The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

How does one find True Knowledge?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 834
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel » September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pm

RJG wrote:
September 3rd, 2019, 7:42 am
No, logic applies to all of us. Not even the Gods can defy logic.
If you exist in the objective world, then yes, logic applies to you. If you are a figment of my imagination, then there is no real you to disagree.
Logic applies to statements and symbols. It was logical for waves and particles to be separate things, until it wasn't. Logic, once being used to draw conclusions about objective reality, is always based on experiences of and hypotheses about objective reality. And those hypotheses include the ones you use to deduce that we don't really know trees. You can't come and tell us we can't draw conclusions, objectively, about OR, because that is hypocrisy.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Consul » September 7th, 2019, 3:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Logic applies to statements and symbols.
Not only, because what is logically impossible is ontologically impossible; and what is ontologically impossible is physically impossible.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pm
It was logical for waves and particles to be separate things, until it wasn't.
There's still no paradoxical wave-particle duality! A wave is a wave, and a particle is a particle.
That quantum physics has shown that there are exceptions to the logical law of non-contradiction is a false myth!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Neri
Posts: 71
Joined: April 17th, 2010, 2:20 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Neri » September 8th, 2019, 12:22 am

Consul,

Do you believe that a proposition is true if, but only if, it corresponds to a fact?

Do you not think that before we can decide how to obtain truth, we must first decide what it is?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 834
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel » September 8th, 2019, 1:24 am

Consul wrote:
September 7th, 2019, 3:51 pm
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pm
Logic applies to statements and symbols.
Not only, because what is logically impossible is ontologically impossible; and what is ontologically impossible is physically impossible.
But our ideas about what is logically impossible in reality will always include empirical conclusions and paradigmantic assumptions. You are taking me to say that reality disproves logic. I am not saying that. I am saying that what seems logically impossible need not be. We are in situ, working with limited knowledge. On paper we can rule things out within specific mathematical systems or with symbolic logic, but the moment we start drawing conclusions about reality we are also using other types of processes, like induction and models of reality and even implicit semantics we may not even be aware of.

What seems logically impossible, may not be. Not because the logic is wrong, but because other things are wrong in the premises and assumptions.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 7th, 2019, 3:38 pm
It was logical for waves and particles to be separate things, until it wasn't.
There's still no paradoxical wave-particle duality! A wave is a wave, and a particle is a particle.
That quantum physics has shown that there are exceptions to the logical law of non-contradiction is a false myth!
But it was ruled out as illogical as were many qm phenomena, until the evidence was so strong. I am not saying, and notice that I did not say, that the law of selfcontradiction does not hold. What I am saying is that what seems logically impossible may not be since we will be basing our arguments on models and empirical conclusions and even assumptions we may not even be aware of. And that is why many genius level scientists resisted many qm ideas because they SEEMED illogical.

And this is all relevent to RPG because he wants his cake and eat it too. He wants to tell us we cannot know things about external reality, while telling us things, precisely that, about what is external reality to him. His conclusions cannot be drawn only from logic. They must, absolutely must include ideas about external reality based on his experiences, on empirical research, on models of perception, on models of what sensing is. Something, likely many things from that batch of information is in there for him to take pure symbolic logic off the page and apply it to the nature of reality. So he is being a hypocrite when he tells us we cannot know things about external reality.

My argument, just to be clear again, is not that this or that part of reality shows that logic does not hold. It is showing that what seems logically impossible to us may seem that way because of the non-logic portions of our thinking that MUST be there to draw conclusiosn about the outside world or anything real.

User avatar
detail
Posts: 39
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by detail » September 8th, 2019, 12:15 pm

As a matter of fact , the reasoning for scientific common logic is statistics and Approximation. Hooke's law is just valid for the same spring under not to strong weight forces, it's just valid due to statistical evaluation within it's application scope it's not true if the excerting force is too strong. But most of the commonly approved utterance are treated in the same way . So true knowlege is dependent on the person (experimenter). So true Knowledge is then the experience commonly approved by everybody so true Knowledge is dependent on the Settings of your social political and scientific society. Knowlege itself can be treated via epistemic logics and then is somehow converted to common Knowledge on a kripke structure in a similar way.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1440
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG » September 8th, 2019, 1:00 pm

RJG wrote:TRUTH HIERARCHY:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
Neri wrote:Unfortunately, none of this explains exactly what truth is. In other words, what is this truth that “absolute,” “objective,” “subjective” and “religious” all share? What makes them all examples of truth?
When I say "truths" I am referring to "knowledge that we hold as true" (real; certain). We all possess knowledge (truths), but not all our knowledge is necessarily 'objectively' true (aka "true knowledge").

What I mean is that ALL knowledge is 'subjectively' true (is true in the eye of the beholder), but not necessarily also 'objectively' true (is true 'independent' of the beholder).

Absolute and Objective Truths are not subjectively derived; they are not 'man-made' (they are not dependent upon, nor determined by a beholder), whereas, Subjective and Religious Truths, on the other hand, are subjectively derived (are 'man-made'; are 'beholder-made').

