True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm They are different choices.
They are neither different nor choices.

Choosing not to choose changes nothing.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm Choosing to do nothing removes a choice from consideration.
Waiting is the choice to suspend the decision temporarily, or putting it aside for further consideration, with no overt action.
You can consider opening your parachute right till the moment you hit the ground.
You can wait opening your parachute right till the moment you hit the ground.
You can do nothing towards opening your parachute right till the moment you hit the ground.

Consideration, waiting and doing nothing are not choosing to open your parachute.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm I have no idea what you are talking about. If a choice is not a conscious choice, it is not a choice at all, just a meaningless physical event. Many choices to not result in any overt physical action, like the choice to, "think it over."
If nothing changes - it's not a choice.

If your hand jerks unconsciously (in a panic) and you open the parachute - you've made a choice.

Meaning is a property of language. It's how language relates to the word. A choice is an action that changes something. No change - no choice.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm Well, of course! So long as they are not thought of as, "inputs," to some formula or algorithm.
You are the algorithm. You are evaluating the options/arguments before you choose to act.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm The, "inputs," are all of the myriad things one is conscious of at the moment the choice is made.
Sure. If you even make choice. You can be conscious of the entire universe and do nothing to change it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Zarathustra »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:08 pm
Just reading or hearing something does not provide you anything until you have analyzed it, understood it, and made the judgement that it is either cogent and true or absurd nonsense. Russell never made the connection between the necessity of conscious intentional choice in learning. Learning does not happen automatically, it requires conscious intentional effort and mental assent. So much for Russell.
Analysing, understanding and judging for cogent and true is a prerequisite process for all knowledge possessing processes. Of course, the hearer or reader will do that for the knowledge coming in via hearing or reading. You didn't imagine that it is just a matter of hearing and reading with empty minded manner did you?

Russell says that you read the news that King is dead in the newspaper. You wouldn't blindly take it as a true knowledge, but you will make the argument that the information is from the national newspaper, and the king is old and was suffering from a terminal illness, and with the analysis, reasoning and judgement, you will have the knowledge as truth.

From readings, if you read that Vitamin C is good for your health especially for immunity from catching cold. You would take that as a true knowledge even if you read it, because it is one of the trusted health medical websites, and written by a famous health researcher or doctor, and it is a reasonable statement for being true because it also resonates with your intuition for being true.

You would not take it as a true knowledge, if it were saying that Vitamin C will make you live till 200 years old. Because you just know that no one has lived that long etc. You are not going to take something as true knowledge unless you have gone through the process of analysis, understanding and judging from your experience, common sense and intuition.

That process is prerequisite in human understanding, but you just tried to make it look as if it does not exist, because it is from readings and hearings.
What books of Russell have you read? But Russell's claims in epistemology are not that simple and crazy. He always offers a detailed explanation why he is saying something.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Zarathustra wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:15 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:08 pm
Just reading or hearing something does not provide you anything until you have analyzed it, understood it, and made the judgement that it is either cogent and true or absurd nonsense. Russell never made the connection between the necessity of conscious intentional choice in learning. Learning does not happen automatically, it requires conscious intentional effort and mental assent. So much for Russell.
Analysing, understanding and judging for cogent and true is a prerequisite process for all knowledge possessing processes. Of course, the hearer or reader will do that for the knowledge coming in via hearing or reading. You didn't imagine that it is just a matter of hearing and reading with empty minded manner did you?

Russell says that you read the news that King is dead in the newspaper. You wouldn't blindly take it as a true knowledge, but you will make the argument that the information is from the national newspaper, and the king is old and was suffering from a terminal illness, and with the analysis, reasoning and judgement, you will have the knowledge as truth.

From readings, if you read that Vitamin C is good for your health especially for immunity from catching cold. You would take that as a true knowledge even if you read it, because it is one of the trusted health medical websites, and written by a famous health researcher or doctor, and it is a reasonable statement for being true because it also resonates with your intuition for being true.

You would not take it as a true knowledge, if it were saying that Vitamin C will make you live till 200 years old. Because you just know that no one has lived that long etc. You are not going to take something as true knowledge unless you have gone through the process of analysis, understanding and judging from your experience, common sense and intuition.

