Hearing something and knowing something

[TonyBS]

I hear you man. But I’ve also been avoiding the possibility of speaking with *total *precision, which is sort of a cliff.

That is because we can not talk from the Station of Total Precision.

Our Goal is the attainment of all the attributes but we can not reach the Station of the expounders of those attributes and of all knowledge. Example the Station of Jesus the Christ.

We do not have innate knowledge, all we have is aquired from the sources of this and it is up to us to search and find.

Regards Tony

 

[TheAtheist]

It’s not uncommon to hear people speak as though being told something implies knowing it. Now I’m not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with that, in itself as a manner of speaking (and I’m sure I do it too) but I want to ask: is there a point when it becomes an actual fallacy (dare I say the “being told something implies knowing it” fallacy?)?

Been a long time Peter…for me as well in fact. Hope all has been well.

Actually, i think i’d agree with our resident Jewess. Although in my case i take the question a few steps further - Why are people less Empirical?

In other words, it seems to me that there are people who are essentially less curious about finding things out for themselves and are essentially satisfied with a narrative.

But this goes well beyond mere matters of religion old chum. I’ll give you an example from my own end of the pool so to speak.

So - gather a group of young minds seeking to change the world (uh oh )

Let’s say they have a low opinion of religion and deploy the type of arguments you’ve seen time and time again about the non testable nature of God.

Here’s the question: Will they apply those same rigorous standards to Other Topics that they feel strongly about?

Can they for instance point to… Patriarchy or at least prove the existence of Patriarchy as understood by 3rd Wave Feminists in the same manner they demand that God (Jewish/Christian/muslim/whatever rendition you so choose) be proven to exist?

Or how about that hot topic button issue of White Privilege? Again, can they demonstrate the existence of the White Privilege in the manner that they demand that God be proven to exist?

And just for kicks, im sure there must be someone left on this Earth who actually still believes in Communist Workers Paradise…but funny that…same issues pops up all over again.

I must admit ive chosen rather extreme cases - but i think i’m trying to hammer home a point.

People buy into narratives, especially if the narrative happens to accord with their particular emotional states.

A much much much much smaller portion of the population is fastidious (paranoid?) enough to ask the question: But this narrative i support, does it really make sense?

Because the truth of the matter is this: Rationalism can be a form of superstition too. Just because you can make a coherent and logical statement of a set of beliefs doesn’t mean it must therefore correlate with reality.

There’s really only one way to make sure something somewhat correlates with reality.

But it is easier to accept a narrative. Because - as David Hume stated “Reason is the Slave to the Passions.”

And more importantly, if this narrative can be delivered in manner where its

1.) Bit-sized
2.) Simplified
3.) Easily Understood

then yeah… they’ll accept hearing something as the truth. Because it now becomes a topic of general conversation and they can feel like they are properly informed.

You know…without doing any of the hard work that might actually entail.

Whereas, every expert i’ve ever met in my life - Wall Street bankers, doctors, lawyers, academics - in other words people who spent their whole lives becoming really good at something - are more than willing to admit to the non-clearcut/opaque nature of the more complicated issues found in their respective fields.

And are curious/paranoid enough to ask - “Did what i just hear… is that really true?”

 

[Kaninchen]

Whereas, every expert i’ve ever met in my life - Wall Street bankers, doctors, lawyers, academics - in other words people who spent their whole lives becoming really good at something - are more than willing to admit to the non-clearcut/opaque nature of the more complicated issues found in their respective fields

Unfortunately, we ill-prepare young people for dealing with uncertainty it makes both the powerful and the powerless uneasy.

I’m reminded of the ‘woven web of guesses’ phrase from Xenophanes that Popper quoted in ‘Conjectures and Refutations’:

The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,
All things to us, but in the course of time
Through seeking we may learn and know things better.

These things are, we conjecture, like the truth.

But as for certain truth, no man has known it,
Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods
Nor yet of all the things of which I speak.
And even if by chance he were to utter
The final truth, he would himself not know it:
For all is but a woven web of guesses.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Been a long time Peter…for me as well in fact. Hope all has been well.

Actually, i think i’d agree with our resident Jewess. Although in my case i take the question a few steps further - Why are people less Empirical?

In other words, it seems to me that there are people who are essentially less curious about finding things out for themselves and are essentially satisfied with a narrative.

But this goes well beyond mere matters of religion old chum. I’ll give you an example from my own end of the pool so to speak.

So - gather a group of young minds seeking to change the world (uh oh )

Let’s say they have a low opinion of religion and deploy the type of arguments you’ve seen time and time again about the non testable nature of God.

Here’s the question: Will they apply those same rigorous standards to Other Topics that they feel strongly about?

Can they for instance point to… Patriarchy or at least prove the existence of Patriarchy as understood by 3rd Wave Feminists in the same manner they demand that God (Jewish/Christian/muslim/whatever rendition you so choose) be proven to exist?

Or how about that hot topic button issue of White Privilege? Again, can they demonstrate the existence of the White Privilege in the manner that they demand that God be proven to exist?

And just for kicks, im sure there must be someone left on this Earth who actually still believes in Communist Workers Paradise…but funny that…same issues pops up all over again.

I must admit ive chosen rather extreme cases - but i think i’m trying to hammer home a point.

People buy into narratives, especially if the narrative happens to accord with their particular emotional states.

A much much much much smaller portion of the population is fastidious (paranoid?) enough to ask the question: But this narrative i support, does it really make sense?

Because the truth of the matter is this: Rationalism can be a form of superstition too. Just because you can make a coherent and logical statement of a set of beliefs doesn’t mean it must therefore correlate with reality.

There’s really only one way to make sure something somewhat correlates with reality.

