What is the Nature of Knowledge

[modest]

But with religion, we're talking about belief right?

 

I would argue that denial is a form of belief, or disbelief, rather than a removal of knowledge.

 

Denial can well be a form of belief, but what are we denying is the question. We can easily deny knowledge. We can choose not to seek it, understand it, or even acknowledge it. Denial leads to those things.

 

For example, I can tell someone that the earth is round and they can deny that and say that the earth is flat. They denied my argument not because they had the knowledge via experience to know that the world was round, but because they believed the world was flat.

 

And another Kantian quote comes in handy :)

 

But although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.

 

In other words some people may experience something and gain no knowledge from the experience. This could be because of denial. Someone could experience a round world then deny that experience and rob themselves of the knowledge for the sake of the "belief" in a flat world. I think this happens quite a bit more than people realize. So, I do think Kant is perseptively analyzing himself with this:

 

I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief

[Overdog]

Modest, I would give you more rep for that post if I could.

[Overdog]

So I would say Emotion is the context within which both of the continuums exist.

[Overdog]

My wife has just informed me that Ignorance belongs in the continuum with Knowledge, and that Wisdom does not belong there, That Wisdom subsumes it all, emotion, continuum 1, continuum 2, and experience.

 

(My wife happens to be a Professor of Education GMU)

 

So we have:

 

<-- Fantasy - Hope - Belief -->

 

<-- Ignorance - Knowledge -->

 

<--Wisdom--> (as a combination of the above + experience and emotion)

 

With Emotion encompassing it all.

[Overdog]

More input from my wife:

 

Pascal:

 

"Emotion has a reason of which reason knows not."

 

Dr. Priscilla Norton (my wife)

 

"We think about how we feel, and we feel about how we think."

[Overdog]

So, do we agree thus far?

[modest]

Not sure yet,

 

I’m sensing facts by reading Kant; increasing knowledge by trying to understand it; and forming beliefs from which to speak. :)

 

I will get back to you when beliefs have a firm foundation

[freeztar]

Someone could experience a round world then deny that experience and rob themselves of the knowledge for the sake of the "belief" in a flat world. I think this happens quite a bit more than people realize. So, I do think Kant is perseptively analyzing himself with this:

 

Ok, I see what you (and Kant) are saying. If we prefer belief over knowledge, even after we have obtained the knowledge that would make the belief obsolete, we have participated in denial and have removed knowledge in favor of belief.

 

The knowledge is still there though, it's just hidden under the shroud of denial. If one abandoned denial for affirmation, the knowledge would return, though not through any new experience.

[freeztar]

My wife has just informed me that Ignorance belongs in the continuum with Knowledge, and that Wisdom does not belong there, That Wisdom subsumes it all, emotion, continuum 1, continuum 2, and experience.

Very wise! :)

(My wife happens to be a Professor of Education GMU)

Hurrah! Pass the keyboard man! ;)

 

So we have:

 

<-- Fantasy - Hope - Belief -->

 

<-- Ignorance - Knowledge -->

 

<--Wisdom--> (as a combination of the above + experience and emotion)

 

With Emotion encompassing it all.

 

What about rationality? I've always thought of it as a polar opposite to emotion. But perhaps it is within a continuum that emotion encompasses? Or is it another 'outlier' (for lack of a better word) that forms a union with the continuums?

[Moontanman]

When you use communication and emotion to describe reality you get this result in this or a similar order

 

Fantasy - Hope - Belief - realization of ignorance - Rationality - Knowledge - Wisdom

 

Of course this can be derailed at any time by Denial

[Galapagos]

The difference between believing and knowing that there are fairies in the bottom of the garden is that in order to know this requires that fairies actually be in the bottom of the garden.

[jedaisoul]

The difference between believing and knowing that there are fairies in the bottom of the garden is that in order to know this requires that fairies actually be in the bottom of the garden.

Yes, but how do you know they are there? Is merely observing them sufficient? You could be hallucinating (too many magic mushrooms)?

