How do we REALLY Learn What We as Individuals Think We Know?

[RGCheek]

It seems to me that 99.99999% of the people I know, even the most intelligent of them, do not learn things via reason and observed fact. They truly ‘learn’ by simple rote memorization of things they think true based on reference groups they have established in their minds as reliable sources of authority.

They may have a few specific areas of knowledge that they have explored personally, but most people, by far, do not lift the load themselves but merely hop a ride on the backs of those they see passing them toward a place they think they want to go.

Can any of us really say that we make rational and responsible decisions in this way?

 

[oldcelt]

I have to disagree. Knowledge is gained through study observation and experience. Whether another person agrees with that knowledge is based on their experience and observation. It is a never-ending cycle…two people can read the exact same writing and arrive at radically diverse conclusions. One’s world view can never be entirely excluded from the process.

 

[RGCheek]

I have to disagree. Knowledge is gained through study observation and experience.

And ‘study’ is exactly the acceptance of ‘facts’ from a trusted source, is it not?

Whether another person agrees with that knowledge is based on their experience and observation.

So that some people disagree with ‘2 + 2 = 4’ is based on experience and observation?

It is a never-ending cycle…two people can read the exact same writing and arrive at radically diverse conclusions. One’s world view can never be entirely excluded from the process.

Where does ones world view cloud or color the meaning of ‘2 + 2 = 4’?

 

[John_Martin]

It seems to me that 99.99999% of the people I know, even the most intelligent of them, do not learn things via reason and observed fact. They truly ‘learn’ by simple rote memorization of things they think true based on reference groups they have established in their minds as reliable sources of authority.

They may have a few specific areas of knowledge that they have explored personally, but most people, by far, do not lift the load themselves but merely hop a ride on the backs of those they see passing them toward a place they think they want to go.

Can any of us really say that we make rational and responsible decisions in this way?

Greater than 6 sigma of the people you know have learned via reason and observed phenomena. They learned that shoe laces are tied and how to tie them, how to say “mommy” and “daddy” and many thousands of other words in their own observed languages and much of the meanings of those words, such that as symbols they are useful and used to convey meaning. They have learned to eat and where foodstuffs can be found.

I believe you are suggesting that they “stop learning” about the what and why of the phenomena observed, the meaning, at a point when sensitive appetites are temporally satisfied. They have learned which people passing can carry them to another appetite satisfaction.

But, that is the place of entry of Revelation, and Evangelization. A light shining in the midst of the phenomena that is different than reason can reason, a Person and a People that are not from here.

 

[inocente]

It seems to me that 99.99999% of the people I know

I guess you realize that means you know a multiple of 9,999,999 people, which is more than there are on the planet. I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate!

If we couldn’t learn from others, including learning from the dead through the books they wrote, if we had to find out everything individually by direct observation, I think we wouldn’t even know how to reason properly.

As for authority figures: when we’re very young we have to take things on our parents’ authority since there’s so much to learn, not least to avoid the many things which can kill us. But that means that if our parents have prejudices or bad habits, we will too. That’s one of the reasons why hopefully all older kids are taught to test everything and accept nothing on authority alone.

 

[GEddie]

We cannot live long enough to explore everything for ourself, either physically or even less, intellectually.

In addition to the big head and hands, what is unique about human life is the use of language to transfer knowledge from mind to mind.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Ignatius]

It seems to me that 99.99999% of the people I know, even the most intelligent of them, do not learn things via reason and observed fact. . . . . .

The study of how we know things is called epistemology. As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified?Using sound epistemological methods greatly increases the accuracy of the knowledge itself. It answers such questions as the following. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What are its limits?
Here is a primer on the subject: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

One way is to evaluate the trustworthiness of the research of others, that saves having to duplicate all of the study oneself. Here is one approach:
ecs.org/html/educationissues/research/primer/researchtrustworthy.asp

 

[GEddie]

I guess you realize that means you know a multiple of 9,999,999 people, which is more than there are on the planet. I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate!

