What Is Knowledge?

[NowAgnostic]

It strikes me that a lot of disagreements about faith vs. reason, religion vs. science, and so on, center around epistemology - how we know what we know. In fact my own biggest argument about faith is the fact it cannot be known deductively (since God’s revelation isn’t logically necessary) nor inductively with absolute certitude (since inductive methodology doesn’t allow for 100% certitude) yet the Church insists believers have no doubt whatsoever that what is claimed to be Divinely revealed is in fact so. In response, some believers claim some mysterious “third way” of knowing which “transcends” reason. But my question is, how do they know that they are really knowing rather than being deceived or mistaken?

But in a broader picture, it outlines a basic problem. What is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is it known that that is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is that known to be known to be knowledge? One winds up in an inexorable infinite regress. And there’s really no way out. Even if certain things are held “self-evident” (e.g. law of non-contradiction), how are they known to be self-evident? If the response is that it’s self-evident they are self-evident, then how is that known, and so on. Well, I guess no wonder I’m now agnostic…

 

[James_S_Saint]

If you refuse to define the words and concepts, then certainly you can never “know” anything because knowledge is no more than the defining of relevant concepts and applying them to your perception.

You can only “know” through definitions.

Logic is no more than the one declared concept, “What is cannot also be what isn’t” or “non-contradiction of identity”. ALL knowledge, whether from perceived experiences or from deduction, is merely categorizing of concepts (i.e. definitions). This is done through defining properties. Properties are the relevant effects. The effects are categorized for sake of perception and conclusions from deductions. Perceptions tell whether the defined concept is present at that time. Deductions tell whether the defined concept can ever be present.

It all entirely depends on defining the concepts. Without that one effort, nothing can ever been known and anything can be denied and argued forever.

If I define God == “Who/whatever absolutely determines what can or cannot be”, then I can discuss the possible existence of God. If I refuse any definition, then no matter what I claim as knowledge or proof or evidence, then anyone can just claim that God means something else.

Subconsciously, people define things whether they want to or not. From such subconscious definition (that are often incorrect), a sense of knowing or certainty can be gained or “felt”. This is merely knowledge on a different mental level, but the same concerns apply. The proper definitions must be recognized subconsciously (emotionally).

 

[AlbertBall]

If you want to talk in a practical sense then knowledge is that which can be demonstrated to be true.

Belief != knowledge

 

[James_S_Saint]

But then some people want to define knowledge is REAL truth, not merely belief. Pick your definition.

 

[AlbertBall]

!= means does not equal

 

[ricmat]

It strikes me that a lot of disagreements about faith vs. reason, religion vs. science, and so on, center around epistemology - how we know what we know. In fact my own biggest argument about faith is the fact it cannot be known deductively (since God’s revelation isn’t logically necessary) nor inductively with absolute certitude (since inductive methodology doesn’t allow for 100% certitude) yet the Church insists believers have no doubt whatsoever that what is claimed to be Divinely revealed is in fact so. In response, some believers claim some mysterious “third way” of knowing which “transcends” reason. But my question is, how do they know that they are really knowing rather than being deceived or mistaken?

But in a broader picture, it outlines a basic problem. What is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is it known that that is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is that known to be known to be knowledge? One winds up in an inexorable infinite regress. And there’s really no way out. Even if certain things are held “self-evident” (e.g. law of non-contradiction), how are they known to be self-evident? If the response is that it’s self-evident they are self-evident, then how is that known, and so on. Well, I guess no wonder I’m now agnostic…

Hi NowAgnostic.

There are probably a lot of books about this subject. I read one a few years ago that went into this in detail. It was written by a PhD physicist and the first couple of chapters went exactly into the questions you are asking. Unfortunately, my background in philosophy is non-existent, and this is basically a philosophical issue. So I don’t remember the arguments from the book (which I lent out to someone and never got back ) The second half of the book is more science oriented.

If you are interested, the book is “The Science Before Science” by Rizzi(?).