That process is prerequisite in human understanding, but you just tried to make it look as if it does not exist, because it is from readings and hearings.
What books of Russell have you read? But Russell's claims in epistemology are not that simple and crazy. He always offers a detailed explanation why he is saying something.
If you are interested in discussing your own ideas so am I. If all your going to do is spout what some other philosospher wrote, (or a poor attempt at explaining it), which I'm perfectly familiar with, there is no point in going on. Impress me and tell me something you've thought for yourself.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm I have no idea what you are talking about. If a choice is not a conscious choice, it is not a choice at all, just a meaningless physical event. Many choices to not result in any overt physical action, like the choice to, "think it over."
If nothing changes - it's not a choice.
Every thought changes one conscious state, and every conscious decision changes changes one's conscious attitude requiring no overt physical change.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:56 pm If your hand jerks unconsciously (in a panic) and you open the parachute - you've made a choice.
No. That is a reflex action, not a choice. Choice only pertains to conscious behavior. The biological functions, autonomic nervous system, and relfexes are purely physical unchosen behavior.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:23 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:49 pm I have no idea what you are talking about. If a choice is not a conscious choice, it is not a choice at all, just a meaningless physical event. Many choices to not result in any overt physical action, like the choice to, "think it over."
If nothing changes - it's not a choice.
Every thought changes one conscious state, and every conscious decision changes changes one's conscious attitude requiring no overt physical change.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:56 pm If your hand jerks unconsciously (in a panic) and you open the parachute - you've made a choice.
No. That is a reflex action, not a choice. Choice only pertains to conscious behavior. The biological functions, autonomic nervous system, and relfexes are purely physical unchosen behavior.
Consequences don't care about semantics.
User avatar
Zarathustra
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Zarathustra »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:13 pm
If you are interested in discussing your own ideas so am I. If all your going to do is spout what some other philosospher wrote, (or a poor attempt at explaining it), which I'm perfectly familiar with, there is no point in going on. Impress me and tell me something you've thought for yourself.
I was only trying to supplement with Russell's explanation, because you said you don't understand anything.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Zarathustra wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:10 pm ... you said you don't understand anything.
I never said that. If you think I did, please provide a link.
User avatar
Zarathustra
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Zarathustra »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:10 pm
Zarathustra wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:39 am If you hear about something X or read about X from the media or someone telling you about it, so you know about it. In this case is it knowledge or belief?
I'm sorry, I do not know what you are asking. Just being aware of something is not knowledge. The, "news," is full of lies and fictions, and one can call the fact the news says something, if it does, knowledge, only in the sense that one knows it was said. If one believes what is said, on no other basis then that it was said, that is not knowledge. It is credulity or gullibility like any superstition.
That was your reply.
User avatar
Zarathustra
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Zarathustra »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:03 pm
Zarathustra wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:02 pm Could this be in line with Logical Positivism's claim on the account of knowledge?
I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean, not that it makes any difference. It doesn't really matter. So called logical positivism completely destroyed epistemology and philosophy has never recovered from that corruption. After Hume and Kant, Russell and Wittgenstein have to have been the worst of philosophers.
Another post
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Zarathustra wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:22 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:03 pm
Zarathustra wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:02 pm Could this be in line with Logical Positivism's claim on the account of knowledge?
I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean, not that it makes any difference. It doesn't really matter. So called logical positivism completely destroyed epistemology and philosophy has never recovered from that corruption. After Hume and Kant, Russell and Wittgenstein have to have been the worst of philosophers.
Another post
I did not see in either of your posts that I said, "I do not understand anything."

I did not say I did not understand what Russell taught. I said I did not understand whatever point you were trying to make, if you were trying to make one. I still do not know exactly what point you are trying to make. You seem to be arguing that knowledge can be acquired by simply accepting what is taught by some authority or expert on the authority's testimony alone.

From your example:
From readings, if you read that Vitamin C is good for your health especially for immunity from catching cold. You would take that as a true knowledge even if you read it, because it is one of the trusted health medical websites, and written by a famous health researcher or doctor, and it is a reasonable statement for being true because it also resonates with your intuition for being true.
That is exactly what is not knowledge. No matter how, "trusted," (by whom?) a medical website is, no matter how famous a researcher or doctor is, if you simply believe what they say because of their, "authority," it is just plain credulity. It's how all quackery is put over.

You have apparently already been taken in. Vitamin C does not provide any immunity from anything. You need to do a little research on Pasteur to learn what medical immunity means.

