Questions About Adam and Eve

[warpus]

if knowledge is false, its no longer knowledge, its ignorance

Anyone who has studied philosophy correct me, but don't most philosophers also accept information as knowledge? Information can be incorrect. Isn't there also a huge debate about what knowledge actually is and whether it can be false?

Anyway, does it make sense that knowledge is subjective while truth is objective?

 

[timtofly]

sounds good to me

I think the key may be in the justified part of the equation. Truth has to be justified and acknowledged.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not quite. Starting with I don't know simply indicates lack of knowledge, not the path you're going to travel from there.

All you can go to from there is: "I observe that ..." instead of "it is truth that ..."

And since observation is all we can, well, observe, it's a rather good place to start.

Knowledge and observation can go together well, but you have left out experience as a source of truth and maybe knowledge, depending upon how you define knowledge. Why would you want to limit the path to discovering Truth to our ability to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum?

Nah, not really. My certainty is based on many people running tests and yielding the same results. Anecdotal data can never lead to certainty in terms of understanding how something works. It can help with an understanding of how you feel about something, but that's a totally different animal.



The only one I start with is:

1. It is possible to understand the world and how some things work


That's it. It cannot be proven, but if it isn't true then the world is a lie. I choose to make the sensible assumption that it is not.

Your assumption in comparison is magnitudes more unlikely to be true - no offense. There is just no way to know whether it is - and it probably isn't.

But you also start with an assumption that how you run your tests and figure out how things works actually leads to truth. As I see it you have at least three assumptions: the world/physical universe can be understood; the scientific method can reveal how things work; and the physical universe is all that there is.

Are you also saying that "how things work" is the highest truth we can know? That there is?

 

[warpus]

But you also start with an assumption that how you run your tests and figure out how things works actually leads to truth. As I see it you have at least three assumptions: the world/physical universe can be understood; the scientific method can reveal how things work; and the physical universe is all that there is.

The method is not an assumption - it is a proven vehicle that allows us to figure out how things work. It's worked so far in every single case leading to our understanding to many many things.

I don't assume that the physical universe is all there is either. Who knows, right? All I assume is that it's possible to figure out how things work. Right now we've only figured out 1 method to do that - no other method even comes close. The path to understanding how things work is clear - use the method that's been proven to work. If one comes up later and it's as successful as the scientific method, I'd have to revisit all of this of course.

Are you also saying that "how things work" is the highest truth we can know? That there is?

No, I make no statement about truth at all. My goal is the truth about how the universe works. This might lead to other facts such as what it actually is, how it was created, if it was, and so on. Very interesting to me and why I think it's important to make the least "out there" assumptions when you begin. Something very simple: "It's possible to understand how the universe works, or at least how some parts of it work". It's not perfect - if the universe is a lie or we're in a simulation or something like that, my quest for truth falls apart. But you need at least one assumption before you can begin this quest, and I think mine is a very acceptable one. I don't see how you could get any less minimalistic about what you assume.

Maybe I should state that I do believe that it's possible for things to exist beyond our reach of understanding. You call these things "beyond the physical". But if this realm is not accessible to us and we're not able to figure out how it works - I don't think it's wise to make any assumptions about it, because you're essentially guessing. There are so many guesses you could make, so one particular one doesn't have a good chance of being correct. Not only that, there's no way for you to check whether it's true or not - so you'd never know. In that case I'd prefer to say "I don't know" instead of creating more assumptions.

 

[timtofly]

Some would say that even a lie is a truth. It is just not the truth one was expecting. That seems to be the premise behind any illusion. The only logical rational behind "creating" truths that every one agrees on is relevance. If one does not relate to a point of knowledge one forgets it and moves on. It may or may not matter that another person may feel that it relates to them just fine.

I am not advocating lying either, it is a powerful control tool to dominate others.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Some would say that even a lie is a truth. It is just not the truth one was expecting.

That's absurd. It's after midnight here. It's dark out. If I were to tell you that as I am typing this post, the Sun is shining into my window, I'd be lying. There is no possible way to make that the truth.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Knowledge and observation can go together well, but you have left out experience as a source of truth and maybe knowledge, depending upon how you define knowledge.