But it is easier to accept a narrative. Because - as David Hume stated “Reason is the Slave to the Passions.”

And more importantly, if this narrative can be delivered in manner where its

1.) Bit-sized
2.) Simplified
3.) Easily Understood

then yeah… they’ll accept hearing something as the truth. Because it now becomes a topic of general conversation and they can feel like they are properly informed.

You know…without doing any of the hard work that might actually entail.

Whereas, every expert i’ve ever met in my life - Wall Street bankers, doctors, lawyers, academics - in other words people who spent their whole lives becoming really good at something - are more than willing to admit to the non-clearcut/opaque nature of the more complicated issues found in their respective fields.

And are curious/paranoid enough to ask - “Did what i just hear… is that really true?”

What you are describing sounds very much like what we are seeing in this current election season.
It takes effort and a willingness to step outside the comfortable narrative for ANY real growth to take place in human beings.
I am certainly not the same person in my fifties that I was in my twenties. And I worry about people who are.

 

[Peter_J]

That is because we can not talk from the Station of Total Precision.

Our Goal is the attainment of all the attributes but we can not reach the Station of the expounders of those attributes and of all knowledge. Example the Station of Jesus the Christ.

We do not have innate knowledge, all we have is aquired from the sources of this and it is up to us to search and find.

Regards Tony

Sounds about right.

I started with someone saying that they “know” something when really they were just told it … but on the other extreme, there could be someone who never says "know"at all, but describes everything as a belief.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Sounds about right.

I started with someone saying that they “know” something when really they were just told it … but on the other extreme, there could be someone who never says "know"at all, but describes everything as a belief.

And then you have the “know-it-alls”.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi all. I’ve been away from the Non-Catholic Religions section for a while (though not so long that I’m inclined to reintroduce myself); but I have a question I’d like to throw out to you all, Catholics and “non-Catholics” alike.

It’s not uncommon to hear people speak as though being told something implies knowing it. Now I’m not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with that, in itself as a manner of speaking (and I’m sure I do it too) but I want to ask: is there a point when it becomes an actual fallacy (dare I say the “being told something implies knowing it” fallacy?)?

Also, is your answer influenced by your religion?

Hi Peter

It’s a good question.

And I think it’s a tricky balance - being open minded enough to always be open to ideas that conflict with what we currently believe, but having sufficient conviction to a set of beliefs that enable us to walk with a certain amount of faith.

I think we’re complex creatures - we each have our own unique experiences which we can ‘test’ any ideas against. And we all have different areas of knowledge and expertise (I’m a scientist so that is bound to effect what claims I find reasonable or not). We might all then have different levels of trust in particular authorities (different religious scriptures or leaders).

As the Rev Bayes wisely concluded (when developing statistics in his spare time!) the greater the strength of belief in any given 'proposition the greater the strength of evidence needed to overcome that belief. So we’re all unlikely to believe something on simple hearing if it conflicts with a strongly held belief we already have - we’ll need something more substantial.

Sometimes perhaps it’s just best to accept that we’re each probably wrong about a tonne of stuff, but we have to get on with life anyway

It’s fascinating about why we each believe certain things, and hold to different beliefs with different levels of conviction.

Michael

P.S. But I agree with the above comments that we don’t always prepare people well to deal with uncertainty, perhaps especially in matters of faith where there often seems to be the least reason to be certain running alongside the greatest desire to be certain.

 

[Peter_J]

Good post, Michael Allen.

I’ve been thinking about my original example, someone saying he “knows” it’s raining but really meaning that someone told him. But we also alternately say that he does mean “know”, but with the caveat that certain standard assumptions hold, in this case that people only say “it’s raining” if it is really true.

Thus distinguishing it from claims that are more likely to be debatable.

 

[Wannano]

Hi Peter

It’s a good question.

And I think it’s a tricky balance - being open minded enough to always be open to ideas that conflict with what we currently believe, but having sufficient conviction to a set of beliefs that enable us to walk with a certain amount of faith.

I think we’re complex creatures - we each have our own unique experiences which we can ‘test’ any ideas against. And we all have different areas of knowledge and expertise (I’m a scientist so that is bound to effect what claims I find reasonable or not). We might all then have different levels of trust in particular authorities (different religious scriptures or leaders).

As the Rev Bayes wisely concluded (when developing statistics in his spare time!) the greater the strength of belief in any given 'proposition the greater the strength of evidence needed to overcome that belief. So we’re all unlikely to believe something on simple hearing if it conflicts with a strongly held belief we already have - we’ll need something more substantial.

Sometimes perhaps it’s just best to accept that we’re each probably wrong about a tonne of stuff, but we have to get on with life anyway

It’s fascinating about why we each believe certain things, and hold to different beliefs with different levels of conviction.

Michael

P.S. But I agree with the above comments that we don’t always prepare people well to deal with uncertainty, perhaps especially in matters of faith where there often seems to be the least reason to be certain running alongside the greatest desire to be certain.

I like your post in many ways. When people on faith issues try to substantiate their own view point by degrading and demoralizing the person or group they disagree with it makes me wonder if they really own their own conviction or if they are going on what they have heard/been taught and just really need to be right.

 

[spedteacherita]

I like your post in many ways. When people on faith issues try to substantiate their own view point by degrading and demoralizing the person or group they disagree with it makes me wonder if they really own their own conviction or if they are going on what they have heard/been taught and just really need to be right.

Good point.

What I’d like to add is that when people are listening, how well are they actually “hearing” what one is saying. Is it without personal bias and experience or using critical thinking skills.
Wouldn’t we agree that the average “Joe or Jo” who sits in the pews on Sunday may only care to learn what is taught in the pulpit.

Welcome back Peter,

God bless all

Rita