True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by FlashDangerpants »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
You didn't "deduce" that lot from empirical observation, so it's really just an expression of your feelings, or a hunch. Leading to the obvious question of how do you know you are right?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:24 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
You didn't "deduce" that lot from empirical observation, so it's really just an expression of your feelings, or a hunch. Leading to the obvious question of how do you know you are right?
Right about what? I'm only describing what I mean by true knowledge. I can't be wrong about what I mean.

You are free to believe anything you like about what true knowledge is. Why don't you write a description of what you mean by true knowledge so everyone will know what you mean when you say something is knowledge. That's all I've done.

Out of curiosity, how would your understanding of what you call, "empirical observation," be different from what I described in the first paragraph.

The second paragraph just points out all those things that do not fit the criteria of the first.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by FlashDangerpants »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 9:44 pm Right about what? I'm only describing what I mean by true knowledge. I can't be wrong about what I mean.
Of course you can't, you know that a priori.... oh, wait .... so I guess you have a superstition about what "true" knowledge is.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Peter Holmes »

1 If (as I think) the expression 'false knowledge' is incoherent, then the expression 'true knowledge' is redundant.

2 In this context, I think it's clearer to use the adjectives 'true' and 'false' with reference only to factual assertions. Knowledge isn't a factual assertion, so it has no truth-value. ('True belief' is a similarly confusing redundancy.)

3 The assumption behind any epistemology is that what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that can, therefore, be described - a claim for which, to my knowledge, there's no evidence.

4 Epistemological foundationalisms - such as empiricism (as promoted in this OP) and rationalism - famously can't establish their own foundations - which is why skepticism is the rational response to them.

5 The solution is to abandon the metaphysical delusion that the abstract noun 'knowledge' is the name of something - and to recognise that all we can do is explain the ways we do or could use the word 'knowledge', its cognates, and related words, such as 'ignorance'.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 6:52 am 1 If (as I think) the expression 'false knowledge' is incoherent, then the expression 'true knowledge' is redundant.

2 In this context, I think it's clearer to use the adjectives 'true' and 'false' with reference only to factual assertions. Knowledge isn't a factual assertion, so it has no truth-value. ('True belief' is a similarly confusing redundancy.)

3 The assumption behind any epistemology is that what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind that can, therefore, be described - a claim for which, to my knowledge, there's no evidence.

4 Epistemological foundationalisms - such as empiricism (as promoted in this OP) and rationalism - famously can't establish their own foundations - which is why skepticism is the rational response to them.

5 The solution is to abandon the metaphysical delusion that the abstract noun 'knowledge' is the name of something - and to recognise that all we can do is explain the ways we do or could use the word 'knowledge', its cognates, and related words, such as 'ignorance'.
"Philosophers," and, "academics," have turned philosophy into a collection of ideologies, like religions with their orthodoxies, especially of how others are supposed to express things. There is no God of Philosophy and no Philosophy Bible.

I could have called it "erzats," "phony," "fake," or "fictional" knowledge to identify all those things that are widely believed but which are not true. There is nothing, "incoherent," about the phrase, "false knowledge." There is nothing wrong in any language to applying a quality term, like, "true," or, "false," to a whole class. Since all knowledge consists of propositions, only propositions which are true are knowledge. Propositions which are not true but accepted as knowledge are, "false knowledge."

Only an academic would make a statement like, "The assumption behind any epistemology is that what we call knowledge is a thing of some kind ..." No honest intellectual inquiry begins with an assumption. One does not assume what something is, and proceed to seek evidence for that assumption. The only premise in science or philosophy is that anything that is must have some nature, some attributes by which it can be understood, whether it is science or philosophy.

Of course knowledge is not a, "thing," if by thing you mean an entity, but knowledge is certainly not, "nothing." Every word one uses and all thought and reasoning pertains to something, epistemology seeks to identify what that pertaining is which we call knowledge.

The first paragraph is not a description of empiricism. It intentionally includes. "as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind)," as necessary to knowledge. It is the one fact of knowledge empiricism evades, the necessity of conscious identification of existents and their nature by means of concepts and propositions. So-called empirical evidence is not knowledge. Every animal has exactly the same empirical evidence as human beings but they have no knowledge from that evidence. (Instinctive reaction to what one is conscious of is not knowledge). Knowledge is not possible without language.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2021 12:01 am Of course you can't, you know that a priori.... oh, wait .... so I guess you have a superstition about what "true" knowledge is.
You seem to know a priori what "true" knowledge ought to be.

You can't be all that bright if you keep throwing stones from your glass house.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by attofishpi »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).
Apart from you 1st word 'only' i tend to agree.

Knowledge is perhaps our brain database - what we can reference back on and analyse. It pisses me off when on game shows like 'The Chase' the host insists the 'chaser' is very intelligent - no - not necessarily - all those dudes do is build up that database - knowledge - by reading and reading stuff, does not necessarily mean, they apply intelligence to any degree more than someone that might drive buses for a living.

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pmNothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
"gullibility"!!!? ...no wonder you don't build on that database, if you do not listen, and learn from someone that is attempting to teach, their knowledge --- even supplying evidence to you - to your majestic senses, you insist you would be gullible to analyse and accept any knowledge from them?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:01 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).
Apart from you 1st word 'only' i tend to agree.