I'd be more interested how you define observation if you claim I leave out experience when I talk about observation.

Why would you want to limit the path to discovering Truth to our ability to manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum?

People who capitalise Truth annoy me to no end.

And I see you limit observation to the limits of our senses when we have all kinds of nifty devices to aid us in observing stuff.

 

[Borachio]

You seem rather bitter about something, Mr Stardust.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, I didn't realise half that post wasn't addressed to me, so I got bitter even before I noticed that.

My gripe though is people telling others about the assumptions they make when they themselves start off with a whopper of an unfounded assumption.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That's absurd. It's after midnight here. It's dark out. If I were to tell you that as I am typing this post, the Sun is shining into my window, I'd be lying. There is no possible way to make that the truth.

I have already posted this in some other thread but it shows how one can view truth and its relation to reality:

"To the senses it is always true that the sun moves round the earth; this is false to the reason. To the reason it is always true that the earth moves round the sun; this is false to the supreme vision. Neither earth moves nor sun; there is only a change in the relation of sun-consciousness & earth-consciousness."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No. To the senses the Earth moves in relation to the Sun. The senses make no conclusion which revolves around which.

Senses and reason do not conflict in this example.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

No. To the senses the Earth moves in relation to the Sun. The senses make no conclusion which revolves around which.

Senses and reason do not conflict in this example.

You are such a smart ass, Ziggy, arnt you? With all the science behind your back. What about people some thousand years ago? What did their reason told them after it analysed the knowledge from senses? I bet there was no conflict either.

 

[Borachio]

Actually, the Sun and Earth both revolve a common point which is the centre of neither.

That point is naturally very very much nearer the centre of the Sun than the Earth. But that's neither here nor there. Any true pedant wouldn't admit that the Earth goes round a stationary Sun.

That's how they discover ectoplanets: by the perturbations in the rotation of their stars.

 

[timtofly]

That's absurd. It's after midnight here. It's dark out. If I were to tell you that as I am typing this post, the Sun is shining into my window, I'd be lying. There is no possible way to make that the truth.

There is no possible way you would need to determine that unless you were using it as a means to prove me wrong. I have no way to varify that, and perhaps to you the sun is shinning in your window. If one makes up absurd lies, of course there is no truth, only absurdity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What about people some thousand years ago? What did their reason told them after it analysed the knowledge from senses? I bet there was no conflict either.

What is the difference between what I observe and what people thousands of years ago observe?

The input is the same, them processing (reason) is different.

Just be glad I didn't address sun-consciousness & earth-consciousness. Then you'd see how big of a smart arse (correct spelling) I can be.

 

[peter grimes]

Actually, the Sun and Earth both revolve a common point which is the centre of neither.

That point is naturally very very much nearer the centre of the Sun than the Earth. But that's neither here nor there. Any true pedant wouldn't admit that the Earth goes round a stationary Sun.

That's how they discover ectoplanets: by the perturbations in the rotation of their stars.

Thanks for correcting

Here in USA#1 we say exoplanet, not ecto. That would be something odd indeed. Like a matrushka(?) nesting doll planet.

Also, we can detect exoplanets by measuring the periodic dip in the Flux of photons reaching the detector from the star. And, we have finally detected photons that have passed through an exoplanet's atmosphere, unless I'm not remembering correctly.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. Exo-planet. My mistake. I went and had my tea, and thought "That's a mistake I made. Right there."

 

[warpus]

I always suspected you drink tea, but now I know for sure.

 

[Perfection]

yes it does



how do you come upon a truth without knowledge?

Lucky guesses are a way to come upon a truth without knowledge.

 

[Berzerker]

Hmm...lemme think about that

seems like knowledge is required even for guessing

the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief."

I suppose guessing aint a justified true belief, but how would you know you've got the truth with a lucky guess? Do you need to know your guess found the truth?

I guessed the truth, but knowledge is required to prove the guess true

this stuff is too deep for me