 

[donsnow]

It strikes me that a lot of disagreements about faith vs. reason, religion vs. science, and so on, center around epistemology - how we know what we know. In fact my own biggest argument about faith is the fact it cannot be known deductively (since God’s revelation isn’t logically necessary) nor inductively with absolute certitude (since inductive methodology doesn’t allow for 100% certitude) yet the Church insists believers have no doubt whatsoever that what is claimed to be Divinely revealed is in fact so. In response, some believers claim some mysterious “third way” of knowing which “transcends” reason. But my question is, how do they know that they are really knowing rather than being deceived or mistaken?

But in a broader picture, it outlines a basic problem. What is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is it known that that is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is that known to be known to be knowledge? One winds up in an inexorable infinite regress. And there’s really no way out. Even if certain things are held “self-evident” (e.g. law of non-contradiction), how are they known to be self-evident? If the response is that it’s self-evident they are self-evident, then how is that known, and so on. Well, I guess no wonder I’m now agnostic…

Good afternoon, NowAgnostic -

I don’t know if they really know rather than being deceived or mistaken, by the third and mysterious way of gaining knowledge.

About your second paragraph, returning to the OP, ‘what is knowledge?’, I would submit the one concept of, “Knowledge is information”.

There’s true and false information and there’s information about good and evil. I would say, this is all knowledge and that discerning the true and the false knowledge and discerning the good and evil knowledge would be wisdom.

That’s my answer.

 

[AlbertBall]

!= means does not equal

oh can i add a please. I though i was dealing with mildly educated people

 

[Biggie]

Let me throw this out there. The OP’s question is what I would call “mystification”. It is a defense mechanism for the regime of reason. It defends rationality because it allows reason to offer it doesn’t know what it knows when reason is challenged on its governance.

But let’s say that reason lives in an er satz reality. From the rational viewpoint, what it knows or doesn’t know is irrelevant as long as it works.

Let’s also suggest that things exist as possibilities to reason. We know very well the possibility of God exists, just as the possibility of no God exists. Both are rational propositions. The will must decide which path reason is to pursue.

 

[spockrates]

… Let’s also suggest that things exist as possibilities to reason. We know very well the possibility of God exists, just as the possibility of no God exists. Both are rational propositions. The will must decide which path reason is to pursue.

Biggie:

Great thoughts!



How do you think one might know which path to pursue (i.e., how does one know which path leads to truth)?

 

[Biggie]

Biggie:

Great thoughts!



How do you think one might know which path to pursue (i.e., how does one know which path leads to truth)?

As Pontius Pilate noted, what is truth? If the being is persuaded that the rational regime can succeed - i.e. that by the power of reason the human being can independently fulfill himself - truth becomes whatever works (has utility towards the end of self fulfilled infinity). That person, however, is also presented with a major problem: death. If the rational regime is so potent (as many of the modern scientific bent might propose), where is the necessary victory over death? How can human reason have the power it claims if it cannot propel the being to infinity? And if it cannot overcome death, how can it explain the need to continue driving the human being through sufferings and depletions to a certain dead end? Let’s face it, under those circumstances, ending life as quickly and painlessly as possible is also a third rational proposition.

This is the truth rationality is trying to defend itself against, to distract us by entertainment and comfort, to mystify us making its processes seem shrouded in mystery, to prevent us from inspecting the competency of reason to do what it proposes it can.

In other words, the answer is before us, evidence mercifully left by God. Alone, we die. And we know that death is irrational because we see infinity around and within us. Beauty, love, rational thought itself are without age. So we are aware of the possibility of infinity and cannot explain why we are terminal.

But even for he who is persuaded of the existence of God’s higher reason, and therefore of objective truth and the subservience of human reason, the subsequent problem arises how to know the will of God. For the faithful, is that not what we are here trying to work out?

 

[spockrates]

… In other words, the answer is before us, evidence mercifully left by God. Alone, we die. And we know that death is irrational because we see infinity around and within us. Beauty, love, rational thought itself are without age. So we are aware of the possibility of infinity and cannot explain why we are terminal.