...and, "intuition," is just another term for, "baseless belief," or, "superstition," based on feeling or, "it just seems right." The religious call it, "faith."
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Vitruvius »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:07 pmThat is exactly what is not knowledge. No matter how, "trusted," (by whom?) a medical website is, no matter how famous a researcher or doctor is, if you simply believe what they say because of their, "authority," it is just plain credulity. It's how all quackery is put over. ...and, "intuition," is just another term for, "baseless belief," or, "superstition," based on feeling or, "it just seems right." The religious call it, "faith."
You say that here - but on my thread, you say you don't believe in climate change - and dismiss the knowledge of experts based on nothing more than paranoid intuition. In reality, we cannot all establish "true knowledge" of everything. Depth of knowledge requires professional specialisation; and the rest of us - have no choice but to listen experts who know more than we do. Deriding this as faith is unsound, because, in a whole range of areas, there is no choice but to rely on expert knowledge; from climate change, to vaccination, to how to bake a cake. Just because you are ignorant, does not mean that knowledge doesn't exist, or is unsound.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:07 pmThat is exactly what is not knowledge. No matter how, "trusted," (by whom?) a medical website is, no matter how famous a researcher or doctor is, if you simply believe what they say because of their, "authority," it is just plain credulity. It's how all quackery is put over. ...and, "intuition," is just another term for, "baseless belief," or, "superstition," based on feeling or, "it just seems right." The religious call it, "faith."
You say that here - but on my thread, you say you don't believe in climate change - and dismiss the knowledge of experts
How do you know they are experts? If you are not intelligent enough to judge what they claim using your own reason, what method are you using to determine which experts to listen to?
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am In reality, we cannot all establish "true knowledge" of everything.
That's why one most always continue to study and learn all he possibly can about as many things as he possibly can. You can certainly learn all you need to know about anything you must know to live your own life successfully. If there is something you are ignorant of, study the subject until you do know and understand it, but never just accept something as true without understanding why or how it is true on anyone else's say so. It it better to remain ignorant than to fill the gaps in one's knowledge with what is not true.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am Depth of knowledge requires professional specialisation;
That's what all academics and politicians would like you to believe. There are fields that require specialized knowledge and if you are interested in one of those fields you can certainly learn that knowledge, but most of the things one needs to know in life, anyone can learn if they are willing to make the effort. It's very hard to learn some things, and most people will not make the effort, and will live their lives in ignorance believing whatever their teachers and authorities teach them.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am ... and the rest of us - have no choice but to listen experts who know more than we do. Deriding this as faith is unsound, because, in a whole range of areas, there is no choice but to rely on expert knowledge;
Speak for yourself. I've known hundreds of polymaths and many of them have worked for me over the years, and there was almost nothing they could not learn. One thing I learned form them was that ignorance is not something foisted on anyone, and that anyone willing to make the effort could learn anything they really chose to. Most are unwilling to do that hard work, however, or any other kind of hard work, and suffer the consequences.

The Only Path To Success And Happiness—Knowledge And Work
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Vitruvius »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:07 pmThat is exactly what is not knowledge. No matter how, "trusted," (by whom?) a medical website is, no matter how famous a researcher or doctor is, if you simply believe what they say because of their, "authority," it is just plain credulity. It's how all quackery is put over. ...and, "intuition," is just another term for, "baseless belief," or, "superstition," based on feeling or, "it just seems right." The religious call it, "faith."
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 amYou say that here - but on my thread, you say you don't believe in climate change - and dismiss the knowledge of experts
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 amHow do you know they are experts? If you are not intelligent enough to judge what they claim using your own reason, what method are you using to determine which experts to listen to?

Peer review.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am In reality, we cannot all establish "true knowledge" of everything.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 am That's why one most always continue to study and learn all he possibly can about as many things as he possibly can. You can certainly learn all you need to know about anything you must know to live your own life successfully. If there is something you are ignorant of, study the subject until you do know and understand it, but never just accept something as true without understanding why or how it is true on anyone else's say so. It it better to remain ignorant than to fill the gaps in one's knowledge with what is not true.

So, rather than go to the doctor when I'm ill - I should study medicine? Rather than take my car to a mechanic, I should study mechanics? And what if have no aptitude for medicine or mechanics, but I'm great at designing buildings? There's a thing called the division of labour. It's an important feature of any successful civilisation that people specialise - and then trade their expertise. Otherwise, Christopher Wren would be busy doing his washing and cutting his own hair when he should be building a church.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am Depth of knowledge requires professional specialisation;
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 amThat's what all academics and politicians would like you to believe. There are fields that require specialized knowledge and if you are interested in one of those fields you can certainly learn that knowledge, but most of the things one needs to know in life, anyone can learn if they are willing to make the effort. It's very hard to learn some things, and most people will not make the effort, and will live their lives in ignorance believing whatever their teachers and authorities teach them.

