Groundlessness of all knowledge

[Qoeleth]

It seems those things which we assert or claim to know are either 1) groundless assumption, or 2) things which rest on some other pieces of knowledge or assertion. Now, for the latter category, it we trace the supporting knowledge or principles through sufficient steps, we always arrive at a groundless assumption.

For example, we ‘know’ that “There sun is larger than the moon”, because we have read it in books. We ‘know’ that those books can be believed because we trust the expertise of the authors. We trust the expertise of the authors because the majority of other people seem to do so. But why should we give any particular credence to a majority opinion? Here we have a groundless assumption. The fact that many people agree on this groundless assumption is no proof of its truth, since we know that, in the past, the majority have often agreed upon errors.

And, if the knowledge is derived from our perceptions, why should we trust them? It is only our perceptions which verify our perceptions, and thus the whole complex is circular. To trust our perceptions seems to be a groundless assumption.

Now, if all our knowledge, if traced back far enough, is ultimately based on some groundless assumption, why not simply boldly embrace any groundless assumption at the beginning? Surely a piece of ‘knowledge’ which rests, ultimately, on some fundamental groundless assumption has no more merits than the groundless assumption itself, and surely all groundless assumptions are of equal truth value.

Hence it would seem that what passes as ‘knowledge’ is no better than pure unsupported assertions, since one is no more secure in its epistemological basis than the other.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I am not going to debate you, which it seems to me what you want. I will merely point out to you something that you left out that is essential to the knowledge of G*d and Religion…Faith. You either have it or not, and all the arguments and/or other BS in the world will not make one iota of difference.

 

[Qoeleth]

I am not going to debate you, which it seems to me what you want. I will merely point out to you something that you left out that is essential to the knowledge of G*d and Religion…Faith. You either have it or not, and all the arguments and/or other BS in the world will not make one iota of difference.

But you are saying much the same thing as I propose. If all forms of ‘knowledge’ are given equal claims on truth (because of the equally undemonstrable fundaments), then Faith is able to be asserted be treated as true as an rival form of truth claim (such as logic, perception or popular consensus). In fact, it is only in the context of what I said that Faith can be given an irrefutable epistemological basis- that a statement made in Faith has as much claim on ‘Truth’ as any other- since all statements require an equal amont of ‘Faith’ to be accepted (even scientific ones).

 

[1believer1]

***For example, we ‘know’ that “There sun is larger than the moon”, because we have read it in books. ***

I have to disagree… I only go out at night and since I see the moon ( as in a Full Moon)
I see it as the largest and brightest object in the sky. What is this sun you talk about???
I have read these books and I do not agree with them. On another note ,…some people say that the earth is round … I happen to think it is flat.
As most /some people know Christopher Columbus left Spain with four ships,
but arrived in the “new world” with only three. Only a few realize that one of the ships sailed off the edge of the world.!!!

 

[mytruepower2]

It seems those things which we assert or claim to know are either 1) groundless assumption, or 2) things which rest on some other pieces of knowledge or assertion. Now, for the latter category, it we trace the supporting knowledge or principles through sufficient steps, we always arrive at a groundless assumption.

For example, we ‘know’ that “There sun is larger than the moon”, because we have read it in books. We ‘know’ that those books can be believed because we trust the expertise of the authors. We trust the expertise of the authors because the majority of other people seem to do so. But why should we give any particular credence to a majority opinion? Here we have a groundless assumption. The fact that many people agree on this groundless assumption is no proof of its truth, since we know that, in the past, the majority have often agreed upon errors.

And, if the knowledge is derived from our perceptions, why should we trust them? It is only our perceptions which verify our perceptions, and thus the whole complex is circular. To trust our perceptions seems to be a groundless assumption.

Now, if all our knowledge, if traced back far enough, is ultimately based on some groundless assumption, why not simply boldly embrace any groundless assumption at the beginning? Surely a piece of ‘knowledge’ which rests, ultimately, on some fundamental groundless assumption has no more merits than the groundless assumption itself, and surely all groundless assumptions are of equal truth value.

Hence it would seem that what passes as ‘knowledge’ is no better than pure unsupported assertions, since one is no more secure in its epistemological basis than the other.

Tautologies are the exception to this rule. If you go back far enough, you can trace all knowledge to an originating tautology. For example.

X=X

This is a tautology, but it’s also a basis for many other conclusions, such as…

A thing is what it is.
Truth is truth.
Falsehood is falsehood.
An apple is an apple.
Etc, and so on.

This is only one tautology. There are others, such as…

X=/=Not X

From this follows even more conclusions.

Truth =/= Falsehood
Black =/= White
Empty =/= Full
Etc, and so on.

Because falsehood is not truth, we can justify rejecting false or self-refuting claims in our pursuit of the truth, and thus logic begins to take shape. From logic, philosophy. From philosophy, deduction and induction. From deduction and induction, mathematics, the validity of perception and science. From those, all other provable knowledge.

This is my philosophy of knowledge, and I’m sticking to it.

 

[Qoeleth]

Tautologies are the exception to this rule. If you go back far enough, you can trace all knowledge to an originating tautology. For example.

