I am not a philosopher

[phoage]

I am doing a class for teen aged boys on Faith. As part of introducing it, I am discussing how we know things.

Knowledge is of several types:

1. Self evident: the sun rises in the east. Go out and look.
2. Deduced from premises: how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes.
3. neither self evident nor deducible but accepted because otherwise you would have to reject some other universally accepted truth.

I need a real world example of number 3.

Patrick

 

[empther]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
---- Declaration of Independence

Self-evident can be understood in two ways.
The universe’s existence is self-evident.
Some truths are self-evident from our general knowledge of the human condition. Killing somebody you don’t like is wrong because somebody might want to kill you. What kind of world would that be?

 

[Mark1124]

I am doing a class for teen aged boys on Faith. As part of introducing it, I am discussing how we know things.

Knowledge is of several types:

1. Self evident: the sun rises in the east. Go out and look.
2. Deduced from premises: how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes.
3. neither self evident nor deducible but accepted because otherwise you would have to reject some other universally accepted truth.

I need a real world example of number 3.

Patrick

Based only on what you’ve said, I have absolutely no idea what 3 would be. Did you get these of knowledge from some other source? Maybe if I had more context I could help.
Also, Sherlock Holmes does not solve crimes by deduction, he solves them by induction. Induction uses premises to show that the conclusion is probably true. Deduction uses premises to show that the conclusion must be true, such that asserting the premises and denying the conclusion would be a logical contradiction; you would rarely if ever have enough evidence to deduce the solution to a crime.

 

[LegoGE1947]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
---- Declaration of Independence

Self-evident can be understood in two ways.
The universe’s existence is self-evident.
Some truths are self-evident from our general knowledge of the human condition. Killing somebody you don’t like is wrong because somebody might want to kill you. What kind of world would that be?

The kind of world we would have is the kind we do have in certain parts of big cities or some parts of the world. What I mean is some cities their are teen gangs who don’t like other gangs, maybe because one of the gangs is made up of hispanics and the other is made up of blacks. In some parts of the world Muslims don’t like Jews or anyone who is not Muslim or their are communists who don’t like anyone who espouses a religion of any sort.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Based only on what you’ve said, I have absolutely no idea what 3 would be. Did you get these of knowledge from some other source? Maybe if I had more context I could help.
Also, Sherlock Holmes does not solve crimes by deduction, he solves them by induction. Induction uses premises to show that the conclusion is probably true. Deduction uses premises to show that the conclusion must be true, such that asserting the premises and denying the conclusion would be a logical contradiction; you would rarely if ever have enough evidence to deduce the solution to a crime.

Maybe the existence of a Higher Being that most people call God. It is in a way not self evident because you can’t see God, but to reject this notion you have to also reject the notion that this world is not an accident, or that people are the most advanced creatures on earth.

 

[empther]

The kind of world we would have is the kind we do have in certain parts of big cities or some parts of the world. What I mean is some cities their are teen gangs who don’t like other gangs, etc etc etc etc

What’s your point?
We know it’s wrong, don’t we?

 

[tonyrey]

Regardless of what people claim to believe or disbelieve they all behave and live as if life is purposeful. That should give food for thought…

 

[Rhubarb]

I’ve never heard knowledge broken down into those three distinct categories before. Usually we discuss knowledge as being analytic or synthetic, a priori or a posteriori.

Do a search for epistemology - the wikipedia article is pretty good at outlining basic ideas about knowledge.

 

[LegoGE1947]

What’s your point?
We know it’s wrong, don’t we?

I know it is wrong, that is why I cannot and did not vote for certain candidates for political office.

 

[iloveangels]

I am doing a class for teen aged boys on Faith. As part of introducing it, I am discussing how we know things.

Knowledge is of several types:

1. Self evident: the sun rises in the east. Go out and look.
2. Deduced from premises: how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes.
3. neither self evident nor deducible but accepted because otherwise you would have to reject some other universally accepted truth.

I need a real world example of number 3.

Patrick

3 = inductive reasoning.

Example:
Question: Are all numbers ending in 2 even?
Answer: Yes, because:

2 is even
Any whole number multiple of 2 is made up only of 2s so it must be even.
10 is a whole number multiple of 2, and therefore even.
100 is a whole number multiple of 2, and therefore even.
1000 is a whole number multiple of 2 and therefore even.
And in fact all the place values represent multiples of these, which are multiples of 2, so they all have to be even.

Therefore all numbers that end in 2 are even.

Inductive logic takes definitions or facts that you know and shows how a relationship between those definitions or facts reveals new knowledge from the already known facts. They do work for you. In this case, the work is that it’s not necessary to list all the numbers to infinity (which wouldn’t be possible!!!) in order to see that all the ones ending in 2 are even. You can produce this knowledge from what you know plus a relationship that you can build.

You have to be really, really careful that:
a) the facts that you start out with are really correct.
b) that the relationships between the facts are described correctly, precisely and in such a way that they construct an argument that not only makes sense but holds true logically. These things typically actually have fairly well-defined structures.