Neri wrote:You present the tautology that “non-truth” is not true. Non-truths, you say, are logical impossibilities. Does this mean that any proposition that is logically possible is true?
No, this does not mean that.

"Logical impossibilities are non-truths" does not mean "logical possibilities are truths".
"Apples are non-vegetables" does not mean "non-apples are vegetables".

Neri wrote:Or are you saying that--because we have no access to facts independent of our experience--truth consists of no more than the coherence of our beliefs when taken as a whole?
No, not at all. We DO have access to (and can know of) "non-experientially derived" facts. We can subjectively know 'absolute' and 'objective' truths. For instance, although we can't know, or be certain of the 'objects' of our experiencing, we can know with absolute certainty of our 'experiencing-of-this-object (content)'.

For example, although we may not know (with certainty) if the 'ghost' that we experience seeing is real, we certainly know that the 'experiencing' (of the ghost) was itself real. Furthermore we can also subjectively know the 'non-experientially' (non-subjectively) derived truths of math and logic.

Neri wrote:It seems to me that the only thing your “truths” have in common is that they are all beliefs. Surely, it cannot be the case that any proposition is true solely because it is believed.
Correct. All truths are 'subjectively' known (aka "beliefs"), but not all beliefs are 'objectively' true.

Neri wrote:The classical definition of knowledge is a justified true belief. In other words, a belief does not count as knowledge unless it is both justified and true.
No offense to the author of this definition, but it is wholly inadequate and non-sensical. For ALL beliefs are "justified and true" in the eye of the beholder, else it would not be called a belief. True (objective) knowledge has no dependence or relation to whatsoever to (subjective) beliefs.

Neri wrote:Presently, we are concerned with how one knows what is true. A simple example will suffice.
Well, since this topic is "How to find True Knowledge?", you are in the right place. :wink:

Two simple steps:
1. Start with an absolute truth ("experiencing" exists) and then logically derive from this point.
2. Remove all logical impossibilities from our contaminated pool of knowledge.


*****
Neri wrote:If I see a man before me, the content is that there is a man before me. The object is the man himself. If I am having a corresponding hallucination, the experience has a content, but no object--even though the content can be the same in both cases. The presence of a content does not necessarily mean that there must be an object.
RJG wrote:Good (and very important!) point, and agreed. For we are only privy to the 'content' (i.e. the bodily reaction, or effect thereof), whereas the 'object' can only be assumed, and never known to exist with certainty.
Neri wrote:As Searle would put it, the intentionally of a perception is only satisfied by a real object outside of us that has the power directly to cause the perception.
Nonsense. Searle only says what we 'want' to hear, and not necessarily what is true. For if we perceive a ghost flying about (or a tree outside), then this ghost (or tree) is a perception. And according to Searle, this therefore makes the ghost (or tree) 'real'.

Again, we are only privy to the 'content' (i.e. the bodily reaction, or effect thereof), whereas the 'object' can only be assumed, and never known to exist with certainty.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:But regardless, you are not working with pure deduction. You are applying deduction to premises based on empirical evidence and experiences about what the objective world is like.
Not so. My logic is very simple. X=X is true, X=~X, X<X, and X>X are logical impossibilities. That's it, that's all I use to "make sense" of reality.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Consul » September 8th, 2019, 1:37 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 1:24 am
But our ideas about what is logically impossible in reality will always include empirical conclusions and paradigmantic assumptions. You are taking me to say that reality disproves logic. I am not saying that. I am saying that what seems logically impossible need not be. We are in situ, working with limited knowledge. On paper we can rule things out within specific mathematical systems or with symbolic logic, but the moment we start drawing conclusions about reality we are also using other types of processes, like induction and models of reality and even implicit semantics we may not even be aware of.
What seems logically impossible, may not be. Not because the logic is wrong, but because other things are wrong in the premises and assumptions.
By "logic" I mean formal logic, and formal logic is not an empirical science. Logical truths are necessary truths; that is, if a logical proposition or principle is true, it must be true. However, classical propositional logic and predicate logic aren't the only logical systems in existence; so one can argue that logical truths (theorems) aren't absolute but relative to some logical system. In fact, there are many nonclassical logical systems. (See e.g. Graham Priest's 600-page Introduction to Non-Classical Logic!). On the other hand, it's one thing to say that there is more than one logic, and another to say that there is more than one correct logic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-pluralism/

For example, the most notorious nonclassical logic is Graham Priest's dialetheism, which allows true contradictions. However, in this logical system true contradictions aren't only true but both true and false, such that it absurdly entails both the acceptance and the rejection of the classical law of non-contradiction. Therefore, Priest's logic of (true) contradictions is self-contradictory; but, anyway, one shouldn't expect a logic of inconsistencies to be consistent itself!

Even if there is more than one correct logic, there are some bedrock principles that cannot rationally be abandoned such as the law of non-contradiction.

