Ignorance, Opinions, and Knowledge

[Nick_A]

P-C

Nick_A wrote: ↑Do you recognize a difference between knowing and understanding?

I think, if I scrunch up all my neurones, I can manage that, yes.

A person can know the rules of chess but do not understand them. They cannot play the game. Understanding is relative. A player with a USCF rating of 2600 understands the game better than a 1600 player. Understanding is proven by the ratio of wins and losses and the quality of opponents.

It is different in life. There is no scale to determine who understands the purpose of life so people just argue opinions. The Oracle told Socrates he was the wisest man in Athens because he knew he didn't know yet also knew such a scale of objective quality must exist.

I think we develop in our minds generalised and typical models, not "perfect" ones.

Yes, we are limited in the visible realm to subjective opinions of circles. However we can believe a perfect circle exists in the intellectual realm. That is what we are attracted to at the depths of our being.

Science and philosophy have many commonalities, and quite a few differences, but I don't recognise the distinction you are making here as being in any way significant or helpful. Science is tactics, while philosophy is strategy? I don't think that captures a worthwile distinction.

Is a forest the same as the sum of its trees? A scientist can study the life of particular trees while the philosopher can study the life of a forest and its connection to other forests and the life of the planet and how it is related to the solar system. Finally the philosopher considers as a hypothesis how all these relationships comprise the lawful wholeness of our great universe. True understanding requires both the knowledge of particulars and of the forms they originated from. knowledge of the objective facts of science in the visible realm and the objective values of the intellectual realm the philosopher seeks to experience above Plato's divided line is the definition of an intelligent human being.

[Nick_A]

P-C

First, how do you know both lead to "truth"? Second, are the two of them distinct, or associated fields with much in common? Thirdly, now you have introduced the "O" word - "objective" - you have muddied the waters. Exactly what do you mean by it? Serious question. The O-word is often used to introduce deliberate confusion, implying a milder meaning, then later assuming a more rigorous one. And so on.

The truth of the fragments of science can be verified by the scientific method. The wholeness of universal purpose must be experienced to be verified by noesis.

If an asteroid collided with the earth destroying it and all life on it. I contend that the universe would continue to function by objective laws performing its function that do not require subjective human opinions

[LuckyR]

T S

Why wouldn't noesis simply be a factor of how your individual brain happens to work (at a level of logical abstraction)?

In a sense it is. First of all Opinion is defined as receiving new impressions and creating new facts. It is the work of our computer mind. Noesis in contrast is defined as remembering the Eternal and immutable natures of reality or the forms.

Dianoia is the experience and interpretation of our senses while noesis is the experience or remembering of our essence of what has always existed.

From our brain's perspective, there is no difference between fact and opinion. They are both conclusions. Opinions are conclusions on subjective topics and facts are conclusions or measurements on objective subjects. Thus the differences lie in the topic not the thought process.

There's a sense of "opinion" where we're referring to "Joe's view on whether Venus ever had liquid water," but re the other sense of "opinion," the difference on my view is whether I'm reporting how something happens to be, what happens to be the case, versus whether I'm reporting how I feel about something--whether I like or dislike it, etc.

I would clarify those thusly: whether or not there was water on Venus is a theory, which is a hybrid in that it is a factually based opinion.

[LuckyR]

From our brain's perspective, there is no difference between fact and opinion. They are both conclusions. Opinions are conclusions on subjective topics and facts are conclusions or measurements on objective subjects. Thus the differences lie in the topic not the thought process.

I feel I must question this, in a small way. Empirical observation - of myself and others - leads me to believe we have opinions about all manner of things. We do not limit our opinions to "subjective topics". While "facts", strictly speaking, are probably limited to so-called "objective" subjects, as you observe.

IMO, "the differences" definitely do not "lie in the topic not the thought process". Surely these "differences" simply reflect the difference in our confidence in our conclusions? Opinions are considered less authoritative than "facts".

I believe you are referring to an increasingly observed situation, namely that in everyday circumstances folks state what amount to opinions on objective subjects: "Trump won the election". Well it is not a fact, it sounds like an opinion, but it is actually an incorrect fact.

[popeye1945]

Experience and knowledge are one and the same thing, experience perception is belief knowledge, that is not to say it is infallible, opinion is abstract, or the adoption of the experience of others on trust. Ignorance is no experience knowledge belief and can sometimes embrace the false knowledge of others.

[Terrapin Station]

P-C

Nick_A wrote: ↑Do you recognize a difference between knowing and understanding?

I think, if I scrunch up all my neurones, I can manage that, yes.

A person can know the rules of chess but do not understand them. They cannot play the game. Understanding is relative. A player with a USCF rating of 2600 understands the game better than a 1600 player. Understanding is proven by the ratio of wins and losses and the quality of opponents.

It is different in life. There is no scale to determine who understands the purpose of life so people just argue opinions. The Oracle told Socrates he was the wisest man in Athens because he knew he didn't know yet also knew such a scale of objective quality must exist.

I think we develop in our minds generalised and typical models, not "perfect" ones.

