Hypotheses? Forget About It!

[A_Seagull]

To be knowledge a thing must be true,

And what process do you use to determine that something is 'true'? Guesswork? Opinion? 'Cos it is obvious?

A proposition is a statement that asserts something about an existent or existents. If I simply write or say the word "Zeus," it is neither true or false. In classical logic it is called a simple apprehension. If I say, "Zeus is a god worshiped by the ancient Greeks," it asserts something about Zeus. If what is being asserted is correct, the proposition is true; if what is being asserted is incorrect, the proposition is false. The assertion, in this case, and therefore the proposition, is true, even though the concept "Zeus" is a fiction. The same concept can be use in both true and false propositions. "The phoenix is a common bird found in the forests of Colorado," is false, but, "the phoenix is a mythical bird of ancient Egypt," is true.

As above, how do you determine whether your proposition is 'correct' or 'true' or 'false'? Without an explicit process, all you have is opinion.

The most important thing to human life, if there is anything that can identified as an ultimate requirement or need, it is knowledge. For a human being, it is more important than water, or food, or clothing, or shelter, because before any of these can be acquired one must know why one needs them, what they are, and how to acquire them. Because a human being must live by conscious choice, and our only means of making choices is by means of reason, and because knowledge is all we have to reason with or reason about, the limit of a human life is the limit of one's knowledge. Knowledge is the one thing a human being can never have enough of.

But all that so called 'knowledge' is completely useless if one doesn't know how to use it. And that knowing or knowledge cannot be expressed as a simple statement.

Yes, I'm sure. I think the explanation is quite clear. You do not have to agree with it.

Well that is your opinion.

For all your discussion of so called 'basic epistemology', you haven't begun to explain the basic question of epistemology which is : How do we know what we know?

And while we are on the subject.. what does 'true' mean in your epistemology?

[RCSaunders]

And what process do you use to determine that something is 'true'? Guesswork? Opinion? 'Cos it is obvious?
...
As above, how do you determine whether your proposition is 'correct' or 'true' or 'false'? Without an explicit process, all you have is opinion.

I'm surprised by this repeated question. The process is called reason.

But all that so called 'knowledge' is completely useless if one doesn't know how to use it. And that knowing or knowledge cannot be expressed as a simple statement.

Reason is how we use knowledge, and most knowledge does consist of very simple statements: 'Sugar is sweet', 'vinegar is sour,' 'Thai peppers are hot,' 'the meeting started at four o'clock, and you're late.'

Well that is your opinion.

Of course. Isn't everything you write your opinion?

For all your discussion of so called 'basic epistemology', you haven't begun to explain the basic question of epistemology which is : How do we know what we know?

I have no idea who "we" is or how others think they know anything. I know what I know by testing everything against reality. If someone says heavier than air flight is possible, when I have actually flown on planes, I know heavier than air flight is possible. If I can't find the cat and look in the closet and find no cat I know the cat is not in the closet, for example. I read two or more books every week and know which one's I've read because I have. I do most of the cooking in my house and know all the ingredients of most American, Mexican, Chinese, and Southeast Asian dishes because I've used them all.

And while we are on the subject.. what does 'true' mean in your epistemology?

True is an attribute of every proposition that states what is really so. It is exactly what you mean is true I suspect. When the change you receive is five dollars short and clerk says he give you the correct change, don't you know what he says is not true? If you turn on a faucet and no water comes, don't you know there something wrong? Don't you know which key starts your car and which opens the door to your home? Don't you know where you live, what clothes you have on, what you had for breakfast?

[A_Seagull]

And what process do you use to determine that something is 'true'? Guesswork? Opinion? 'Cos it is obvious?
...
As above, how do you determine whether your proposition is 'correct' or 'true' or 'false'? Without an explicit process, all you have is opinion.

I'm surprised by this repeated question. The process is called reason.

But all that so called 'knowledge' is completely useless if one doesn't know how to use it. And that knowing or knowledge cannot be expressed as a simple statement.

Reason is how we use knowledge, and most knowledge does consist of very simple statements: 'Sugar is sweet', 'vinegar is sour,' 'Thai peppers are hot,' 'the meeting started at four o'clock, and you're late.'

Well that is your opinion.

Of course. Isn't everything you write your opinion?

For all your discussion of so called 'basic epistemology', you haven't begun to explain the basic question of epistemology which is : How do we know what we know?