"I'm sorry; I decline to contribute to your proposed book about the 'debate' over the law of non-contradiction. My feeling is that since this debate instantly reaches deadlock, there's really nothing much to say about it. To conduct a debate, one needs common ground; principles in dispute cannot of course fairly be used as common ground; and in this case, the principles not in dispute are so very much less certain than non-contradiction itself that it matters little whether or not a successful defence of non-contradiction could be based on them."

(Lewis, David. "Letters to Beall and Priest." In The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, edited by Graham Priest, JC Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb, 176-177. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. p. 176)
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 1:24 am
But it was ruled out as illogical as were many qm phenomena, until the evidence was so strong. I am not saying, and notice that I did not say, that the law of selfcontradiction does not hold. What I am saying is that what seems logically impossible may not be since we will be basing our arguments on models and empirical conclusions and even assumptions we may not even be aware of. And that is why many genius level scientists resisted many qm ideas because they SEEMED illogical.
The (false) appearance of illogicality (paradoxicality, inconsistency) is due to a certain (bad) theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter of which as such is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm enabling physicists to make probabilistic predictions about experimental outcomes. No cat can be both dead and alive/neither dead nor alive!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 834
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel » September 8th, 2019, 3:18 pm

RJG wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 1:00 pm
Not so. My logic is very simple. X=X is true, X=~X, X<X, and X>X are logical impossibilities. That's it, that's all I use to "make sense" of reality.
Peachy, you reached a conclusion about X. I was talking about your conclusions about us, reality, what we can and cannot know.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 834
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel » September 8th, 2019, 3:19 pm

Consul wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 1:37 pm
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 1:24 am
But it was ruled out as illogical as were many qm phenomena, until the evidence was so strong. I am not saying, and notice that I did not say, that the law of selfcontradiction does not hold. What I am saying is that what seems logically impossible may not be since we will be basing our arguments on models and empirical conclusions and even assumptions we may not even be aware of. And that is why many genius level scientists resisted many qm ideas because they SEEMED illogical.
The (false) appearance of illogicality (paradoxicality, inconsistency) is due to a certain (bad) theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter of which as such is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm enabling physicists to make probabilistic predictions about experimental outcomes. No cat can be both dead and alive/neither dead nor alive!
You're responding to someone else, not me. I wish you well in that argument.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Consul » September 8th, 2019, 5:07 pm

Neri wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 12:22 am
Do you believe that a proposition is true if, but only if, it corresponds to a fact?
"Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified)."

The Correspondence Theory of Truth: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trut ... spondence/

So the correspondence theory of truth might better be called the reality theory of truth. However, the truth-making parts of reality needn't be facts (belong to ontological category <fact>); and (arguably) there is no straightforward 1:1 correspondence between truths and facts (= actual, obtaining states of affairs). For example, there are negative truths but (I believe) no negative facts. A true negative proposition of the form ~p isn't true by virtue of some negative fact but by virtue of its negation ~~p = p lacking a truthmaker: If no positive fact makes p true, then p is false; and if p is false, then ~p is true. So ~p isn't true by virtue of having a negative truth-maker, but (indirectly) by virtue of p lacking a positive truth-maker.

I believe the correspondence or reality theory of truth is basically correct, but the relation of truths to (truth-making) realities/entities is more complicated and often less direct than its naive version suggests.

Truthmakers: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
Neri wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 12:22 am
Do you not think that before we can decide how to obtain truth, we must first decide what it is?
I had believed for many years that truth is definable in some (non-circular) way or other, but now I strongly doubt that this is possible.

"I take the notion of truth to be primitive and indefinable, alongside the notions of existence and identity. Only some of the family of formal ontological notions are definable and truthmaking plausibly ought to be one of them. But truth itself, I believe, is too fundamental a notion to admit of non-circular definition."

(Lowe, E. J. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 210)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

MAYA EL
Posts: 43
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by MAYA EL » September 13th, 2019, 4:15 am

detail wrote:
September 8th, 2019, 12:15 pm
As a matter of fact , the reasoning for scientific common logic is statistics and Approximation. Hooke's law is just valid for the same spring under not to strong weight forces, it's just valid due to statistical evaluation within it's application scope it's not true if the excerting force is too strong. But most of the commonly approved utterance are treated in the same way . So true knowlege is dependent on the person (experimenter). So true Knowledge is then the experience commonly approved by everybody so true Knowledge is dependent on the Settings of your social political and scientific society. Knowlege itself can be treated via epistemic logics and then is somehow converted to common Knowledge on a kripke structure in a similar way.
I agree! Good reply 👍

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1440
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG » September 15th, 2019, 2:21 pm

RJG wrote:TRUTH HIERARCHY:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious (#4) truths are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.
detail wrote: So true knowledge is dependent on the person (experimenter). So true Knowledge is then the experience commonly approved by everybody so true Knowledge is dependent on the Settings of your social political and scientific society.
Not so. True knowledge is independent (not "dependent") on the subject (person/experimenter). Experientially derived knowledge/truths are never trustworthy to yield 'true' knowledge. ...can't get objectivity from subjectivity!

Post Reply