Can we 'know' anything?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Fiveredapples
Posts: 163
Joined: March 4th, 2012, 7:31 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Fiveredapples »

Fiveredapples #42
Surely you are kidding. In the middle ages true knowledge was that the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, it was even written in the holy book, therefore it was unquestionable.
Knowledge and true knowledge are one and the same thing, because knowledge entails truth.

It's simple. They were mistaken. They thought they knew but they in fact didn't know, because what they believed wasn't true. What's the problem?

It doesn't matter how confident you are with respect to your belief. It doesn't matter if you think it's an unquestionable belief. So, no they didn't have knowledge or 'true knowledge'.
"Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so" -- Bertrand Russell
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 311
Joined: April 19th, 2011, 1:20 pm

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by HexHammer »

Fiveredapples wrote:
Fiveredapples #42
Surely you are kidding. In the middle ages true knowledge was that the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, it was even written in the holy book, therefore it was unquestionable.
Knowledge and true knowledge are one and the same thing, because knowledge entails truth.

It's simple. They were mistaken. They thought they knew but they in fact didn't know, because what they believed wasn't true. What's the problem?

It doesn't matter how confident you are with respect to your belief. It doesn't matter if you think it's an unquestionable belief. So, no they didn't have knowledge or 'true knowledge'.
You only know it's untrue because you have better proof, if one doesn't have better proof you don't know it's true or untrue, like the welding exaple you only said that some said otherwise, but didn't say excatly why the weld should be weaker or stronger, you only rely on hear say, not scientific proof.
User avatar
Fiveredapples
Posts: 163
Joined: March 4th, 2012, 7:31 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Fiveredapples »

You only know it's untrue because you have better proof, if one doesn't have better proof you don't know it's true or untrue, like the welding exaple you only said that some said otherwise, but didn't say excatly why the weld should be weaker or stronger, you only rely on hear say, not scientific proof.
The definition of knowledge has nothing to do with scientific proof. In the Middle Ages, people didn't know that the earth was flat because the earth isn't (wasn't) flat. The truth of what they believe settles the matter.

Today we know the earth isn't flat (if indeed the earth isn't flat). Do you doubt that it's not flat? No, but so what -- neither did they doubt that the opposite in the Middle Ages. Well, I'm sure some did, but the point is that your doubt/confidence/proof is irrelevant.

You know the world is flat -- here comes a necessary condition -- iff the world is flat.

You scientific equipment or your confidence or your scientific proof play no role with respect to the truth condition of knowledge.
"Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so" -- Bertrand Russell
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 311
Joined: April 19th, 2011, 1:20 pm

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by HexHammer »

Fiveredapples wrote:
You only know it's untrue because you have better proof, if one doesn't have better proof you don't know it's true or untrue, like the welding exaple you only said that some said otherwise, but didn't say excatly why the weld should be weaker or stronger, you only rely on hear say, not scientific proof.
The definition of knowledge has nothing to do with scientific proof. In the Middle Ages, people didn't know that the earth was flat because the earth isn't (wasn't) flat. The truth of what they believe settles the matter.

Today we know the earth isn't flat (if indeed the earth isn't flat). Do you doubt that it's not flat? No, but so what -- neither did they doubt that the opposite in the Middle Ages. Well, I'm sure some did, but the point is that your doubt/confidence/proof is irrelevant.

You know the world is flat -- here comes a necessary condition -- iff the world is flat.

You scientific equipment or your confidence or your scientific proof play no role with respect to the truth condition of knowledge.
Knowledge and true knowledge are one and the same thing, because knowledge entails truth.

It's simple. They were mistaken. They thought they knew but they in fact didn't know, because what they believed wasn't true. What's the problem?
Nice self contradiction!
Scottie
Posts: 105
Joined: December 24th, 2011, 12:54 pm

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Scottie »

Fiveredapples wrote:Remember, you're in the middle of the ocean, just having been thrown overboard by me, and you're treading water to survive. Think of how confident you can be that you're indeed in water. What possible test is there, or could there be, to bolster your confidence that you're in water? I mean, you're as sure as you're going to get. Yet all you have is knowledge, not certainty. Those who ask for 'certainty' don't realize what they're asking for. You're asking for something beyond our cognitive ability, which is why certainty is a logical notion and knowledge an epistemological notion. Truth, by the way, is a metaphysical notion.
scottie wrote:So. . . can we be convinced as convinced can be of our experience yet be totally wrong concerning facticity?
Fiveredapples wrote:All of your questions can be answered in one sentence: Knowledge has nothing to do with how convinced anyone is.
wait a second. . . are you talking about knowledge or certainty 'cause is seems you've declared above that knowledge of my plight is somehow different from certainty of my plight.

