The Theory of Knowledge

[Betterave]

I have already enumerated them in my previous post - with the exception of questions like “What is knowledge?”,the answers to which can be found in any dictionary.

So you really want me to just guess as to how your ‘answers’ are supposed to match up to my questions? [Assuming they *are supposed to match up! - you’ve still refused to answer my question about that!] Thanks, but that’s not really my kind of game. Couldn’t you just tell me?

And dictionaries? Seriously, Tony: “according to Webster’s, knowledge is X” is not a legitimate move in philosophy. Stop being such a tool.

 

[tonyrey]

So you really want me to just guess as to how your ‘answers’ are supposed to match up to my questions?

More to the point is to explain** why **my answers don’t answer your questions. I have made detailed statements none of which you have refuted and asked several questions **none of which **you have answered. Until you do so you can have the dubious pleasure of having the last word…

 

[tonyrey]

You are expert at slanging people but when it comes to producing a rational explanation of our knowledge of physical objects - or refuting another person’s explanation - you are lost for words. /QUOTE]
I’m also an expert at recognizing prevarication (of course, you make it too easy).

 

[Betterave]

More to the point is to explain** why **my answers don’t answer your questions…

Tony: I honestly don’t know how I can be any clearer about this: I can’t even tell which question each of your so-called ‘answers’ is supposed to answer. I ask you to clarify this and you refuse.

I could address the few instances where you have made this clear, but wouldn’t it make more sense for you to answer all of my questions so that I can actually possibly understand your overall view before criticizing it any further?

 

[Betterave]

“also” implies that you agree that you are expert at slanging people! [and what does “” imply?] You do not deny you are lost for words but when it comes to producing a rational explanation of a person’s knowledge of physical objects or refuting another person’s explanation.

I don’t deny or affirm… (you seem to have a hard time getting that point).

Since you have tried to deflect attention from the subject

Oh right, since that!

I shall explain the scientific view in more detail:

Our knowledge of material objects is obtained by:

1. Sensing - which is initially and usually a passive process of receiving information from the outside world. Sensory organs absorb energy from a physical stimulus in the environment and sensory receptors convert this energy into neural impulses and send them to the brain.

1. Perceiving - which is the active process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting that information.

As infants we do not realise objects continue to exist when out of sight until we are about nine months old. Initially we do not even know they exist separately from ourselves. We learn to identify them by their constancy of qualities such as size, shape and colour. Experiments have shown how we learn to represent and **reason **about the properties of occluded objects. There is no doubt that our belief that they are real is the result of **inference **rather than direct awareness.

Visual perception and cognition in infancy - Carl Granrud

books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vN1xHjbrZYsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA265&dq=knowledge+of+physical+reality&ots=xJ5zWIvnEk&sig=CK44Z_1BPZypIQCMMxQMcwAqjks#v=onepage&q&f=false

Are you quoting Carl Granrud here? …in an attempt to appeal to authority to resolve the issue? I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here, in terms of argumentative strategy. Please explain that in more detail (i.e., present it more clearly).

 

[Betterave]

I asked two questions: “The ‘fact’ you refer to is the egocentric predicament, is it not? How can it also be that which is necessary to recognize the egocentric predicament??”

Now let me show you what a real answer would look like:

To the first question: “Yes it is”; or “No it isn’t; the EP is…”
To the second: “It is possible because…[then say something that actually explains how you can take the ‘fact’ of the egocentric predicament to serve as the necessary condition for recognizing the the egocentric predicament].”

You gave me this:
“Because a predicament is recognised by its causes and effects. [What is that supposed to mean??] We are isolated from everything and everyone else because we do not perceive them but their qualities. [How is that an explanation? Doesn’t your premise just beg the question?] We can recognise we are in the egocentric predicament because we do not have direct knowledge of anything else - unless you can specify what that knowledge is and how we obtain it. *[This again just begs the question, and repeats the sophomoric non sequitur that you’ve been plugging all this time: “If you don’t tell me your view, then my view must be true.”]”

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t deny or affirm… (you seem to have a hard time getting that point).

Oh right, since that!

Are you quoting Carl Granrud here? …in an attempt to appeal to authority to resolve the issue? I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here, in terms of argumentative strategy. Please explain that in more detail (i.e., present it more clearly).

Incessant demands for more explanation! I’m not going to waste any more time or energy on some one who makes himself invulnerable by ignoring all my statements - let alone refute them - and presenting no alternative of his own. Sorry, old chap, the game’s up!

 

[tonyrey]

I asked two questions: “The ‘fact’ you refer to is the egocentric predicament, is it not? How can it also be that which is necessary to recognize the egocentric predicament??”

Now let me show you what a real answer would look like:

To the first question: “Yes it is”; or “No it isn’t; the EP is…”
To the second: “It is possible because…[then say something that actually explains how you can take the ‘fact’ of the egocentric predicament to serve as the necessary condition for recognizing the the egocentric predicament].”

You gave me this:
"Because a predicament is recognised by its causes and effects. [What is that supposed to mean??] We are isolated from everything and everyone else because we do not perceive them but their qualities. [How is that an explanation? Doesn’t your premise just beg the question?] We can recognise we are in the egocentric predicament because we do not have direct knowledge of anything else - unless you can specify what that knowledge is and how we obtain it. *[This again just begs the question, and repeats the sophomoric non sequitur that you’ve been plugging all this time: “If you don’t tell me your view, then my view must be true.”]

"
You are - obtusely or otherwise - ignoring the fact that if we do not have direct knowledge of anything but our own thoughts, feelings and perceptions we must be in an egocentric predicament - a fact which has long been recognised by philosophers and borne out by psychological research into child development of which I have given an example.

“I don’t deny or affirm” sums up your technique perfectly. You can always avoid being refuted but you contribute precisely nothing to the discussion!

The onus is on you to explain how we have immediate knowledge of other things or persons but I know full well that you cannot and that is why you keep insisting on further explanations to evade admitting your inability to do so. Sorry, old chap, the game’s up!

 

[Betterave]

Incessant demands for more explanation! I’m not going to waste any more time or energy on some one who makes himself invulnerable by ignoring all my statements - let alone refute them - and presenting no alternative of his own. Sorry, old chap, the game’s up!

LOL! You’re hilarious! Rude and irrational, but hilarious!

 

[Betterave]

You are - obtusely or otherwise - ignoring the fact that if we do not have direct knowledge of anything but our own thoughts, feelings and perceptions we must be in an egocentric predicament - a fact which has long been recognised by philosophers and borne out by psychological research into child development of which I have given an example.

I have never ‘ignored’ the truth of the “if-then” statement you so obtusely recite here, have I? If I have, where?

“I don’t deny or affirm” sums up your technique perfectly. You can always avoid being refuted but you contribute precisely nothing to the discussion!

Pointing out that view A seems not to make sense contributes precisely nothing to the discussion… Why? Because Tony wants to believe view A. LOL! I love you, tony, but that is nut-bar!

The onus is on you to explain how we have immediate knowledge of other things or persons but I know full well that you cannot and that is why you keep insisting on further explanations to evade admitting your inability to do so. Sorry, old chap, the game’s up!

Why is that onus on me? Why isn’t the onus on you to explain your view when someone asks you to do so? Questions, Tony: they demand answers.

 

[Betterave]

LOL! You’re hilarious! Rude and irrational, but hilarious!

Here it is, Tony. Just read this thread if you have any doubts about the factual nature of my comments.