Knowledge Ultimately Identified by Accurate Predictions

[Socraticpupil]

Is knowledge ultimately identified by the capacity to make true predictions?

Hypothesis - This apple will fall to the ground. Prediction - When I release the apple, it will fall to the ground. Result- Apple falls to the ground. Repeat experiment to verify results.

Predictive Conclusion- If I release an apple, it will fall to the ground.

Reactive Conclusion- The apple fell to the ground each time I released it.

How can we prove the reactive conclusion, that in the past such an event occurred?

The reactive conclusion is only proven by the predictive conclusion, that it must have fallen in the past because that is what apples do.

How would you prove your knowledge of the reactive conclusion, the past event?

[Belindi]

You prove it inductively like historians do except that n the case of scientific experiments the variables are defined and limited which makes the inductive process a lot more probable.

-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 6:56 am to add the following --

Socraticpupil, I hope you are not a student who is too lazy to think this out for yourself. If so, it's only yourself you are harming.

[Trajk Logik]

I define knowledge simply as a set of instructions that can be updated with new information. You "know" how to speak and write English because you learned the rules, or instructions, for doing so and then apply those rules throughout you life. Using your instruction set is testing your instruction set and when something happens that you didn't predict with your use of it, you end up updating your instruction set.

Is knowledge the same as understanding? I think so. John Searle used his Chinese Room argument to say that machines can't "know" or "understand" anything because the the man in the room doesn't understand Chinese. He's only following some rules for writing down certain scribbles in response to certain scribbles he receives from outside of the room. The problem with his argument is that the instructions in the room aren't for understanding Chinese. The instructions are only "write this when you see that". If you think about how you learned you native language, that isn't how you learned it at all. You were provided images and colors and sounds and then shown the words that are associated with those things. So, if the instructions in the room were actually those that equate the words in Chinese with the man's native language, English, or simply pictures of what the Chinese symbols refer to, over time of learning the instructions, the man in the room would eventually understand Chinese and not need the picture associations anymore because he has something called a memory, and computers do to, that allows him to retain these rules in order to be more efficient. This what happens when we learn something and do it over and over. It becomes automatic and can be done almost unconsciously - like walking and tying your shoes.

[-1-]

The opposite of knowledge, therefore, is ultimately identified by inaccurate predictions.

"Jesus will come back within three generations after he passed up."

"Your prayers will be answered."

"Jesus will save your soul if you truly repent and accept him in your heart."

"The end days are near."

"Leviticus X:XX."

"The Meek shalt inherit the earth."

"Thou shalt have a long life if you respect thine elders." -- or something to this effect.

Which of the above have you seen as an accurate prediction? Remember, to recognize accuracy, some sort of feedback (in terms of results as predicted) must be extant. So if there is no extant result, of a prediction, the prediction is indeterminant, which implies the lack of precision or accuracy.

[-1-]

The reactive conclusion is only proven by the predictive conclusion, that it must have fallen in the past because that is what apples do.

How would you prove your knowledge of the reactive conclusion, the past event?

The reactive conclusion is not a proof. A predictive conclusion is not a proof. The observed ways that the apples fall are observations, and the conclusion is that the observation is predictive and reactive.

There is no proof involved here at all.

If anything, the only thing that is proven is that the apple won't be falling upward each time. That's the only thing proven.