Actually, 9,999,999 is less than the population of Mexico City

Since he said “percent,” multiply by 100, but 999,999,900 is still less people than there are in India.

Still a crazy exaggeration, but it’s remarkable how crowded our world is.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lucretius]

Maimonides taught three different ways to obtain knowledge:

1. Experience (observation)
2. Rational Argument (from the right first principles)
3. Trustworthy Authority (teachers, scientists, professionals, the Church )

C. S. Lewis writes that very little of our knowledge comes from the first two. Many people believe in a heliocentric solar system have never seen the evidence for it: no telescope data, no probe data, etc. And yet they believe it based on the authority of astronomers. If I were to discount arguments from authority, then I, based on my experience, would most certainly believe that the Earth does not move and that the Sun rotates around it, for I have not seen such data myself.

Luckily, people are not skeptical (and silly) enough to deny a good authority without reason. With so much knowledge in our day and age, it would take a lifetime to learn about one topic alone! Why do you think scientists specialize?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me that 99.99999% of the people I know, even the most intelligent of them, do not learn things via reason and observed fact. They truly ‘learn’ by simple rote memorization of things they think true based on reference groups they have established in their minds as reliable sources of authority.

They may have a few specific areas of knowledge that they have explored personally, but most people, by far, do not lift the load themselves but merely hop a ride on the backs of those they see passing them toward a place they think they want to go.

Can any of us really say that we make rational and responsible decisions in this way?

Generalizations are generally worng and the people who make them generally form their opinions based on something they have heard or read by someone not too bright. And what does that say for the one making such generalizations? It is much better to start doing some serious research, perhaps study a little philosophy, read a number of authors before giving an opinion. And then it should not be a generalization.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

And ‘study’ is exactly the acceptance of ‘facts’ from a trusted source, is it not?

So that some people disagree with ‘2 + 2 = 4’ is based on experience and observation?

Where does ones world view cloud or color the meaning of ‘2 + 2 = 4’?

You have reduced it to the absurd. Knowledge is a much more complex subject than a simple arithmetic function. Some subjects, such as the one you cite must be taken as fact or the whole discipline falls apart. Many others have substantial room for interpretation. But, you knew that…didn’t you.

BTW, I love your home area. Great beauty and incredible history. But that’s just my observation.

John

 

[RGCheek]

Generalizations are generally worng and the people who make them generally form their opinions based on something they have heard or read by someone not too bright.

Umm, that is kind of a generalization as well, isn’t it?

Setting up a topic with broad strokes calls for generalizations and they all have their exceptions with no impact on the general truths they convey.

‘The sky is blue’ is a general truth, but sometimes the sky is gray, or if impacted by the Northern lights it can have a reddish hue.

But it is still valid to say that the sky is indeed blue.

And what does that say for the one making such generalizations?

That they are sacrificing specificity for the sake of brevity?

Some would call that concise.

It is much better to start doing some serious research, perhaps study a little philosophy, read a number of authors before giving an opinion.

Interesting assumption you make here.

And then it should not be a generalization.

And you make this general statement based on…?

 

[RGCheek]

You have reduced it to the absurd.

Wasn’t trying to. What does that say of the topic if one can so easily make it absurd?

Knowledge is a much more complex subject than a simple arithmetic function.

Of course it is, but arithmetic equations are truths too, and so shouldn’t any epistemology take such truths into account?

Some subjects, such as the one you cite must be taken as fact or the whole discipline falls apart.

Unless I see a reason to I don’t do well at simply accepting altruisms.

Many others have substantial room for interpretation. But, you knew that…didn’t you.

Some truths are personal, but I am more interested in discussing what we think of as fact.

We have this model we recite of using reason or experience or validated authority to find knowledge, but the truth is that for the vast majority of us, it is 99% taking things from authority, 1% experience and don’t make me laugh about use of reason.

BTW, I love your home area. Great beauty and incredible history. But that’s just my observation.

John

I do too. If Lincoln was right and the shedding of blood can hallow ground, then Spotsylvania County is sacred, so much American blood was shed here. Great battles of a brutality hard to imagine today were fought here and thousands drive by these places with hardly a thought. At times I cannot help but wonder if we deserve to have this place any more.

