the practical definition of knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:18 am I have stated scientific truths are at best "polished conjectures" thus with the nearest conformance to reality, not 100% conformance to reality.
The more adjectives you keep adding, the deeper hole you keep digging for yourself.

Not only can you NOT answer the question "What determines conformance?"
But now you also can't answer the question "What determines near conformance vs non-near conformance?"
As I had stated you are too dogmatic, rigid and suffer from confirmation bias to your ignorance.

Where did I mention "non-near conformance?"
In science there is no question of a 100% conformance to scientific reality.

Science often specify its reality, e.g. what is real dog.
Whatever thing conform to its definition of a real dog is a real dog.
But no particular real dog will be a near [never a perfect] conformance to the scientific definition of a real dog.
The above principles apply to all aspects of science.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:11 am As I had stated you are too dogmatic, rigid and suffer from confirmation bias to your ignorance.

Science often specify its reality, e.g. what is real dog.
Whatever things conform to its definition of a real dog is a real dog.
But no particular real dog will be a near [never a perfect] conformance to the scientific definition of a real dog.
The above principles apply to all aspects of science.
So Truth is conformance to definition; and NOT conformance to reality?

Make up your mind.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:01 am Your thinking is too dogmatic.

I believe reality is not independent of human conditions but rather in a way interdependent with humans.

"You believe that some claims conform. Such as: THIS COLOR IS BLUE."
Yes!
THIS COLOR IS BLUE because the majority of humans believe and has justified it according to the scientific FSK of the fact
THIS COLOR IS BLUE.

Such human interdependent realism is useful to detect people with color-blindness and for other useful purposes.

To claim such,
THIS COLOR IS BLUE,
is merely stupidity relative our current understand and agreement of what is reality and it could cause fatalities as well.
This has nothing to do with color-blindness.

I can see THIS COLOR; and I can see THIS COLOR. I just define them differently to you.

So now you have to explain to us why science's definitions are better than my own.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:11 am As I had stated you are too dogmatic, rigid and suffer from confirmation bias to your ignorance.

Science often specify its reality, e.g. what is real dog.
Whatever things conform to its definition of a real dog is a real dog.
But no particular real dog will be a near [never a perfect] conformance to the scientific definition of a real dog.
The above principles apply to all aspects of science.
So Truth is conformance to definition; and NOT conformance to reality?

Make up your mind.
Note you missed this point I posted earlier,
I stated Scientific Truths are generated from within the Scientific FSK with its agreed Constitution.
In its constitution, it will define what its 'truths' and what 'reality' meant which is not the same as the philosophical ones you listed above.
So it is conformance to its definition of reality.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:17 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:11 am As I had stated you are too dogmatic, rigid and suffer from confirmation bias to your ignorance.

Science often specify its reality, e.g. what is real dog.
Whatever things conform to its definition of a real dog is a real dog.
But no particular real dog will be a near [never a perfect] conformance to the scientific definition of a real dog.
The above principles apply to all aspects of science.
So Truth is conformance to definition; and NOT conformance to reality?

Make up your mind.
Note you missed this point I posted earlier,
I stated Scientific Truths are generated from within the Scientific FSK with its agreed Constitution.
In its constitution, it will define what its 'truths' and what 'reality' meant which is not the same as the philosophical ones you listed above.
So it is conformance to its definition of reality.
How could I have missed your point when I am asking you precisely the right question?

You said that Truth is conformance to reality.
Now you are saying that Truth is conformance to a DEFINITION of reality.

Do definitions of reality correspond to anything?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:01 am Your thinking is too dogmatic.

I believe reality is not independent of human conditions but rather in a way interdependent with humans.

"You believe that some claims conform. Such as: THIS COLOR IS BLUE."
Yes!
THIS COLOR IS BLUE because the majority of humans believe and has justified it according to the scientific FSK of the fact
THIS COLOR IS BLUE.

Such human interdependent realism is useful to detect people with color-blindness and for other useful purposes.

To claim such,
THIS COLOR IS BLUE,
is merely stupidity relative our current understand and agreement of what is reality and it could cause fatalities as well.
This has nothing to do with color-blindness.

I can see THIS COLOR; and I can see THIS COLOR. I just define them differently to you.

So now you have to explain to us why science's definitions are better than my own.
You don't seem to get it.