I'm not interested in learning how to surgeon my own brain, or fix my own car - even if I were capable, that would take time and effort I'd rather pour into my particular profession, then trade my skills for those I don't have.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 amSpeak for yourself. I've known hundreds of polymaths and many of them have worked for me over the years, and there was almost nothing they could not learn. One thing I learned form them was that ignorance is not something foisted on anyone, and that anyone willing to make the effort could learn anything they really chose to. Most are unwilling to do that hard work, however, or any other kind of hard work, and suffer the consequences.
Did they all knit their own clothes? If not, then you must admit we have to depend on expert knowledge, and so your "jack of all trades" epistemic absolutism is incorrect.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:16 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:07 pmThat is exactly what is not knowledge. No matter how, "trusted," (by whom?) a medical website is, no matter how famous a researcher or doctor is, if you simply believe what they say because of their, "authority," it is just plain credulity. It's how all quackery is put over. ...and, "intuition," is just another term for, "baseless belief," or, "superstition," based on feeling or, "it just seems right." The religious call it, "faith."
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 amYou say that here - but on my thread, you say you don't believe in climate change - and dismiss the knowledge of experts
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 amHow do you know they are experts? If you are not intelligent enough to judge what they claim using your own reason, what method are you using to determine which experts to listen to?

Peer review.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am In reality, we cannot all establish "true knowledge" of everything.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 am That's why one most always continue to study and learn all he possibly can about as many things as he possibly can. You can certainly learn all you need to know about anything you must know to live your own life successfully. If there is something you are ignorant of, study the subject until you do know and understand it, but never just accept something as true without understanding why or how it is true on anyone else's say so. It it better to remain ignorant than to fill the gaps in one's knowledge with what is not true.

So, rather than go to the doctor when I'm ill - I should study medicine? Rather than take my car to a mechanic, I should study mechanics? And what if have no aptitude for medicine or mechanics, but I'm great at designing buildings? There's a thing called the division of labour. It's an important feature of any successful civilisation that people specialise - and then trade their expertise. Otherwise, Christopher Wren would be busy doing his washing and cutting his own hair when he should be building a church.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:14 am Depth of knowledge requires professional specialisation;
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 amThat's what all academics and politicians would like you to believe. There are fields that require specialized knowledge and if you are interested in one of those fields you can certainly learn that knowledge, but most of the things one needs to know in life, anyone can learn if they are willing to make the effort. It's very hard to learn some things, and most people will not make the effort, and will live their lives in ignorance believing whatever their teachers and authorities teach them.
I'm not interested in learning how to surgeon my own brain, or fix my own car - even if I were capable, that would take time and effort I'd rather pour into my particular profession, then trade my skills for those I don't have.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:30 amSpeak for yourself. I've known hundreds of polymaths and many of them have worked for me over the years, and there was almost nothing they could not learn. One thing I learned form them was that ignorance is not something foisted on anyone, and that anyone willing to make the effort could learn anything they really chose to. Most are unwilling to do that hard work, however, or any other kind of hard work, and suffer the consequences.
Did they all knit their own clothes? If not, then you must admit we have to depend on expert knowledge, and so your "jack of all trades" epistemic absolutism is incorrect.
They could have. It was just more practical for them to do what they could do well to produce products those who did knit clothes were eager to exchange the clothes they made for the products those workers made. They weren't, "jacks of all trades," they were masters of what they could and chose to do best.

If you want to let others tell you what to think and what to believe, that's your choice. Just understand that every wrong thing, every superstition, every wrong ideology, every kind of widely embraced political oppression has been put over by the authorities and experts the gullible masses listened to, because they refuse to fulfill the requirement of their own nature to learn all they could, to think for themselves, and to be certain they did not just accept anything without understanding why it is true.

You can go that way too. Most do. What do you care if others aren't willing to surrender their own minds to others.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

Zarathustra wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:39 am If you hear about something X or read about X from the media or someone telling you about it, so you know about it. In this case is it knowledge or belief?
How could it not be belief?
Post Reply