The setting is quaint small town with an old college, and the secular man I most respect above all others grew up here. This place is steeped in history and I love it.

But the Boston-DC megalopolis is encroaching and we will, God willing, flee to Shenandoah County upon my wife’s retirement.

 

[RGCheek]

Maimonides taught three different ways to obtain knowledge:

1. Experience (observation)
2. Rational Argument (from the right first principles)
3. Trustworthy Authority (teachers, scientists, professionals, the Church )

C. S. Lewis writes that very little of our knowledge comes from the first two. Many people believe in a heliocentric solar system have never seen the evidence for it: no telescope data, no probe data, etc. And yet they believe it based on the authority of astronomers. If I were to discount arguments from authority, then I, based on my experience, would most certainly believe that the Earth does not move and that the Sun rotates around it, for I have not seen such data myself.

I have no problem with accepting things on authority if that authority is truly valid and trustworthy. Ideology being what it is today I think that we are entirely too generous in giving ‘authoritative’ institutions our trust.

A good debate approach might perhaps be just to cut straight to the point; who has a better source of information rather than bother with the pretense of actually understanding what we discuss.

Luckily, people are not skeptical (and silly) enough to deny a good authority without reason.

But who is to say is a ‘good authority’ and what is the criteria for ‘good reasons’?

WE live in a post-modern society where there are no valid authorities really. All truth is subjective and all good is presumptuous and discriminatory.

It is hard to find a worthy source of information that doesn’t have some vocal critics of some kind, and so depending on what side of the spectrum of any controversy you may inhabit, the other more distant third in disagreement is always full of liars, lunes and cranks.

I suspect that everyone may be right.

With so much knowledge in our day and age, it would take a lifetime to learn about one topic alone! Why do you think scientists specialize?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

To have a better resume and a greater chance at tenure.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Umm, that is kind of a generalization as well, isn’t it?

Setting up a topic with broad strokes calls for generalizations and they all have their exceptions with no impact on the general truths they convey.

‘The sky is blue’ is a general truth, but sometimes the sky is gray, or if impacted by the Northern lights it can have a reddish hue.

But it is still valid to say that the sky is indeed blue.

That they are sacrificing specificity for the sake of brevity?

Some would call that concise.

Interesting assumption you make here.

And you make this general statement based on…?

So you see what I mean. Good. Exceptions do not prove the rule. We are human beings, none of us perfect, all more than a little lazy. After all, it takes a great deal of work to be correct. So you have not really said anything earth shaking. But after all most of the things we talk about or make decisions about each day are not really earth shaking either. So what exactly is the point you want to make? I assume that you have proof that 99.9999 % of the people you know are seriously deficient in whatever perfection it is you think they should have. Now if you are just making personal observations, we can all make those all day long. But what makes your personal observations any more interesting than any others? Why should we sit up and say, " Wow, that is really interesting? "

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Lucretius]

I have no problem with accepting things on authority if that authority is truly valid and trustworthy. Ideology being what it is today I think that we are entirely too generous in giving ‘authoritative’ institutions our trust.

I think that biologists are trustworthy authorities, especially since life is pretty much the same for most people whether of not the “e word” is true. However, when certain biologist speak about topics that I know about (philosophy, theology), then they clearly have no idea what they are talking about

Furthermore, my studies into history, philosophy, and science, as well as the Saints (and ultimately Grace) led me to accept the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

But who is to say is a ‘good authority’ and what is the criteria for ‘good reasons’?

Well, for starters, is the authority’s teachings logically sound? When, professionals who are atheists talk today, they often smuggle in premises that are not agreed upon and very questionable (there is no evidence for God! But when you say “evidence”, you mean physical evidence, and when Christians say “God”, we mean a non-physical entity. There SHOULDN’T be physical evidence for God, for He is not a physical body).

WE live in a post-modern society where there are no valid authorities really. All truth is subjective and all good is presumptuous and discriminatory.