so - just for good measure - from above -
Fiveredapples wrote:certainty is a logical notion and knowledge an epistemological notion.
Do you mean epistemological or empirical. . . because this thread is about epistemology. The question "Can we know anything?" IS a basic epistemological question. I think you need to preface your point with an explanation of your terminology because it seems to me that these terms can mean different things for different people who aren't always sure of what they're trying to argue for or assume that others will understand what they're arguing for. So you have a notion of absolute certainty which is supposed to be a logical notion? Can it ONLY be arrived at through logic? Must the premises conform to experience?

Logically, an argument can be valid even though the conclusion does not agree with experience. The premises of any logical argument don't have to conform to experience for a conclusion to be valid. In fact, they CAN conform to experience, be logically valid, and still yield a conclusion that doesn't agree with experience.

1. All living cats respond to stimuli
2. I respond to stimuli
3. Therefore, I'm a living cat.

Sure, it's incomplete, but it's logically valid. Is this Certainty or is it crap? I'm guessing you're going to agree that it's crap. This takes us to questions concerning whether, to tell us anything about the world or anything about any ultimate reality which would be perceivable given a sufficient frame of reference, premises must have some degree of agreement with experience. We can further differentiate between fidelity of premises to matters of fact and a sufficient number of premises to accurately represent the world.

So. . . logic CAN but does not NECESSARILY tell us anything or render anything knowable because it doesn't have to agree with experience. What, then, of certainty, which you claim is a logical concern?

To set the record straight, When thrown overboard, I'm going to act as if I'm in water. Any logical construct I may form aimed at solving or accepting my dilemma is going to be based on the idea that my chosen set of premises which may yield any given conclusion is going to agree with my immediate experience because I understand the gravity of my situation and need for accurate assessment. . . and all that happens at the speed of neurochemical activity. In short, I'm not really happy with your distinction between knowledge and certainty 'cause they may just be points on a continuum.

so. . . dictionary is to philosophy as knife is to gunfight?
There is no smiley. . .
User avatar
Fiveredapples
Posts: 163
Joined: March 4th, 2012, 7:31 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Fiveredapples »

wait a second. . . are you talking about knowledge or certainty 'cause is seems you've declared above that knowledge of my plight is somehow different from certainty of my plight.
I have said that knowledge of your plight is different from certainty of your plight. There is no certainty of your plight. I have been very explicit -- at least I thought I was -- that knowledge in no way entails or just is certainty.
The question "Can we know anything?" IS a basic epistemological question. I think you need to preface your point with an explanation of your terminology because it seems to me that these terms can mean different things for different people who aren't always sure of what they're trying to argue for or assume that others will understand what they're arguing for.
I've stated that knowledge is an epistemological notion, one about the status of some of our beliefs. I've also said that we are not the ultimate determiners of this status, but instead the world determines whether we have knowledge. The notion of how sure you are about your belief plays no role in the definition of knowledge. The only thing close to this that actually is part of the definition of knowledge is the notion of how you acquire your belief, the justification. But the sense of assuredness, confidence, or certainty you have of your belief because of the way you acquired it plays no role in knowledge.
So you have a notion of absolute certainty which is supposed to be a logical notion? Can it ONLY be arrived at through logic? Must the premises conform to experience?
This notion is interesting but not relevant to my explanation of knowledge. By the way, there is not difference between 'certainty' and 'absolute certainty'.
Logically, an argument can be valid even though the conclusion does not agree with experience. The premises of any logical argument don't have to conform to experience for a conclusion to be valid.
Conclusions are neither valid or invalid. Conclusions are either true or false, or follow from the premises or don't.
In fact, they CAN conform to experience, be logically valid, and still yield a conclusion that doesn't agree with experience.
Really? I'd like to hear of such an example, one in which you have a valid argument with true premises but a false conclusion.

You know, I'm not sure why you've ventured off into a discussion of validity, but I'll read on anyway.
1. All living cats respond to stimuli
2. I respond to stimuli
3. Therefore, I'm a living cat.

