solving epistemology

[commonsense]

The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.
The purpose of all certainty is to take action to change the world.

You don't need certainty to act. Only willingness to accept the cost of unforeseen consequences.

You don't skydive because you are certain your parachute will work. You skydive because you accept the risk of it failing.

You can accept the risk without knowledge. That doesn't have anything to do with the purpose of knowledge.

Of course one can say that being without knowledge has nothing to do with being with knowledge. You can put “without knowledge” to rest and return to this thread.

[Skepdick]

We recognize attributes out of that stream of change according to how we want to change it.

The existence of problems perfectly correlates with the desire for things to be different than they are now.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=504026 time=1616597176 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503500 time=1616361612 user_id=15238]
We recognize attributes out of that stream of change according to how we want to change it.
[/quote]
The existence of problems perfectly correlates with the desire for things to be different than they are now.
[/quote]

Wanting things to be different is inherent in existence. Our brains are complex avoid/approach mechanisms. Existence is suffering.

[commonsense]

We recognize attributes out of that stream of change according to how we want to change it.

The existence of problems perfectly correlates with the desire for things to be different than they are now.

Wanting things to be different is inherent in existence. Our brains are complex avoid/approach mechanisms. Existence is suffering.

Wanting things to be different flies in the face of the natural attributality to be abhorrent or in abject fear of the anxiety that accompanies change.

[Terrapin Station]

The desire to attain the object of the purpose is inherent.

In other words, you think that purposes are purposes whether anyone is explicitly thinking them or not? (Or in other words, you buy what is known as teleology?)

It sounds like you're discussing why questions.

???

I'm just curious whether you think that purposes are purposes whether anyone is explicitly thinking them or not.

[Advocate]

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=504401 time=1616781882 user_id=12582]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503500 time=1616361612 user_id=15238]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=503492 time=1616351487 user_id=12582]


In other words, you think that purposes are purposes whether anyone is explicitly thinking them or not? (Or in other words, you buy what is known as teleology?)
[/quote]

It sounds like you're discussing why questions.
[/quote]

???

I'm just curious whether you think that purposes are purposes whether anyone is explicitly thinking them or not.
[/quote]

Intents are dormant. They express under particular conditions. They're a pattern in the brain, a subset of the whole avoid/approach mechanism that is what a brain IS. They exist as a subset of neuronal potentials. I expect i'm misinterpreting the question again.

[Sculptor]

The purpose of all knowledge is to produce certainty.

Off to a shakey start.
Knowledge is not purposeful. It is not volitional so it does not "produce" .People may seek knowledge for a purpose or purposes, even if that is just pleasure.
I'd pick you up on the use of "all" too but since the sentence is odd, I shall not.

The purpose of all certainty is to take action to change the world.

Again with the "all". and NO certainty can be sought for reflection and inaction too.

Actionable certainty is predictive accuracy.

Oh dear!

Predictive accuracy for the future comes from replication in the past; you have reason to expect output Y from input X because it happens that way more often than not.
Logic and science describe how to go from past replication to future prediction.

Do you want mayonaisse with that?

All languages are descriptive of our experience.

No they are not.

Logic describes the relationships between things and how they change relative to various input.
Logical rules are those relationships which hold true 100% of the time.

So not really "our experience". In fact logic is a tool to examine the gaps in our experience.

Science describes that which has been measured.

I think I'll swing on down to the end

Measurement is the process of distinguishing between parts of something larger or more complex.

Knowledge is justified belief.
Justification can be either scientific or logical.
Bayesian reasoning is the framework for understanding how we integrate new information.
Evidence produces more or less certainty according to how well it replicates.
In practice, evidence is weighted differently in every mind according to individual priorities and experience.
There is a heirarchy of kinds of evidence, of which anecdote is the least sufficient and experience itself is most sufficient.
To be externally meaningful ideas must have external validation.

Using these maxims you can solve any problem in epistemology.

Go on then!
How do you know there is dark matter.
SHow me!