Sadly, some people don’t respond to reason, but rather only to might. “Truth is whatever we (society) want it to be.” So the only way they think their ideology can be right is if it is legalized. Why do you think the “progressives” work so hard to legalize gay “marriage”, abortion, etc. ? Ultimately, the fascists are the one’s who are right in this “democratic” worldview (the state deems Jews to be non-persons. Therefore they are non-persons. The state deems fetuses to be non-persons. Therefore they are non-persons. I don’t see a difference )

It is hard to find a worthy source of information that doesn’t have some vocal critics of some kind, and so depending on what side of the spectrum of any controversy you may inhabit, the other more distant third in disagreement is always full of liars, lunes and cranks.

A claim is not false simply because nuts believe it. New Age people believe the sky is blue (usually ). That doesn’t change the fact that the sky IS blue, even if wackos believe it. Furthermore, a view is not false just because people disagree! Then there can’t be any truth! Of course, that assumes that truth is some sort of democracy (see above).

However, I’m starting to think that you are presenting the irrational thought of many people today in a sort of pessimistic sarcasm. Is this true? Or are you trying to give a taste of the difficulties of convincing others under post-modernism? I can’t really read voice tone and facial expression across the internet

I suspect that everyone may be right.

It’s not about truth, it’s about TOLERENCE! :extrahappy: : youtube.com/watch?v=wmHzYWO6b0k&safe=active

To have a better resume and a greater chance at tenure.

I was trying to be optimistic, but you’re right. Science today isn’t normally about truth. It’s about funding, politics, and technology (power) We can still savage what truth we can from this wreak though.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[RGCheek]

I think that biologists are trustworthy authorities, especially since life is pretty much the same for most people whether of not the “e word” is true. However, when certain biologist speak about topics that I know about (philosophy, theology), then they clearly have no idea what they are talking about

Well, they would be speaking outside their field of expertise. The most annoying thing I keep running into is this ‘The World’s Behavior Does Not Need God to Explain It, Therefore He Does Not Exist Claptrap’.

Furthermore, my studies into history, philosophy, and science, as well as the Saints (and ultimately Grace) led me to accept the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

Same here, especially St Joan of Arch and all the highly unlikely events that paved the way for the establishment of the church, like the defeat of the Assyrians at the walls of Jerusalem and the many coincidences like the rise of Rome. Christ came when the ‘fullness of time had come’ and history is filled with such coincidences.

Well, for starters, is the authority’s teachings logically sound? When, professionals who are atheists talk today, they often smuggle in premises that are not agreed upon and very questionable (there is no evidence for God! But when you say “evidence”, you mean physical evidence, and when Christians say “God”, we mean a non-physical entity. There SHOULDN’T be physical evidence for God, for He is not a physical body).

I think that there is evidence of God’s Order in the Universe, some refer to this as the Anthropic Principle, but the strongest of these things are those things that do are not essential for life but made a very strong positive contribution to mankind’s existence, like the coincidence of a very visible star aligning with the axis of our far most populous hemisphere and aiding trade and navigation.

Sadly, some people don’t respond to reason, but rather only to might. “Truth is whatever we (society) want it to be.” So the only way they think their ideology can be right is if it is legalized. Why do you think the “progressives” work so hard to legalize gay “marriage”, abortion, etc. ? Ultimately, the fascists are the one’s who are right in this “democratic” worldview (the state deems Jews to be non-persons. Therefore they are non-persons. The state deems fetuses to be non-persons. Therefore they are non-persons. I don’t see a difference )

True, but I am wondering if this was ever truly not the case anyway.

A claim is not false simply because nuts believe it. New Age people believe the sky is blue (usually ). That doesn’t change the fact that the sky IS blue, even if wackos believe it. Furthermore, a view is not false just because people disagree! Then there can’t be any truth! Of course, that assumes that truth is some sort of democracy (see above).

You are right, but how often are bad things portrayed by nutball characters in the mass media and people then dismiss the ideology or behavior because they associate it with some evil character that doesn’t even exist? Right or wrong it is still a useful propaganda tool.