Sure, it's incomplete, but it's logically valid.
No, it's invalid.
Is this Certainty or is it crap?
Well, I'll ignore the 'Certainty' question and answer that it's crap, because it's not valid.
I'm guessing you're going to agree that it's crap.
Yes, but you're guessing for the wrong reasons.

I'll ignore the rest of your post because it stems from your false belief that you've provided a valid argument. You have not, sir.
"Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so" -- Bertrand Russell
heeltap

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by heeltap »

Q:Can we "know" Anything?" A: NO! Not if you are a nihilist!

Consider a narrower more specific Q to get a better Answer!
User avatar
Mercury51
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: April 13th, 2012, 8:47 pm

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Mercury51 »

cooltodd109 wrote:Socrates famously said that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing.

Can we truly know anything? Do we really know nothing?

If we do know something, how can we be sure that we aren't mistaken?
forget 'we' , there 'is' n o 'we'; what you mean is can I know anything? don't you worry or speculate about other beings, concern yourself only with yourself; before I can know anything I must first know that I AM.

that is far more difficult than you imagine, and extremely rare you are using the wrong tool for the job.
Stanley Huang
Posts: 525
Joined: April 7th, 2011, 9:52 am

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Stanley Huang »

Maybe not. If a scientist thinks he knows, he may be wrong.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Spectrum »

Stanley Huang wrote:Maybe not. If a scientist thinks he knows, he may be wrong.
A scientist is only wrong, if s/he insists s/he knows anything in all circumstances with 100% certainty. A scientist is not wrong if s/he claims to know accepted scientific knowledge, say, Water =H2O or E = MC2 and the likes.

The same applied to Socrates, who said he did not know anything with 100% certainty. Of course, he knew a lot of things perspectively and relatively but not with 100% certainty. If you had read Nietzsche, you would have easily understood the OP.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Stanley Huang
Posts: 525
Joined: April 7th, 2011, 9:52 am

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Stanley Huang »

To Spectrum, Nietzsche's view of life is a moral one, while Spinoza's view of life is metaphysical one. That means that Nietzsche believed that life needs a purpose, while Spinoza believed in existence based on reason. To me, I often do not know what I am writing about. Sometimes, I did not want to write because I feared that it might be dangerous if I do not know what I am writing about. But I feel as a thinker or as a scientist, I need to make such a move. But I am very sceptical person. I will say that maybe I have no knowledge. Maybe I am ignorant and I do not want to think. But I feel a statement may have more than two possible truth value or values. For instance, if I say that tommorrow will rain, this statement can be either true or false. True is one truth value while false is another truth value. But I feel between agree or disagree, there is a not sure, which is neither agree nor disagree. So maybe there are more than two possible true or false truth value. And when asked metaphysical question, there are four possibilities: 1. The first possibility is the statement: Matter exists while the mind does not exist. 2. Second possibility is the statement: Mind exists while matter does not exist. 3. Third possibility is the statement: Both matter and mind exist. 4. Final possibility is the statement: Both matter and the mind do not exist. The four statements above, which one is right? Now, there is a metaphysical position which I call it 'metaphysical uncertainty' and this is the position that I did not assert any one of the statement above and at the same time, I did not negate any of the above statement, so when I ask which one of the above is right, it is neither an assertion nor negation. Then what it that? Not sure, and this is what I called 'metaphysical uncertainty,' which is the position where a person is unsure about which one of the above metaphysical statement is right. This is the metaphysical position I support, what I called 'metaphysical uncertainty,' it is not materialism, not idealism, not nihilism, and not monism but at the same time, it did not deny materialism, it did not deny idealism and it did not deny nihilism and it did not reject monism. So, this is the metaphysical position that I support, or what I called, the epistemological metaphysical position that I am supporting. Regarding to whether or not the equation 'F=ma' is right, I want to ask: "Is the equation a hypothetical one, based on a 'if' statement? If it a hypothetical equation, then, it cannot be wrong metaphysical, but logically, it may be an error, or, one may say: "It may not be perfect." That means this equation may work if certain condition exists, however, if different situation happens, the equation 'F=ma' may be wrong.
Fhbradley
Posts: 242
Joined: January 6th, 2012, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley-McTaggart-Russell

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Fhbradley »

cooltodd109 wrote:Socrates famously said that the only thing we can know is that we know nothing.

