There is no such thing as knowing

[rantal]

If you miss my question so easily, you might miss something as important in your theory.
By no means did I ask you to define 'knowing that'.What I asked you was to explain what knowledge is. That is a term used by yourself. Is that lucid enough?

I beg your pardon then, a working definition of knowledge is what I mean by 'knowing how' that is, an ability, including all that is normally considered as both 'knowledge of' and 'knowledge how to'

all the best, rantal

[pharaoh]

(2) a working definition of knowledge is what I mean by 'knowing how' that is, an ability, including all that is normally considered as both 'knowledge of' and 'knowledge how to'

Dear Rantal, If one is to understand your theory you should be quite clear in your specific terminology. On one occasion, (1)"I am postulating that there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING only KNOWING HOW" you deny the fact that there can be such thing as knowledge, whereas on the occasion of being asked what 'knowledge' means, on the contrary of what you have already said, you provide a definition which is equal to what you believe exists, i.e., 'knowing how'.
When you are saying 'knowledge' doesn't exist "there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING", then, I would ask you "What is that thing which doesn't exist?" your response is "knowledge is know how". If 'knowledge' is the same as 'know how', and you are saying that 'know how' exists what is it then, that 'knowledge' which doesn't exist?
That would be fine if you try to solve the contradiction between two propositions (1)&(2).

[rantal]

(2) a working definition of knowledge is what I mean by 'knowing how' that is, an ability, including all that is normally considered as both 'knowledge of' and 'knowledge how to'

Dear Rantal, If one is to understand your theory you should be quite clear in your specific terminology. On one occasion, (1)"I am postulating that there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING only KNOWING HOW" you deny the fact that there can be such thing as knowledge,

No, do not deny the possibility of knowledge, rather I make the lesser claim that there is only knowledge that is knowledge how to and that therefore all other forms of knowledge reduce to knowledge how to

whereas on the occasion of being asked what 'knowledge' means, on the contrary of what you have already said, you provide a definition which is equal to what you believe exists, i.e., 'knowing how'.

So, now you see I do not deny the possibility of knowledge it is clear there is no contradiction here
|
When you are saying 'knowledge' doesn't exist

Note that |I do not say knowledge does not exist only the lesser claim that there is only one category of knowledge that being knowledge how to and that all other categories are false

"there is no KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING", then, I would ask you "What is that thing which doesn't exist?" your response is "knowledge is know how". If 'knowledge' is the same as 'know how', and you are saying that 'know how' exists what is it then, that 'knowledge' which doesn't exist?

If you were to ask me, "what is that?' I may posses the knowledge how to answer you, "A sugar bowl"

And that my friend should make it abundantly clear.

1. I do not deny that knowledge exists
2. I accept that knowledge how to exists
3. I deny that the sub-category of knowledge that is referred to as knowing that, is any more than knowing how to

That would be fine if you try to solve the contradiction between two propositions (1)&(2).

I trust this fully clarifies my position and that you are no longer laboring under the misapprehension that there is a contradiction or that I deny the possibility of knowledge

all the best, rantal

[chaz wyman]

What do you call the taste of sugar, when you actually experience it? Do you 'know' that taste?

When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to do

all the best, rantal

But obviously if you eat salt you know that it is not sugar.
SO what are you saying here?

[chaz wyman]

What do you call the taste of sugar, when you actually experience it? Do you 'know' that taste?

When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to do

all the best, rantal

Apart from the fact that for someone who has never tasted sweet, you can never describe what exactly that is, giving a description of that sort is based on what you know about sweetnness.

Its simply about convention. We call sweet by learning to use that word to associate with that substance, and by agreement we can share that knowledge with others. When we taste salt we similarly learn, share and know the difference.

It seems to me that the difference between knowing about, knowing of, and knowing how is limited to practice, but epistemological are not different from each other. Knowing 'of' can be expressed in "knowing how" and vice versa.

The thought that "There is no such thing as knowing" is absurd and the thread seems self refuting on this point.

[rantal]

What do you call the taste of sugar, when you actually experience it? Do you 'know' that taste?

When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to do

all the best, rantal

But obviously if you eat salt you know that it is not sugar.
SO what are you saying here?

If I eat salt, I may know how to recognise the difference between it and sugar and know how to say it is salt

all the best, rantal

[rantal]

It seems to me that the difference between knowing about, knowing of, and knowing how is limited to practice, but epistemological are not different from each other. Knowing 'of' can be expressed in "knowing how" and vice versa.

How would you express knowing how to ride a bike in terms of knowing that?

all the best, rantal

[chaz wyman]

It seems to me that the difference between knowing about, knowing of, and knowing how is limited to practice, but epistemological are not different from each other. Knowing 'of' can be expressed in "knowing how" and vice versa.

How would you express knowing how to ride a bike in terms of knowing that?

all the best, rantal

I know that if I move my feet in circles the bike moves forwards.
I know that If I stop I have to place my feet on the ground else I will fall.
I know that bikes can get me from A to B.

[chaz wyman]

[

When I taste sugar I know how to describe it, this I have learnt to do

all the best, rantal

But obviously if you eat salt you know that it is not sugar.
SO what are you saying here?

If I eat salt, I may know how to recognise the difference between it and sugar and know how to say it is salt

all the best, rantal

Obviously so what's the problem?

[rantal]

So, there is no problem, all catagories are succesfully reduced to the one, knowledge how to

all the best, rantal

[tillingborn]

So, there is no problem, all catagories are succesfully reduced to the one, knowledge how to

all the best, rantal

Not so fast, rantal; what about Descartes' point that all you know is the experience of knowing? (Given that you don't know you are not a brain in a bucket, deceived by demons, in the Matrix, that the universe is a holographic projection or just ideas in the mind of a god etc. etc.)

[rantal]

So, there is no problem, all catagories are succesfully reduced to the one, knowledge how to

all the best, rantal

Not so fast, rantal; what about Descartes' point that all you know is the experience of knowing? (Given that you don't know you are not a brain in a bucket, deceived by demons, in the Matrix, that the universe is a holographic projection or just ideas in the mind of a god etc. etc.)

As a brain in a bucket I still experience; I may experience knowing how to ride a bike, say food is salty or sweet, etc. It matters not

all the best, rantal

[tillingborn]

As a brain in a bucket I still experience; I may experience knowing how to ride a bike, say food is salty or sweet, etc. It matters not

So, for example, knowing how to stuff and roast a unicorn counts as knowledge?

[chaz wyman]

As a brain in a bucket I still experience; I may experience knowing how to ride a bike, say food is salty or sweet, etc. It matters not

So, for example, knowing how to stuff and roast a unicorn counts as knowledge?

Of course. And the moment I find one, I'll know what to do.

PS. It'd be the same as a horse anyway.
You just need to know what to do with the horn - I have a few ideas about that.

[chaz wyman]

So, there is no problem, all catagories are succesfully reduced to the one, knowledge how to

all the best, rantal

No, that's not what I said. I said also that knowing how is also knowing of. It just depends on context.