being able to state that a theorem was true (James' idea of possessing a true fact) constituted knowledge. But that goes too far the other way, ignoring the difference between those who can do the proof, from those who just take it on faith - the difference between Einstein and my five year old, in the previous example. Of course, one wouldn't have to discover the pythagorean theorem to know it, but I would maintain that one should have to know how to prove it.

So, in searching for a comprehensive definition of knowledge, I would add something to account for knowing how. To put another way, I would add something that would preclude a parrot from having propositional knowledge and would include a pre-linguistic human who was expert in making flint spearheads.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

Sorry James for basically repeating what you said in the first part of my post.

BTW, wleg, there is no hostility here. My questioning your definitions is in the spirit of friendly discussion and I'm sure many/all/some of the problems I may see in it so far may be explained by not fully understanding your position or just irreconcilable worldviews.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Wyman,
So, in searching for a comprehensive definition of knowledge, I would add something to account for knowing how. To put another way, I would add something that would preclude a parrot from having propositional knowledge and would include a pre-linguistic human who was expert in making flint spearheads.
KNOWLEDGE/CONSCIOUSNESS: An abstract concept symbolizing the state of mind when we recognize the attributes which equate to the existence of things and conditions.

I'm thinking this definition does "account for knowing how", by the "process of thought" to recognize/identify the attributes that equate to the existence of things and conditions. Thinking is not necessarily an efficient beneficial behavior (as evidence the 5 pm news); it becomes so when we learn to think rationally/systematically by understanding how knowledge of the existence of things and conditions is constructed.

BTW, i'm not sure the wording of the definition creates the most understanding possible.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote:it becomes so when we learn to think rationally/systematically
No, it requires sufficient cognitive abilities, which about 80% of all people doesn't have, rational thinking isn't something that you can just learn.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Hex,

Those who are schooled in math can then think rationally about matters related with math depending on the amount of schooling and their want to learn. I agree that not everyone has equal mental ability which makes it even more important to school everyone to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote:Hex,

Those who are schooled in math can then think rationally about matters related with math depending on the amount of schooling and their want to learn. I agree that not everyone has equal mental ability which makes it even more important to school everyone to understand the mechanics of rational thinking.
Math is usually liniar logic, not abstract logic and in no way promotes holistic thinking. "Rain Men" are usually good at math, but has no rationallity and can't comprehend abstract things.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Hex,

My post often appear not comprehensive enough when I read someone's reply.

Rational thinking is "most" beneficial in the abstract area to make decisions related to our own behavior.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by thedoc »

"The Nature of Knowledge", Ha! I know what I know, don't confuse me with the facts.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by HexHammer »

wleg wrote:Hex,

My post often appear not comprehensive enough when I read someone's reply.

Rational thinking is "most" beneficial in the abstract area to make decisions related to our own behavior.
Yes, you are stateing the glaring obvious, but that's just general speaking you can't identify what it really is, which was galringly obvious in the PM's we had, you failed continiously.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Hex,

Thanks Pal, from you, that is a generous complement.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

If we can accept that we know we exist, then I would argue its possible to know that we are certain of knowing personal things. One is that we are aware, and the other is that we are aware of something that effects that awareness, so simply put, I believe it's possible to know of our subjective being, and an objective influence, with the result that we have an emotional state of which it's possible to know many things about, I know pain is different from pleasure, I know heat feels different from cold, the list goes on.

When you say 'If we can accept that we know we exist' aren't you really, with Descartes, saying that you know that you think (which very broadly includes thinking, imagining, feeling, sensing; basically all relations between our selves and whatever else there is)? Which means you know that at one time you see a __; now you feel ___; now you dream ____. The 'you' is only known to 'exist' as a part of a relationship. In other words, you know that there is a bundle of consciousness that appears to be divisible into categories or elements- the mind, objective influence and everything in between.

I think this may be what you mean when you say '[...] we are aware [and] we are aware of something that effects that awareness.' But I think it is the existence of this state of awareness (we can probably just call it 'consciousness') that is what we are certain of, not the existence of the self or other categorizations within our world of consciousness.

So, I would perhaps reformulate what you said as 'If we accept that we are conscious (we are percipient beings, in a state of awareness), we may, if we choose, proceed to notice very general distinctions within the class of conscious events, such as 1) very strong impressions that seem to come almost directly from outside our bodies. We will call the cause of these impressions 'objective influence.' On the other hand, we notice 2) conscious events such as dreams and images that seem to arise more from our imaginations and memory, etc.. We will term the cause of such events 'mind.'

In this version, 'mind' or 'self' becomes a concept with everything else (like pain as opposed to pleasure), rather than something that we can claim certainty about, nor attribute special existence to.

At any rate, these are some of my thoughts on it. I'd be glad to hear any response or criticism.
wleg
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by wleg »

Wyman,

Not sure who you are replying to, the quote is not mine.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by Wyman »

That was a reply to James Markam's very first post.
James Markham
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm

Re: What is the nature of knowledge

Post by James Markham »

Wyman, to your first question I would say yes, I'm with Descartes in as far as he determines knowledge to require the firmest of foundations. I struggle to recall how he went from "I think therefore I am", to a knowledge of god, but I remember thinking he's reasoning to be tenuous. Also I'm not sure if he recognised the distinction between what exists as experience and we who exist as an acknowledgement of that experience. Personally I hold the view that they are both equally qualified to credit as things we know exist.

I'm happy to accept your reformulation, but as I've stated in my original post, it still leaves very little information that can credit the definition of knowledge.
Post Reply