I have no idea who "we" is or how others think they know anything. I know what I know by testing everything against reality. If someone says heavier than air flight is possible, when I have actually flown on planes, I know heavier than air flight is possible. If I can't find the cat and look in the closet and find no cat I know the cat is not in the closet, for example. I read two or more books every week and know which one's I've read because I have. I do most of the cooking in my house and know all the ingredients of most American, Mexican, Chinese, and Southeast Asian dishes because I've used them all.

And while we are on the subject.. what does 'true' mean in your epistemology?

True is an attribute of every proposition that states what is really so. It is exactly what you mean is true I suspect. When the change you receive is five dollars short and clerk says he give you the correct change, don't you know what he says is not true? If you turn on a faucet and no water comes, don't you know there something wrong? Don't you know which key starts your car and which opens the door to your home? Don't you know where you live, what clothes you have on, what you had for breakfast?

From my perspective, and I don't expect you to agree with me, your epistemology is equivalent to saying : 'we know what we know because we know it'.

[Univalence]

Reason is how we use knowledge, and most knowledge does consist of very simple statements: 'Sugar is sweet', 'vinegar is sour,' 'Thai peppers are hot,' 'the meeting started at four o'clock, and you're late.'

If reason is how you use knowledge, then what is the process by which you acquire it?

If identification (whether a particular thing belongs to one abstract category or another) is fundamental to reasoning: how do you identify (and differentiate) the category 'knowledge' from the category 'bullshit'?

It is rather odd. Because the process of categorisation is functionally identical to the process of prediction. It's all binary classification.

[RCSaunders]

Reason is how we use knowledge, and most knowledge does consist of very simple statements: 'Sugar is sweet', 'vinegar is sour,' 'Thai peppers are hot,' 'the meeting started at four o'clock, and you're late.'

If reason is how you use knowledge, then what is the process by which you acquire it?

It is the same process. Knowledge is used by reason to make choices and knowledge is acquired by reason by making judgements based on observation and previously acquired knowledge.

If identification (whether a particular thing belongs to one abstract category or another) is fundamental to reasoning ...

It isn't fundamental to reasoning, it is fundamental to concept formation. Reason proceeds by means of propositions.

It is rather odd. Because the process of categorisation is functionally identical to the process of prediction. It's all binary classification.

Concept formation is not classification. A concept identifies a category or class of existents not by examining existents to see which category they belong to. Which category of existents anything belongs to is determined by that things attributes. The classifications are not metaphysical, but epistemological. When feathered animals are discovered and it is observed they also fly, feathered animals that fly might be classified as birds. When feathered animals that do not fly are discovered, they might be classified as a sub-class of birds, or as an altogether new class. Since they are similar in most ways to birds that fly, it makes sense to classify them as a sub-class of bird. The choice is a practical one, not a necessary one. Not understanding the nature of concepts leads to such absurdities as the so-called "black swan" problem.

[Univalence]

Concept formation is not classification. A concept identifies a category or class of existents not by examining existents to see which category they belong to.

But without concepts there is no classification.

There are no categories in "existence". Categories exist only in your mind. Things "belong" to the category you CHOOSE to put them in.
And since the number of things that exist is far, FAR greater than the number of categories in your head you are necessarily mapping M objects to N categories, where N < M. That's quite literally how abstraction works - you ignore all the things which differentiate two things so you can make them "look the same".

It's called classification, and the rules by which you classify things are called classification rules. The classification rules are a matter of CHOICE.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! -- Richard Feynman

Which category of existents anything belongs to is determined by that things attributes.

No. It's determined by you, based on the thing's identifiable attributes.

Q.E.D you CHOSE to categorize hydrogen and its isotopes based on "number of protons" while ignoring "number of neutrons".
If you had taken all the attributes into account - you would've categorized them differently.

The classifications are not metaphysical, but epistemological.

That's an arbitrary classification.

You could CHOOSE to conceptualize epistemology in a way that it's a metaphysical process.
You could CHOOSE to conceptualize metaphysics in a way that it's an epistemic process.

When feathered animals are discovered and it is observed they also fly, feathered animals that fly might be classified as birds.
When feathered animals that do not fly are discovered, they might be classified as a sub-class of birds, or as an altogether new class.

Or you can resist the urge to classify them altogether and simply observe that they have different recognizable attributes/abilities/properties, and there are different combinatorial ways of grouping things based on sub-sets of their properties.

Since they are similar in most ways to birds that fly, it makes sense to classify them as a sub-class of bird.

