True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:54 pm If something is not true, technically it is not knowledge, but a great deal of nonsense in this world is called knowledge which is not true. I use the phrase, "true knowedge," only to differentiate that false knowledge (like 90% of what is shoved down children's intellectual throats in government schools) from what knowledge really is.
Would it be fair to say that false knowledge can be turned into true knowledge? Is this consistent with what you’ve been saying? Like so:

The Earth is flat (false knowledge).
The Earth is spherical (true knowledge).
The Earth is not flat (true knowledge).
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:35 pm
Walker wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:15 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:38 pm 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.
I’m hearing from you that rationality is the highest authority.
People are both rational, and emotionally irrational.

If you think that those two sentences are accurate, what are your thoughts concerning the purpose of rationality-clouding emotions?
The emotions are non-cognitive. Rationality is the only faculty one has for acquiring (learning) and using knowledge (thinking.) The feelings and emotions are only physiological reactions to what one is conscious of at any moment, that is, what they are currently perceiving, thinking, remembering, or imaginisng, or choosing.

Feeling are reactions to choices and provide no guidance for one's choices. Reason is the only guide to right choices. To get the order backward, to use reason to pursue some feeling or allow feeling to influence one's choices is always disastrous. It's one of the curses of the age.

Feelings.
Rationality can clarify emotions as well.

Emotion: I fear dogs.
Rationality: I fear dogs because I was bitten by one.

(Certainly one could argue that the rationality given above is not rational at all because just being bit by one dog is no reason to fear all dogs. Yes, this doesn’t hold up under analysis, but it is a rationality—a weak one—nonetheless.)
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 2:18 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:10 pm
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.
Russell calls it "Derivative Knowledge". You read something, and that the meaning of the print becomes the basis of your knowledge. Same with listening to someone saying to you about something, or listening to the lectures and the news, and the linguistic messages, the contents of the sounds which has meanings in them give you knowledge. Ahh .. you don't rate Russell as a philosopher. I think they are all good philosophers.
Yes, but the knowledge in this case is believed to be knowledge or assumed, without any basis, to be knowledge.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:28 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.
Knowledge is the decision which leads to a better future. All descriptive notions of knowledge are tautologies.
If you can't DO anything with it - it's worthless as knowledge.

Take any given decision that you have to take. The decision manifests two possible futures.

Either you know which choice you need to make to manifest a better future or you don't.

Everything else is philosophy.
Excellent!
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:46 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:28 pm Take any given decision that you have to take. The decision manifests two possible futures.
I will not discuss this again because we've already done that. At any point there are an infinite number of possible futures. There is never only one choice. Even in those cases where there are only two alternative things one can do, (go left or go right) there is always the third, (stop and go nowhere).
An infinite number of possible futures exists, but it may be thought of as an infinite number of elements of binary possibilities.

Going or not going is one pair of possibilities.
Being seated while not going or not being seated while not going is a pair of possibilities.
Going left or not going left is another pair of possibilities.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:20 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:46 pm At any point there are an infinite number of possible futures.
No. There are only two possible futures at at any given moment, but there will be only one actual future.

The one where you've made a choice to hange something.
The one where yo've make a choice to change nothing.

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:46 pm There is never only one choice.
There are infinitely many choices to choose from but you can only make one choice at a time.

Change something.
Change nothing.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:46 pm Even in those cases where there are only two alternative things one can do, (go left or go right) there is always the third, (stop and go nowhere).
That's not a third. That's change-nothing.
All true. Keep in mind that the infinite choices are all there and are all binary.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:31 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:36 pm However may alternatives there are, "Do nothing," is always one of the possible choices. "Wait," is another.
Waiting and doing-nothing are exactly the same thing. Actions. Not words.

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:36 pm Human consciousness is not digital, it is analogue.
Nothing to do with consciousness. Either you act in a way to manifest one future; or you don't act and manifest another future.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:36 pm Human choice is not determined by only two possible variables, but an indefinite number of variables.
Those are inputs to reason. Choice is an output.
Yes. Exactly.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:56 pm
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.
Disagree. You can choose to take action or not to take action. Then you move on to the next choice based on the results (or output) of the preceding choice.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

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 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.
All true, but bear in mind that the decision to rely on someone is based on the blind faith that that person’s expertise is valid. I would make this assumption until there’s evidence of professional misconduct resulting in deceit, as would most rational people, I believe. But it starts with a blind faith assumption.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Vitruvius »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:04 pmAll true, but bear in mind that the decision to rely on someone is based on the blind faith that that person’s expertise is valid. I would make this assumption until there’s evidence of professional misconduct resulting in deceit, as would most rational people, I believe. But it starts with a blind faith assumption.
I hear what you're saying, but I want a second opinion!
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by commonsense »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:40 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:04 pmAll true, but bear in mind that the decision to rely on someone is based on the blind faith that that person’s expertise is valid. I would make this assumption until there’s evidence of professional misconduct resulting in deceit, as would most rational people, I believe. But it starts with a blind faith assumption.
I hear what you're saying, but I want a second opinion!
Good one!
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Vitruvius »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:04 pmAll true, but bear in mind that the decision to rely on someone is based on the blind faith that that person’s expertise is valid. I would make this assumption until there’s evidence of professional misconduct resulting in deceit, as would most rational people, I believe. But it starts with a blind faith assumption.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:40 pmI hear what you're saying, but I want a second opinion!
commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:44 pmGood one!
You think it's funny too? Great! Now I can claim that it was - empirically, a good joke!
All it needs now is to be replicated by independent researchers under laboratory conditions, with all intervening variables accounted for!

Doctor, doctor - is that a medical degree on your wall?
No, it's a bronze swimming certificate, but take these pills you won't know the difference!
Thanks Doc!
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by Skepdick »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:53 pm Disagree. You can choose to take action or not to take action. Then you move on to the next choice based on the results (or output) of the preceding choice.
Is just the liar's paradox all over again.

Is choosing not to choose a choice; or not a choice?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:08 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:54 pm If something is not true, technically it is not knowledge, but a great deal of nonsense in this world is called knowledge which is not true. I use the phrase, "true knowedge," only to differentiate that false knowledge (like 90% of what is shoved down children's intellectual throats in government schools) from what knowledge really is.
Would it be fair to say that false knowledge can be turned into true knowledge? Is this consistent with what you’ve been saying? Like so:

The Earth is flat (false knowledge).
The Earth is spherical (true knowledge).
The Earth is not flat (true knowledge).
I'm not sure what it would mean to say false knowledge (an untrue statement) is "turned into," true knowledge (a true statement). Identifying an untrue statement as untrue is knowledge. Any proposition that correctly identifies a real relationship is true knowledge.

There is no way I know of to turn the statement, "the earth is flat," into the statement, "the earth is spherical." They are totally different statements, aren't they?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: True Knowledge vs. Superstition and Credulity

Post by RCSaunders »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:40 pm An infinite number of possible futures exists, but it may be thought of as an infinite number of elements of binary possibilities.
Of course it can be thought of that way, and you would have to if you attempted to replicate human choice in a computer, because a computer can only deal with one alternative at a time.

But we're not talking about a digital computer, we're talking about human conscious choice, which is not at all restricted to dealing with only one alternative at a time. Human consciousness can be aware of an indefinite number of alternatives simultaneously, a compute cannot.
Post Reply