What you are trying to show is 'your way' based on your own FSK instead of the existing credible Scientific FSK.

It is the same with creationists who observe the Universe and define how the universe originate, i.e. from a God.

At least there are billions of people who agree with the creationists on their claim of the origin of the Universe from a God.

In your case, I am sure there's no one else in this world who will agree with you other than yourself.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:24 am You don't seem to get it.

What you are trying to show is 'your way' based on your own FSK instead of the existing credible Scientific FSK.
But I do get it.

Which is why I am asking you PRECISELY the question: What makes one definition better and more credible than another definition?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:24 am It is the same with creationists who observe the Universe and define how the universe originate, i.e. from a God.

At least there are billions of people who agree with the creationists on their claim of the origin of the Universe from a God.

In your case, I am sure there's no one else in this world who will agree with you other than yourself.
You are the same as the scientists who observe the Universe and define how the universe originates i.e from The Big Bang.

There are also billions of people who agree with the scientists on their claim of the origin of the Universe from The Big Bang.

I don't think how many people agree with anyone has ever been a credible measure of truth.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:19 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:17 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:15 am
So Truth is conformance to definition; and NOT conformance to reality?

Make up your mind.
Note you missed this point I posted earlier,
I stated Scientific Truths are generated from within the Scientific FSK with its agreed Constitution.
In its constitution, it will define what its 'truths' and what 'reality' meant which is not the same as the philosophical ones you listed above.
So it is conformance to its definition of reality.
How could I have missed your point when I am asking you precisely the right question?

You said that Truth is conformance to reality.
Now you are saying that Truth is conformance to a DEFINITION of reality.

Do definitions of reality correspond to anything?
As I had claim, I am not into Philosophical Realism, so I don't believe in any pre-existing reality that is independent of the human conditions and awaiting correspondence with truths.

As with the above, in the case of Science it has to define or assume its own reality, how else?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:28 am As I had claim, I am not into Philosophical Realism, so I don't believe in any pre-existing reality that is independent of the human conditions and awaiting correspondence with truths.

As with the above, in the case of Science it has to define or assume its own reality, how else?
I understand all of that. Please re-read my question. Try to understand my question.

Scientists can and do define/assume their own reality. When they believe in one particular scientific theory - they "exist" in a different reality from somebody who believes a different theory.

WHY is any particular definition of reality better; or worse than any other definition of reality?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:24 am You don't seem to get it.

What you are trying to show is 'your way' based on your own FSK instead of the existing credible Scientific FSK.

It is the same with creationists who observe the Universe and define how the universe originate, i.e. from a God.

At least there are billions of people who agree with the creationists on their claim of the origin of the Universe from a God.

In your case, I am sure there's no one else in this world who will agree with you other than yourself.
But I do get it.

Which is why I am asking you PRECISELY the question: What makes one definition better and more credible than another definition?

You are the same as the scientists who observe the Universe and define how the universe originates i.e from The Big Bang.
There you go again.
Science first hypothesize a definition of reality and reinforce with repeated tests in ensure its conformance to its defined reality.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:31 am There you go again.
Science first hypothesize a definition of reality and reinforce with repeated tests in ensure its conformance to its defined reality.
So scientists perform tests to ensure that their definition of reality conforms to itself?!?!

What the fuck are you smoking?

How do I test whether THIS DEFINITION OF BLUE conforms to itself?
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:28 am As I had claim, I am not into Philosophical Realism, so I don't believe in any pre-existing reality that is independent of the human conditions and awaiting correspondence with truths.

As with the above, in the case of Science it has to define or assume its own reality, how else?
I understand all of that. Please re-read my question. Try to understand my question.

Scientists can and do define/assume their own reality. When they believe in one particular scientific theory - they "exist" in a different reality from somebody who believes a different theory.

WHY is any particular definition of reality better; or worse than any other definition of reality?
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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:34 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?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:31 am There you go again.
Science first hypothesize a definition of reality and reinforce with repeated tests in ensure its conformance to its defined reality.
So scientists perform tests to ensure that their definition of reality conforms to itself?!?!

What the fuck are you smoking?

How do I test whether THIS DEFINITION OF BLUE conforms to itself?
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 are asking the wrong question.
At present scientists already had established the definition of the reality of what is blue.
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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the practical definition of knowledge

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:42 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?
Post Reply