Yes, we are limited in the visible realm to subjective opinions of circles. However we can believe a perfect circle exists in the intellectual realm. That is what we are attracted to at the depths of our being.

Science and philosophy have many commonalities, and quite a few differences, but I don't recognise the distinction you are making here as being in any way significant or helpful. Science is tactics, while philosophy is strategy? I don't think that captures a worthwile distinction.

Is a forest the same as the sum of its trees? A scientist can study the life of particular trees while the philosopher can study the life of a forest and its connection to other forests and the life of the planet and how it is related to the solar system. Finally the philosopher considers as a hypothesis how all these relationships comprise the lawful wholeness of our great universe. True understanding requires both the knowledge of particulars and of the forms they originated from. knowledge of the objective facts of science in the visible realm and the objective values of the intellectual realm the philosopher seeks to experience above Plato's divided line is the definition of an intelligent human being.

There are no objective purposes, no objective qualities (in that good/bad/best/worst/etc. sense), no objective forms, essences, etc.

[Pattern-chaser]

If an asteroid collided with the earth destroying it and all life on it. I contend that the universe would continue to function by objective laws performing its function that do not require subjective human opinions

No. The universe would continue to function. It does not "require subjective human opinions", as you say. It also has no requirement for "objective laws". It functions as it does because it is what it is. No laws or opinions necessary.

[Nick_A]

T S

There are no objective purposes, no objective qualities (in that good/bad/best/worst/etc. sense), no objective forms, essences, etc.

This is your opinion. It is an expression of negative emotion rather than a statement of facts. Einstein wrote:

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

It is the negative emotions of acquired blind denial that also deny rational knowledge. Humility enables a person to open to and value the integrated wholeness or intelligence of our universe and the quality of consciousness responsible for it which reveals the purpose of life including human purpose.

There has always been a minority with the willingness to transcend defense of opinions for the purpose of experiencing truth within the forms. Humanity needs more of them.

[Nick_A]

P-C

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:15 pm
If an asteroid collided with the earth destroying it and all life on it. I contend that the universe would continue to function by objective laws performing its function that do not require subjective human opinions

No. The universe would continue to function. It does not "require subjective human opinions", as you say. It also has no requirement for "objective laws". It functions as it does because it is what it is. No laws or opinions necessary.

Does a car perform the functions of a car because it is what it is or because it is a machine intelligently designed to operate as it does? It is the same with our universe. It is a living machine designed to operate as it does. Will science eventually understand our universe as it does our cars? Probably but for example it must become less reliant on the law of the EXCLUDED middle or non-contradiction and open to the Law of the INCLUDED middle. This doesn't happen over night

[LuckyR]

If an asteroid collided with the earth destroying it and all life on it. I contend that the universe would continue to function by objective laws performing its function that do not require subjective human opinions

No. The universe would continue to function. It does not "require subjective human opinions", as you say. It also has no requirement for "objective laws". It functions as it does because it is what it is. No laws or opinions necessary.

I understand what you are trying to say and I agree, though "laws" (models to assist humans) are not required, what the models are modelling will continue.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does a car perform the functions of a car because it is what it is or because it is a machine intelligently designed to operate as it does? It is the same with our universe. It is a living machine designed to operate as it does.

It is a living thing, that behaves according to its own nature; it could not do otherwise. All else is us, superimposing our intellectual crutches upon reality, and thinking they were there all the time.

[Pattern-chaser]

I understand what you are trying to say and I agree, though "laws" (models to assist humans) are not required, what the models are modelling will continue.

Yes, the territory continues; the maps are down to us.

[Pattern-chaser]

science [...] must become less reliant on the law of the EXCLUDED middle...

Abandoning binary thinking would be difficult for science, I think. Without the luxury of being able to say "we have proven that X cannot be TRUE, so we can conclude that X is FALSE", science will flounder. What you propose requires the creation of a new discipline of philosophy; science cannot do it today, nor can it change so as to do it tomorrow, without becoming something that is no longer science. The change you propose is truly fundamental.

[Nick_A]

science [...] must become less reliant on the law of the EXCLUDED middle...

Abandoning binary thinking would be difficult for science, I think. Without the luxury of being able to say "we have proven that X cannot be TRUE, so we can conclude that X is FALSE", science will flounder. What you propose requires the creation of a new discipline of philosophy; science cannot do it today, nor can it change so as to do it tomorrow, without becoming something that is no longer science. The change you propose is truly fundamental.

Is there any reason other than habit to prevent science from expanding its horizons and not remain limited by dualism? It takes time. Old habits die hard. Think how long it took for people to admit the world is round? It will take at least that long for science to admit the third dimension of thought which brings objective value to dualism.

[Terrapin Station]

T S

There are no objective purposes, no objective qualities (in that good/bad/best/worst/etc. sense), no objective forms, essences, etc.

It's my opinion, in the sense of it being my view, BECAUSE it is a statement of facts.

You'd need to show any evidence otherwise (to attempt to support that there are objective purposes, etc.)

That Einstein felt how he felt isn't evidence of anything aside from how Einstein felt.