X=X

This is a tautology, but it’s also a basis for many other conclusions, such as…

A thing is what it is.
Truth is truth.
Falsehood is falsehood.
An apple is an apple.
Etc, and so on.

This is only one tautology. There are others, such as…

X=/=Not X

From this follows even more conclusions.

Truth =/= Falsehood
Black =/= White
Empty =/= Full
Etc, and so on.

Because falsehood is not truth, we can justify rejecting false or self-refuting claims in our pursuit of the truth, and thus logic begins to take shape. From logic, philosophy. From philosophy, deduction and induction. From deduction and induction, mathematics, the validity of perception and science. From those, all other provable knowledge.

This is my philosophy of knowledge, and I’m sticking to it.

Hmm…I agree that pure logic and mathematics is based on fundamental tautology- “X=X”.

But even “X=X” seems to be based on ungrounded assumptions. How do we know that the second X refers to the same thing as the first? Do they refer to the ‘same’ thing, or two different things which are the same? (This is badly worded, but I’m sure you understand.)

In what sense is ‘=’ understood? Two ten pound notes ‘equal’ tweny pound note, but only in a certain sense (in reference to nominal value, but NOT in reference to color, shape, size). So, equality itself is ambiguous.

And how do we know even that the graphic marking “X=X” means anything at all, and, if it does, what should it mean? Surely, what it means is determined purely by conventions of language. To a primitive native with a different language, it might mean something entirely different, or nothing at all.

I think we are on shaky ground, even in asserting “X=X” to be necessarily true. At its basis, it seems like simply an accepted assertion- an arbitrary rule of language.

 

[Portofino]

And, if the knowledge is derived from our perceptions, why should we trust them?

I think the only thing capable of neutralizing such radical skepticism is pragmatism. Why should I trust my perceptions that jumping off a cliff is going to cause me to fall? Why should I think it’s going to cause me to die? What does it mean “to die”, anyway? What does “me” mean, anyway? How do I know “me” ever existed in the first place, and what does it mean to “exist”?

Let’s just say that one can “do as one pleases”, in that instance – assuming the phrase “do as one pleases” has any meaning. Most would choose pragmatism as the baseline of one’s survival, even if radical skepticism could question – with theoretical detachment – “what does it mean to live, to survive?” (Samuel Johnson famously wrote, “nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of being hanged”). Pragmatism is our baseline, and I suppose empiricism (based on sense perception) is itself a brand of pragmatism. Nerve endings are our baseline, as well

from (Romeo and Juliet):

SAMPSON
After I fight the men, I’ll be nice to the women—I’ll cut off their heads.

GREGORY
The heads of the maids?

SAMPSON
Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads.
Take it in what sense thou wilt.

GREGORY
They must take it in sense that feel it.

 

[St_Francis]

It seems those things which we assert or claim to know are either 1) groundless assumption, or 2) things which rest on some other pieces of knowledge or assertion. Now, for the latter category, it we trace the supporting knowledge or principles through sufficient steps, we always arrive at a groundless assumption.

For example, we ‘know’ that “There sun is larger than the moon”, because we have read it in books. We ‘know’ that those books can be believed because we trust the expertise of the authors. We trust the expertise of the authors because the majority of other people seem to do so. But why should we give any particular credence to a majority opinion? Here we have a groundless assumption. The fact that many people agree on this groundless assumption is no proof of its truth, since we know that, in the past, the majority have often agreed upon errors.

And, if the knowledge is derived from our perceptions, why should we trust them? It is only our perceptions which verify our perceptions, and thus the whole complex is circular. To trust our perceptions seems to be a groundless assumption.

Now, if all our knowledge, if traced back far enough, is ultimately based on some groundless assumption, why not simply boldly embrace any groundless assumption at the beginning? Surely a piece of ‘knowledge’ which rests, ultimately, on some fundamental groundless assumption has no more merits than the groundless assumption itself, and surely all groundless assumptions are of equal truth value.

Hence it would seem that what passes as ‘knowledge’ is no better than pure unsupported assertions, since one is no more secure in its epistemological basis than the other.

Ever since i first found out about Berkeley’s asserting that things don’t really exist, I have wanted to find this out:

If you truly believe what you have written, why do you continue to live as if the opposite were true? Why do you sit and expect the chair which you perceive to be there? Why do you sit? why do you walk through openings in walls simply because you perceive them?

 

[Elostirion]

I’m skeptical about this question. Of course you could even question that the questioning is a “valid” argument. How do we know that these questions are meaningful? Isn’t that also an un supported assumption?

 

[petra22]

Observing a possible conversation…

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Um… 99.99999 % of Knowledge is Based on fact…
Just because we see the moon as a big thing in the sky… we cant assume its bigger than the sun… because the sun has been measured… and yes it’s a whole lot bigger…
and a whole lot hotter… I can feel the heat from here…
Before navigation people believed the earth to be flat… but through investigation it was discovered to be actually round…
In this day and age everything must be Proven to be fact… Scientific Claims must be tried and tested to be Accredited… Gone are the days of Tribal Elders , Witch Doctors ,
Trusted Grand parents that could tell you anything , and you believed, because they said it was true…
Praise the Lord for Education,Modern Medicine , and Calculators…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Hence it would seem that what passes as ‘knowledge’ is no better than pure unsupported assertions, since one is no more secure in its epistemological basis than the other.

