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.
Your view is too shallow and narrow.
Knowledge based on "actual evidence available to anyone to observe or study is true knowledge" without further qualification is too crude.
Once upon a time many of the various empirical illusions were accepted as true knowledge but when analyzed they turned out to be illusory, thus 'false knowledge'. It is likely what we claimed as "true knowledge" could be illusory because we have yet the competence or tool to investigate them.
For example, not long ago Physics accept that the most basic thing in existence is an objective 'particle', then quantum mechanics discover the basic elements of things can either be a wave or particle, thus subjective.
In addition, loads of what is "true" knowledge based on actual evidence and studied as in Science were abandoned as false subsequently upon new evidence.
Thus whatever we regarded as "true" knowledge at present could be 'false' in the future upon new evidence that oppose it.
The best practical definition for what is knowledge is Justified True Beliefs [btw not Plato's] to be qualified to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] of which the scientific FSK [with Pure Mathematics, Geometry] is the most credible at present and it is the standard all other types of knowledge should be compared with.
Whatever is true knowledge [initiated as opinions or beliefs] must be verified and
justified within a specific FSK to qualify as qualified-knowledge.
Due to the multi-variate conditions of such human based FSKs, the truth of knowledge thus come in degrees from 0.1% to 99.95 of veracity.
If the scientific FSK is rated at 80% degree of veracity, then economic truths would be
say 60%, legal truths 50%, etc.
Theism based on faith which is non-empirical would be 0.0001% as with other supernatural claims.
Point is one cannot simply claim what is true knowledge without qualifications to the above conditions and limitations.