What is the Nature of Knowledge

[modest]

Someone could also argue (though I will not) that on the individual level; all memory is knowledge and all personal knowledge is memory. The two are indistinguishable.

 

~modest

[Overdog]

Someone could also argue (though I will not) that on the individual level; all memory is knowledge and all personal knowledge is memory. The two are indistinguishable.

~modest

 

Perhaps, but then it would depend on how we define "Knowledge". I tend to think of memory as storage.

 

To me, it seems there are at least two major categories or types of knowledge, Beliefs and Innate. There may be others, I'm not sure. Certainly there are other kinds of innate knowledge we haven't discussed explicitly, such as our capacity for pattern recognition, for example, and language, but so far, I do not see any that would fall outside the major categories of Belief or Innate.

 

And, with this idea of "knowledge", I think then that we can say there are "ways" of knowing, some of which seem obvious or we have already discussed or alluded to, but perhaps this gets us back on track with discussing Reason and Logic?

 

Are Reason and Logic the same thing? Or is one innate, and the other a "way" of knowing?

 

In the context of this discussion, I find this course description particularly insightfull...

 

Theory of Knowledge

This course discusses how the student is able to know something. The student is described as an "actor of knowledge" who attempts to find knowledge, where knowledge, as defined by Plato, is "justified true belief".

 

The course teaches that there are four Ways of Knowing (WoK): perception, emotion, reason, and language. (In the new syllabus, "sense perception" has replaced "perception" in order to reduce ambiguity.) Also used are the following seven Areas of Knowledge (AoK), which are put here in the form of a spectrum, the two ends of which are labelled "objective" and "subjective", from left to right respectively: mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, history, the arts, ethics, and spirituality. Also the course discusses Knowledge Issues, or limitations of knowledge, concerning the WoK and AoK.

 

The course teaches nine reasons for justification of things one claims to know: logic, sensory perception, revelation, faith, memory, consensus, authority, intuition, and self-awareness.

 

Also studied are the four supposed truth tests: coherence, correspondence, pragmatism, and consensus.

 

These nine justifications and four truth tests are key to the introduction of ToK.

 

The course is formulated and centered around one main question: How do you know? One is supposed to use the Ways of Knowing and the Areas of Knowledge to discuss how one acquires, perceives, and applies knowledge and how reliable it can be. Another question central to the ideas of ToK, relating specifically to the application of knowledge is: What is your obligation as a knower? Questions that may be discussed may include examples such as How do you know that the scientific method is a valid method of gaining knowledge? or What is the reason for having historical knowledge, and how is it applied in life?

[Overdog]

At this point, we have now arrived at the very edge of a vast philosophical and intellectual quagmire known as "Epistemology". So far, we have not fallen in, but I'm afraid if we do, we will never get out.

 

Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I think we have avoided the quagmire thus far because we have apparently accepted an idea, or definition, of knowledge that is slightly different from Plato's. In our view, beliefs are just beliefs. We hold beliefs with varying degrees of confidence or emotional attachment, but we still see them as beliefs, or as a "Kind" of knowledge. And to the extent that we see beliefs as a Kind of Knowledge, we have been skeptical...

 

Suppose we make a point of asking for a justification for every belief. Any given justification will itself depend on another belief for its justification, so one can also reasonably ask for this to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with each belief justified by some further belief. The apparent impossibility of completing an infinite chain of reasoning is thought by some to support skepticism. The skeptic will argue that since no one can complete such a chain, ultimately no beliefs are justified and, therefore, no one knows anything. "The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know for sure."

 

But in our view, we have another kind of knowledge, Innate Knowledge. Innate knowledge is knowledge that is hardwired into us. It comes from the physical infrastructure which hosts the system of beliefs. It includes emotion, language, instincts, feelings, pattern recognition, and more....

 

And now I'm going to suggest that we now add Reason and Perceptions (the senses) to the list of Innate Knowledge. This is in line with the classical view expressed in the curriculum description in the previous post. Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can no more speak of Logic and Reason seperately than you can Space and Time.

[Overdog]

It's been awhile since I posted anything in this thread, as I have recently been distracted with issues related to climate models.:)

 

But now, having been educated in that regard, I'm ready to continue with this thread.

 

The following link says something about perceptions and their role with respect to logic and reason. Anyone have any objections to what is in this post?

 

The Infallibility of Sense Perception

 

EDIT:

Please ignore references to god in the linked article. I don't want the thread to be subverted into a religious debate. Please focus on the point about the infalliballity of the senses.

[modest]

The following link says something about perceptions and their role with respect to logic and reason. Anyone have any objections to what is in this post?

 

The Infallibility of Sense Perception

 

I like it. It's a refreshing deviation from the subjective idealism that's usually supported 'round these parts. :)

 

Particularly interesting was this, which I've never heard before:

 

As such, we say that sense perception is like an axiom in that it cannot be denied without direct contradiction

 

~modest

[Overdog]

So, is it reasonble to call into question the traditional view of knowledge as justified, true, belief? Apparently it is.

 

Belief, knowledge and epistemology

The relationship between belief and knowledge is subtle. Believers in a claim typically say that they know that claim. For instance, those who believe that the Sun is a god will report that they know that the Sun is a god. However, the terms belief and knowledge are used differently by philosophers.

 

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. A primary problem for epistemology is exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

 

A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge, because in order to be knowledge, there must be some person who knows it.

 

Later epistemologists have questioned the "justified true belief" definition, and some philosophers have questioned whether "belief" is a useful notion at all.

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

On the question of whether belief is a useful concept at all, see:

Eliminative materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Also of interest with respect to the idea of "biological" knowledge we have been developing is Moore's Paradox.

Moore's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Moore's Paradox forces us to think about such diverse topics as, among other things, the relation between assertion and belief, content and expression, the nature of belief, knowledge and rationality. There is, as yet however, no generally accepted explanation to Moore's Paradox in the literature.

 

I think this is about as far as I can go with this thread...suffice it to say that the definitions and even the very concepts of knowledge and belief are still in question.

 

Personally, I lean towards the view that we are in need of a new definition of Knowledge (I like the biological one), and that the jury is still out as to whether or not Belief itself is an outdated concept.