Can we truly know anything? Do we really know nothing?

If we do know something, how can we be sure that we aren't mistaken?
Socrates was an ironist. Don't take that statement literally.

-- Updated May 3rd, 2012, 10:47 am to add the following --
Scottie wrote:
Fiveredapples wrote:
Logically, an argument can be valid even though the conclusion does not agree with experience. The premises of any logical argument don't have to conform to experience for a conclusion to be valid. In fact, they CAN conform to experience, be logically valid, and still yield a conclusion that doesn't agree with experience.

1. All living cats respond to stimuli 2. I respond to stimuli 3. Therefore, I'm a living cat.

Sure, it's incomplete, but it's logically valid?
No, it's not logically valid. In the first premise, what you're saying is:

For all x, if x is a living cat, then x responds to stimuli.

This says nothing about whether or not anything else responds to stimuli. It just says that if you're a living cat, you respond to stimuli, and there is not a cat that doesn't respond to stimuli. So clearly your conclusion does not follow.

-- Updated May 3rd, 2012, 10:55 am to add the following --
HexHammer wrote:Fiveredapples #42
Surely you are kidding. In the middle ages true knowledge was that the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, it was even written in the holy book, therefore it was unquestionable.

Indeed you are very shard, but I don't agree with your logic in most of your posts.

To have knowledge of a proposition, the proposition must be true. The proposition 'The earth is flat' is not true, therefore, it's cognitively meaningless to say you have knowledge of it. Secondly, I don't see how its being written in a holy book makes a difference. For instance, imagine if in a holy book it was written that nothing exists. Would it follow then that nothing exists? Clearly not. Again, one of the conditions of knowledge is that the proposition must be true.

-- Updated May 3rd, 2012, 11:11 am to add the following --
Fiveredapples wrote:Conclusions are neither valid or invalid. Conclusions are either true or false, or follow from the premises or don't.
Actually, you've got it backwards. In logic, it's irrelevant as to whether or not the conclusions are true. Logic concerns itself only with validity. So, conclusions are not true or false, but either valid or invalid. For instance, if you say

(1) All Greeks are men, Socrates is a Greek, Therefore Socrates is a man.

You do not presuppose that there are such things as Greeks. Or else (2) would be true and you would have to ontologically commit yourself to the existence of fire breathing dragons

(2) All dragons breathe flame, x is a dragon, therefore x breathes flame.


When we say "All A's are B's", were' saying (x)(x is an A → x is a B). The '(x)' does not commit us to saying there really are A's, unlike saying (∃x)(x is an A & x is a B).
User avatar
Daydreamguy
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: March 24th, 2013, 1:37 am

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Daydreamguy »

These are the two philosophies I came up with

Don’t Refute Without Full Understanding?

We could know nothing? We could know something? We could know it all? We could not know what know is? I could be communicating with no one? Who knows that’s the real question everything can be seen from a larger scale therefore we don’t know or do we? Everything is a question to humans?


Every Answer has a Question Mark Ironically

Human beings with science and logic, in most cases unknowingly make claims of the universe that in reality isn’t this just a way of passively disregarding the simple fact that within a larger scale of understanding we could be wrong or off on something that is considered fact. It’s like studying one page of a book and claiming that you are ready for the test the next day. Because of this simple fact many or even all or some things cannot be refuted although according to what we know they can. Who knows maybe big foot, aliens, ghosts and souls do exist but we don’t have enough information yet. In this very moment and maybe for ever we will stay in this limited range of knowledge per person.

Tell me what you think
User avatar
Wuliheron
Posts: 422
Joined: May 27th, 2013, 2:02 am

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Wuliheron »

Supposedly someone once asked Wittgenstein what does "meaning" mean, to which he asked, "What do you mean by what does meaning mean?" Unless you can tell me what you mean by "know" then I have no clue what you are asking. You might as well be asking if we can "gobbledy gook" anything.
Dustin
Posts: 11
Joined: March 25th, 2014, 9:39 pm

Re: Can we 'know' anything?

Post by Dustin »

Honesty is a hardship forcing us to realize our Insignificance. Sorry for the lame quote. I'm just trying to make sure it posts before I go on typing a longer reply that never shows up again :P . I'm a new bee.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021