Some of the structures are some of the things you know about but don’t usually regard as logic, like your old algebra class.

Your #2 is deductive reasoning. Deductive takes definitions or facts that are known and states things from those definitions formally, by arranging them in patterns until something missed but present POPS OUT aka Sherlock Holmes!
Examples:

1. Unmarried men are bachelors. My uncle is an unmarried man. Therefore my uncle is a bachelor.
2. Or in the case of Sherlock Holmes, going over the facts of the crime until you see a connection that no one saw between things that are right in the evidence. Why didn’t I think of that before??? It was right in front of my eyes, etc.
   Deduction can be kind of subtle, and many people miss deductive things all the time.

 

[iloveangels]

I’ve never heard knowledge broken down into those three distinct categories before. Usually we discuss knowledge as being analytic or synthetic, a priori or a posteriori.

Do a search for epistemology - the wikipedia article is pretty good at outlining basic ideas about knowledge.

The inductive/deductive thing is the way logic is often handled in mathematical logic, which really is the same subject as logic in philosophy class, except the language is a bit different and the logical notation can be a bit different.

Philosophers & logicians are more likely to talk about a priori and a posteriori than mathematicians are, probably because of the somewhat different arguments they tend to construct.

And actually the a priori and a posteriori might lend itself better to a theology class than the inductive/deductive distinction, which can be a little bit pendantic in some situations.

A posteriori knowledge consists of things that you know from experience. Aka I know the sun will come up in the morning, or if it rains I could get wet.

A priori knowledge consists of things that you know from factual relationships. Aka I know that:
—blue is a color, or
—if 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, then 3 times 2 = 6.

REVELATION is actually something else. And so is FAITH. Which doesn’t make them nonsensical or even non-logical, because we can know a lot of different kinds of things on a lot of different levels.

 

[iloveangels]

One of the common argument structures for your #3 which is inductive thinking doesn’t use a positive set of facts like I did, but directly does what you asked, that is: require that argument be accepted “because otherwise you would have to reject some other universally accepted truth.”

Assertion to test: All multiples of 3 are odd numbers.

3 is an odd number.
All multiples of three include even multiples of 3.
2 is an even number and 2x3 is an even mutiple of 3.
2X3 = 6.
6 is also an odd multiple of 2.
All multiples of 2 are even numbers.

Therefore, I have:
a) all multiples of 3 are odd numbers.
b) some multiples of 3 are even numbers.

Contradiction. Therefore, my assertion cannot be true.
Conclusion: All multiples of 3 are not even numbers.

This is called, appropriately enough, proof by contradiction.

The underlying principle is that a thing can’t “be” and “not be” at the same time. Therefore, the refutation of a contradiction yields a logical truth.

NOTE: For this sort of thing to work, of course, “be” and “not be” have to apply to properties that are mutually exclusive. This is why this sort of thing is more useful to mathematics, science and some other kinds of knowledge, and rather less useful when dealing with arguments like pudding cakes with and without frosting, certain wacky psychological states people can get themselves into, and so on.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE CAREFUL getting into all of this with a bunch of kids unless you’re going to actually teach them logic or philosophy and take some time at it. This can be kind of dangerous to immature minds because they tend make all kinds of arguments with faulty premises and take off on tangents. Give a baby a hammer and suddenly everything looks like a nail, etc.

BETTER to talk about the content of REVELATION and FAITH which is another way of knowing that’s just as sure, in very much the same way that LOVE is, which all teenage boys know and dream about in some form. They won’t deny that Loving is Knowing. They know this.

Also the whole business about where we got Revelation, and how that works, is fascinating.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am doing a class for teen aged boys on Faith. As part of introducing it, I am discussing how we know things.

Knowledge is of several types:

1. Self evident: the sun rises in the east. Go out and look.
2. Deduced from premises: how Sherlock Holmes solves crimes.
3. neither self evident nor deducible but accepted because otherwise you would have to reject some other universally accepted truth.

I need a real world example of number 3.

Patrick

Link to Inductive and Deductive Reasoning socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

Since you are teaching the boys about Faith, you should show them how faith is reasonable, this is based on Inductive reasoning. The world exists, it moves, it is ordered, therefore it is reasonable to conclude there must be a God. See Summa Theologiae on the Existence of God here : newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

From this you should look at Part 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church : vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[iloveangels]

Link to Inductive and Deductive Reasoning socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

Since you are teaching the boys about Faith, you should show them how faith is reasonable, this is based on Inductive reasoning. The world exists, it moves, it is ordered, therefore it is reasonable to conclude there must be a God. See Summa Theologiae on the Existence of God here : newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

From this you should look at Part 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church : vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

FIDES ET RATIO

Reason can lead you to the door of faith, but you must step in.

Read Fides et Ratio. It’s an encyclical. It will be very helpful to you if you spend some time on it.

Check paragraphs 156-159 in the CCC. Also 282-289 are helpful.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#159