I am not a philosopher but here’s my :twocents:

Not disagreeing with anything you say, I would add that I do not consider it an unsupported assertion that your words are communicating ideas to others reading and reflecting on them. It is supported by reality. You know of your existence in the world in this way. You can think yourself into a muddle, but Truth is very simple. It is obvious, and when it is encountered, it usually makes one laugh. It can also shake you up pretty badly. I think that might be what you are driving at, that our foundations at times may not be that solid. Faith, encompassing wisdom, knowledge and understanding, offers that structural soundness.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Hmm…I agree that pure logic and mathematics is based on fundamental tautology- “X=X”.

But even “X=X” seems to be based on ungrounded assumptions. How do we know that the second X refers to the same thing as the first? Do they refer to the ‘same’ thing, or two different things which are the same? (This is badly worded, but I’m sure you understand.)

In what sense is ‘=’ understood? Two ten pound notes ‘equal’ tweny pound note, but only in a certain sense (in reference to nominal value, but NOT in reference to color, shape, size). So, equality itself is ambiguous.

And how do we know even that the graphic marking “X=X” means anything at all, and, if it does, what should it mean? Surely, what it means is determined purely by conventions of language. To a primitive native with a different language, it might mean something entirely different, or nothing at all.

I think we are on shaky ground, even in asserting “X=X” to be necessarily true. At its basis, it seems like simply an accepted assertion- an arbitrary rule of language.

Ever read The Illustrated Man by Ray Bradbury? There’s one short story in there that reminds me of this line of thinking…p. 100 - No Particular Night or Morning.

greenhumanities.edublogs.org/files/2012/09/Bradbury-Illustrated-Man-1wytglb.pdf

 

[polytropos]

Ever since i first found out about Berkeley’s asserting that things don’t really exist, I have wanted to find this out:

If you truly believe what you have written, why do you continue to live as if the opposite were true? Why do you sit and expect the chair which you perceive to be there? Why do you sit? why do you walk through openings in walls simply because you perceive them?

Everyone is a moderate realist when they go on to live their lives.

 

[Qoeleth]

Ever since i first found out about Berkeley’s asserting that things don’t really exist, I have wanted to find this out:

If you truly believe what you have written, why do you continue to live as if the opposite were true? Why do you sit and expect the chair which you perceive to be there? Why do you sit? why do you walk through openings in walls simply because you perceive them?

I’m not saying perception aren’t true. They COULD be true. Again, I don’t ‘believe’ what I have written, but it COULD be true. Since both positions are fundamentally ungrounded, they perhaps can be entertained as equal possibilities.

For each of the “why’s?” you raise, there exists a corresponding “why not?” For every “Why continue to do X”, there is an equally valid “Why not continue to do X?”

Yes, I observe that I continue to behave as if I believed my perceptions. I am not sure why, as I have no particular epistemological commitment to them. But then, the very perception by which I become aware of ‘my’ ‘actions’ seem to have no particular truth claims.

 

[Qoeleth]

Ever read The Illustrated Man by Ray Bradbury? There’s one short story in there that reminds me of this line of thinking…p. 100 - No Particular Night or Morning.

greenhumanities.edublogs.org/files/2012/09/Bradbury-Illustrated-Man-1wytglb.pdf

That’s a remarkable story. And it is quite challenging philosophically and spiritually too…
Thanks for the reference.

 

[OliverR]

Are we not free to weight the balance of probability when considering our existence and beliefs?

If all knowledge is equally valid then why are certain things predictable based on known facts.

 

[Jeanne1184]

That’s a remarkable story. And it is quite challenging philosophically and spiritually too…
Thanks for the reference.

Glad you enjoyed it. My favorite spiritual one is “Fire Balloons”. But all of them have interesting mind twists. If you decide to read the book, don’t overlook the very beginning (a few of us did ), before the first story, as it goes with the title and kinda sets the eerie tone.

 

[Qoeleth]

I’m skeptical about this question. Of course you could even question that the questioning is a “valid” argument. How do we know that these questions are meaningful? Isn’t that also an un supported assumption?

I am not sure if my question is valid. But, if all knowledge ultimately rests on some ungrounded assumption, what possible criteria could there be for determining ‘validity’ or ‘meaning’? The criteria for ‘validity’ would either be asserted without basis, or would rest on something else, which ultimately would arrive at some other ungrounded assertion.

If all assertions, as being ultimately ungrounded, have equal truth claims, even this assertion (the one being made right here), can be treated as true just as plausibly as it can be treated as untrue.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Hence it would seem that what passes as ‘knowledge’ is no better than pure unsupported assertions, since one is no more secure in its epistemological basis than the other.

Isn’t the above assertion knowledge? If not then why hold it? Isn’t what I am saying here knowledge?