However, I’m starting to think that you are presenting the irrational thought of many people today in a sort of pessimistic sarcasm. Is this true? Or are you trying to give a taste of the difficulties of convincing others under post-modernism? I can’t really read voice tone and facial expression across the internet

I am kind of doing both while scatter shooting to see what runs from the brush.

It’s not about truth, it’s about TOLERENCE! :extrahappy:

lol

I was trying to be optimistic, but you’re right. Science today isn’t normally about truth. It’s about funding, politics, and technology (power)

Publish or perish. That which is convenient is true.

We can still savage what truth we can from this wreak though.

Why that is positively BARBARIC!

 

[Lucretius]

I think that there is evidence of God’s Order in the Universe, some refer to this as the Anthropic Principle, but the strongest of these things are those things that do are not essential for life but made a very strong positive contribution to mankind’s existence, like the coincidence of a very visible star aligning with the axis of our far most populous hemisphere and aiding trade and navigation tool

Many people don’t realize that science has a fundamental theist bias. Take the term “Laws of nature/physics.” This is a theological term. God declared the laws for human nature through Moses. However, humans have free will, and thus can go against these laws in certain ways. However, a rock does not have free will, so it cannot go against its nature at all, and thus always falls at the same rate, always melts at the same temperature, etc. God always decrees for the rock to fall according to his law. And thus it always does.

Laws of physics don’t change, even though the things that follow them do. These laws transcend the things that follow them. Sounds like a divine decree to me.

Many scientists are arguing that the universe came to be through the Laws of nature. You might say they came to be through the logos, the rational principle, or in English, the Word. “In the beginning there was the Word…”

Now that science has "proven the God-hypothesis false ", many scientists, like Dr. Hawking, are asking: “what exactly are the laws of nature? There is absolutely no reason we should expect the universe to follow laws consistently, but rather it should follow an entirely random progression. Such order should not exist.”

Instead of tiger cubs becoming tiger lilies, they become consistently tiger adults. This “law of tiger nature” should not exist in a world without God. Yet it does…

In summary, God exists because of the laws of physics The order, purpose, teleology atheists are crying for, it’s called the laws of physics. This is also why Einstein was a deist.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[RGCheek]

Many people don’t realize that science has a fundamental theist bias. Take the term “Laws of nature/physics.” This is a theological term. God declared the laws for human nature through Moses. However, humans have free will, and thus can go against these laws in certain ways. However, a rock does not have free will, so it cannot go against its nature at all, and thus always falls at the same rate, always melts at the same temperature, etc. God always decrees for the rock to fall according to his law. And thus it always does.

Laws of physics don’t change, even though the things that follow them do. These laws transcend the things that follow them. Sounds like a divine decree to me.

Many scientists are arguing that the universe came to be through the Laws of nature. You might say they came to be through the logos, the rational principle, or in English, the Word. “In the beginning there was the Word…”

Now that science has "proven the God-hypothesis false ", many scientists, like Dr. Hawking, are asking: “what exactly are the laws of nature? There is absolutely no reason we should expect the universe to follow laws consistently, but rather it should follow an entirely random progression. Such order should not exist.”

Instead of tiger cubs becoming tiger lilies, they become consistently tiger adults. This “law of tiger nature” should not exist in a world without God. Yet it does…

In summary, God exists because of the laws of physics The order, purpose, teleology atheists are crying for, it’s called the laws of physics. This is also why Einstein was a deist.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Great response.

To speak of Laws without a Law giver is simply blather.

 

[Bahman]

It seems to me that 99.99999% of the people I know, even the most intelligent of them, do not learn things via reason and observed fact. They truly ‘learn’ by simple rote memorization of things they think true based on reference groups they have established in their minds as reliable sources of authority.

They may have a few specific areas of knowledge that they have explored personally, but most people, by far, do not lift the load themselves but merely hop a ride on the backs of those they see passing them toward a place they think they want to go.

Can any of us really say that we make rational and responsible decisions in this way?

We can stand on the shoulders of Giant and try to see farther and doubt them when we are faced with an inconsistency.