Knowledge is perhaps our brain database - what we can reference back on and analyse. It pisses me off when on game shows like 'The Chase' the host insists the 'chaser' is very intelligent - no - not necessarily - all those dudes do is build up that database - knowledge - by reading and reading stuff, does not necessarily mean, they apply intelligence to any degree more than someone that might drive buses for a living.
"Computer data," is not knowledge!
attofishpi wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:01 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pmNothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knowledge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
"gullibility"!!!? ...no wonder you don't build on that database, if you do not listen, and learn from someone that is attempting to teach, their knowledge --- even supplying evidence to you - to your majestic senses, you insist you would be gullible to analyse and accept any knowledge from them?
I never said anything suggesting we don't learn from others. Most of what we learn is knowledge originally discovered and recorded by others. We just do not live long enough to discover and learn everything as individuals. I guess you missed the word, "solely." What I wrote was:
Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knowledge, it is gullibility.
We only learn from others when we can understand by our own reasoning ability, based on the evidence and explanations presented, why something is true. It is gullibility if one believes what they are taught based on nothing but someone else's say so, authority, or so-called expertise, no matter who or what they are supposed to be. People's gullible belief in authority is how every lying ideology in history has been put over.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by attofishpi »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:44 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:01 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).
Apart from you 1st word 'only' i tend to agree.

Knowledge is perhaps our brain database - what we can reference back on and analyse. It pisses me off when on game shows like 'The Chase' the host insists the 'chaser' is very intelligent - no - not necessarily - all those dudes do is build up that database - knowledge - by reading and reading stuff, does not necessarily mean, they apply intelligence to any degree more than someone that might drive buses for a living.
"Computer data," is not knowledge!
Who said "computer data"?

Oh, because I state 'brain database', you cannot comprehend I am simply talking about the storage (of knowledge) within a BRAIN.

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 9:44 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sat Jul 17, 2021 8:01 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pmNothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knowledge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
"gullibility"!!!? ...no wonder you don't build on that database, if you do not listen, and learn from someone that is attempting to teach, their knowledge --- even supplying evidence to you - to your majestic senses, you insist you would be gullible to analyse and accept any knowledge from them?
I never said anything suggesting we don't learn from others. Most of what we learn is knowledge originally discovered and recorded by others. We just do not live long enough to discover and learn everything as individuals. I guess you missed the word, "solely." What I wrote was:
Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knowledge, it is gullibility.
We only learn from others when we can understand by our own reasoning ability, based on the evidence and explanations presented, why something is true. It is gullibility if one believes what they are taught based on nothing but someone else's say so, authority, or so-called expertise, no matter who or what they are supposed to be.
Fine, indeed perhaps, naivety is the reason for this gullibility.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Walker »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
Much knowledge is based on memory.
Memory is imperfect, and memories change.

Imperfect memory afflicts everyone, likely because the memory formation itself was filtered from the get-go. Imperfect memory ain’t nothing special, however the accurate correlations of two memories can wildly swing around on the objective meter.

Therefore, the relevance of knowledge to knowledge is the human relationship with knowledge, which puts relativists rather adrift, seeing as how relativists don’t acknowledge any absolute authority, what with all the me-first “situational” ethics going on in the world.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

Walker wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:24 am
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
Much knowledge is based on memory.
Memory is imperfect, and memories change.

Imperfect memory afflicts everyone, likely because the memory formation itself was filtered from the get-go. Imperfect memory ain’t nothing special, however the accurate correlations of two memories can wildly swing around on the objective meter.

Therefore, the relevance of knowledge to knowledge is the human relationship with knowledge, which puts relativists rather adrift, seeing as how relativists don’t acknowledge any absolute authority, what with all the me-first “situational” ethics going on in the world.
One major problem with relying oh authority for what one believes is the assumption one's own rational ability is insufficient to know everything they need to know and therefore requires some authority to supply them with their lack of knowledge. But, if one's own ability to reason cannot understand the truth on its own, how can it possibly know which authority has that knowledge? You believe you cannot understand something but can understand who else can? Absurd.
User avatar
Zarathustra
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:32 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Zarathustra »

Could this be in line with Logical Positivism's claim on the account of knowledge?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by bahman »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
You are describing science and missing philosophy as a source of knowledge. Philosophy sits on top of science.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

bahman wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 8:51 pm Only knowledge based on actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge. Evidence may be anything that is directly perceived (seen, heard, smelled, tasted, felt, or experienced internally as interoception), anything that can be observed indirectly with instruments (telescopes, microscopes, oscilloscopes or other mechanical or electrical devices), or deduced by reason from such direct evidence (e.g. science), as well as one's own conscious perception and identification of that evidence (i.e. one's own mind).

Nothing else is knowledge. Nothing based solely on what anyone else claims or teaches no matter how much authority or expertise they are supposed to have is knolwedge, it is gullibility. Nothing based solely on one's feelings, fears, desires, sentiments, impressions, or any experience for which there is no identifiable cause, such as those things called "inspiration," "revelation," "instinct," "mystic insight," "a priori," "hunches," "divination," "faith," or, "gut feelings," are knowledge, they are superstition. Nothing based on what is popularly accepted, consensus, what most people believe, tradition, or the culturally accepted is knowledge, it is prejudice and credulity.
You are describing science and missing philosophy as a source of knowledge. Philosophy sits on top of science.
No, I described knowledge. There is no other kind of knowledge in any field than that which I described. Anything else put over as knowledge is just superstitious nonsense.
Post Reply