It doesn't make sense to me. Bayes' theorem tells us that P(A) > P(A + B)

So it seems that the probability of any particular animal being feathered is greater than the probability of any particular animal being feathered AND being able to fly; and it's also greater than the probability of any particular animal being feathered AND unable to fly.

I do not have enough information to make any inferences about any particular feathered animal's (in?)ability to fly, yet you have somehow decided that one is a sub-category of the other. How?

The choice is a practical one, not a necessary one.

This is an oxymoron. Pragmaticism is born out of necessity. Why do you need to classify things in practice?

[RCSaunders]

Concept formation is not classification. A concept identifies a category or class of existents not by examining existents to see which category they belong to.

But without concepts there is no classification.

Correct, if you mean if one has not yet developed any concepts, such those for various attributes and relationships one has observed, it will not be possible to form general concepts.

There are no categories in "existence". Categories exist only in your mind. Things "belong" to the category you CHOOSE to put them in.

That is correct. Concept formation is entirely a human activity of the human mind. Neither God, nor nature, not epistemology snobs will do it for you.

And since the number of things that exist is far, FAR greater than the number of categories in your head you are necessarily mapping M objects to N categories, where N < M. That's quite literally how abstraction works - you ignore all the things which differentiate two things so you can make them "look the same".

That is backwards. Things look alike, if they do, because that is their nature--they have the attributes that make them look alike. Concept formation is nothing more than observing and identifying that similarity.

The classification rules are a matter of CHOICE.

That's correct, and there is no guarantee the choice will be the best possible.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! -- Richard Feynman

Feynman did say some stupid things. Nobody's perfect. Of course inanimate nature does not know the science that describes it. Knowledge is a product of the human mind, not inanimate physical reality. But Feynman uses the word, "nature," which necessarily includes human beings, so at least part of nature does know, "physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on."

Which category of existents anything belongs to is determined by that things attributes.

No. It's determined by you, based on the thing's identifiable attributes.

That's right. Sorry that wasn't as obvious as I supposed.

Q.E.D you CHOSE to categorize hydrogen and its isotopes based on "number of protons" while ignoring "number of neutrons".
If you had taken all the attributes into account - you would've categorized them differently.

I wish I could take credit for the development of any part of the periodic table, but I cannot. If you don't like the way the geniuses who developed did so, you do not have to abide by it.

The classifications are not metaphysical, but epistemological.

That's an arbitrary classification.

You could CHOOSE to conceptualize epistemology in a way that it's a metaphysical process.
You could CHOOSE to conceptualize metaphysics in a way that it's an epistemic process.

Well I could not do either of those things, but if you could I would love to see the results.

When feathered animals are discovered and it is observed they also fly, feathered animals that fly might be classified as birds.
When feathered animals that do not fly are discovered, they might be classified as a sub-class of birds, or as an altogether new class.

Or you can resist the urge to classify them altogether and simply observe that they have different recognizable attributes/abilities/properties, and there are different combinatorial ways of grouping things based on sub-sets of their properties.

Yes, that is exactly where all the concepts that are useless floating abstractions come from--poor epistemology.

Since they are similar in most ways to birds that fly, it makes sense to classify them as a sub-class of bird.

It doesn't make sense to me. Bayes' theorem tells us that P(A) > P(A + B)

So it seems that the probability of any particular animal being feathered is greater than the probability of any particular animal being feathered AND being able to fly; and it's also greater than the probability of any particular animal being feathered AND unable to fly.

I do not have enough information to make any inferences about any particular feathered animal's (in?)ability to fly, yet you have somehow decided that one is a sub-category of the other. How?

On the basis of what is observed. Most observed feathered animals fly. Those that do not fly are observed exceptions. Epistemology does not assume omniscience. If more flightless feathered animals than those that fly the opposite category and subcategory might have been more useful. Modern taxonomy based on genetics supports the current classifications.

The choice is a practical one, not a necessary one.

This is an oxymoron. Pragmaticism is born out of necessity. Why do you need to classify things in practice?

It is neither self-contradictory or pragmatic. There is no epistemological God, no metaphysical law of the universe that determines how concepts must be formed. They are human inventions for identifying the nature of that which exists in the world. Things are what they are, whether we or anyone else knows either that they exist or what their nature is, but if we are going to live in this world we most know as much as we can about what actually exists and how to deal with it. There is no guarantee one will be successful in the pursuit of that knowledge, so one does the best they possibly can if they choose to live happily and successfully in this world. Unfortunately, most people give up that pursuit as too difficult or swallow some academic's lies that nothing can be known.