 

There is a difference between an observation and a fact (or knowledge). An observation is what you saw or experienced. A fact is an observation that it is repeatable by others, who observe substantially the same thing. So, to be termed "knowledge" the observation needs to be confirmed by others (preferably independently, and not whilst under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs).

 

So I may believe that I know that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, but without independent confirmation, it remains a belief.

 

There is also an element of it fitting into a conceptual framework, but facts take priority over conceptual frameworks. If a fact does not fit the framework, it is generally the framework that is wrong!

[Overdog]

So we have:

 

<-- Fantasy - Hope - Belief -->

 

<-- Ignorance - Knowledge -->

 

<--Wisdom--> (as a combination of the above + experience and emotion)

 

With Emotion encompassing it all.

 

Now, I'm looking at this from the perspective of an Information Systems Engineer, and I see that we have identified several entities.

 

Fantasy - Hope - Belief

 

Ignorance - Knowledge

 

Wisdom

 

Experience

 

Emotion

 

Barring any monkey wrenches from Modest when he comes back, we seem to think that the entities we listed on the same line (Fantasy, Hope, Belief) are not fundamentally different from each other, but are categories of the same thing. We also seem to agree that, at the least, some relationships do exists between some of these entities.

 

We need a better way to model this. I am working on that and will post it soon...in the meantime I would like to hear some thoughts on what properties these entities posses, and in particular what are the properties of Belief and Knowledge that distinguish them as distinct entities (ie; fundamentally different)

 

What I mean is, if I were going to put Belief and Knowledge in a relational database, they would need to have some properties that distinguish them that are not merely properties of degree, value or type. If there are no distinctions between Knowledge and Belief other than degree, value, and type, then I'm forced to conclude they are in fact fundamentally the same entity.

 

Also I'd like your thoughts on the relationships between data (or Facts), information, and concepts. When a fact aquires meaning, does it become information, a concept, or can it be either or both?

[Overdog]

Yes, but how do you know they are there? Is merely observing them sufficient? You could be hallucinating (too many magic mushrooms)?

 

There is a difference between an observation and a fact (or knowledge). An observation is what you saw or experienced. A fact is an observation that it is repeatable by others, who observe substantially the same thing. So, to be termed "knowledge" the observation needs to be confirmed by others (preferably independently, and not whilst under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs).

 

So I may believe that I know that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, but without independent confirmation, it remains a belief.

 

There is also an element of it fitting into a conceptual framework, but facts take priority over conceptual frameworks. If a fact does not fit the framework, it is generally the framework that is wrong!

 

So in this case I would say we have property for distinguishing Knowledge from Belief, but that property would be a Value ie; Confirmed, Not Confirmed.

[jedaisoul]

We need a better way to model this. I am working on that and will post it soon...

Might I suggest that you take a look at the thread "The Dimensions of Truth". There truth is modelled as a four dimensional array. There seem to me to be a number of similarities with what you are trying to achieve...

[modest]

Barring any monkey wrenches from Modest when he comes back...

I'm sure I have a monkey wrench here somewhere... No. I guess not. I could submit some things for further review:

 

• Our link to the natural world is the 5 senses.
  
• Those five senses lead to experience.
  
• Experience leads to all thought of any form (emotion, reason, knowledge, ect.)
  
• Ignorance can be a lack of experience (placing it outside the realm of thought all together) or a failure to understand an experience (an experience that failed to connect to knowledge or wisdom)
  
• Knowledge is the structured organization of experience into something useful - Not a useful action, just a useful understanding.
  
• Reason is the process of doing the above (organizing experience into knowledge) or a method of doing the the same.
  
• Belief is maybe nothing more than the confidence that the previous step worked and will lead to the next step. I'm not too sure of this.
  
• Wisdom is applying Knowledge to “life” which by all our definitions so far requires reason, knowledge, and experience.
  

 

Of course, this is not at all comprehensive. I seem to have left out "facts" and some other things. Submitted for further review in any case.

 

Now where did that monkey wrench go...

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

Does "Intuitive awareness," fit in there anywhere? trusting your instincts.