Yes, I hear *what *you are saying, but what I’m asking is why. Why do you know that any thought you have of God is factual, and not merely fictional?

 

[spockrates]

In other words, how do you know that beauty, love and rational thought are not only eternal, but also eternal attributes of a living being we call God?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It strikes me that a lot of disagreements about faith vs. reason, religion vs. science, and so on, center around epistemology - how we know what we know. In fact my own biggest argument about faith is the fact it cannot be known deductively (since God’s revelation isn’t logically necessary) nor inductively with absolute certitude (since inductive methodology doesn’t allow for 100% certitude) yet the Church insists believers have no doubt whatsoever that what is claimed to be Divinely revealed is in fact so. In response, some believers claim some mysterious “third way” of knowing which “transcends” reason. But my question is, how do they know that they are really knowing rather than being deceived or mistaken?

But in a broader picture, it outlines a basic problem. What is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is it known that that is knowledge? And whatever the answer, how is that known to be known to be knowledge? One winds up in an inexorable infinite regress. And there’s really no way out. Even if certain things are held “self-evident” (e.g. law of non-contradiction), how are they known to be self-evident? If the response is that it’s self-evident they are self-evident, then how is that known, and so on. Well, I guess no wonder I’m now agnostic…

The solution: there is no second-order knowledge. But even that throws us back into perplexity…

One problem is that knowledge must be true. This, prima facie, excludes all second-order knowledge, because how can you *know *that something you believe is true? This could only be sustained if we had direct unmediated access to truth, and we had knowledge that we had such access – but even in that case, we could still coherently doubt that we had access!

A simpler question, though: Can we justify our beliefs that we can justify our beliefs? Yes, it seems that we can. So a non-skeptic might say that this is all we need – if our first and second order beliefs happened to conform to reality, then we would have knowledge. This may not be an infinite regress, if there a “basic” beliefs, e.g. that “this is a hand”. You bring up a good problem with this kind of foundationalism, however: as soon as you put together a set of conditions for “basic beliefs” (say, being self-evident), you open yourself to the question “Why?” – which seems to indicate that those beliefs weren’t basic after all, if they have to be justified.

Alternately, perhaps an infinite regress isn’t a problem: Peter Klein thinks we hold an infinite number of beliefs which justify each other all the way down. (He might be right: consider, did you hold a belief that 5,644,898,212 was an even number before you read this sentence? I suspect you did.)

It is when you start studying epistemology that skepticism starts to look awfully compelling.

I’m convinced that the requirement that we “know what we know” is far too stringent. In English, “know” is usually just a word indicative of certainty. But since that definition is too subjective, we have this idea that there is some objective definition: perhaps, justified true belief (JTB). But how is JTB not subjective? Justification is in the eye of the beholder, it seems. The most logical position may be to hold that there are “educated opinions” and “uneducated opinions”, although we can’t develop a science to judge between the two. It seems that certain virtues on the part of the knower – critical thinking, keenness of insight, intelligence, level of attention, etc. – will lead to more instances of true belief and less instances of false belief. We might call this “epistemic virtue”, and accept that some beliefs are better than others, and thus avoid the pitfalls of slippery “knowledge”.

As for “the Church insists believers have no doubt whatsoever that what is claimed to be Divinely revealed is in fact so”, can you tell me where you found this insistence? The Church has insisted that the faithful not contradict Church teaching, but this is a far cry from demonizing doubt. Proper doubt is a virtue, because it creates a contrast of the mind, against which the truth will be far more evident.

 

[Biggie]

In other words, how do you know that beauty, love and rational thought are not only eternal, but also eternal attributes of a living being we call God?

You get it!

How about because of their completely gratuitous nature? They have no precedent in the material world and when reason attempts to use them, they become something else. Reason cannot “digest” them. They have a meaning independent of reason, not provided by reason.

They are either useless accidents all sharing the attribute of infinity, all with an insubordinate impact on the being, or are part of a different infinite order.

 

[Biggie]

Yes, I hear *what *you are saying, but what I’m asking is why. Why do you know that any thought you have of God is factual, and not merely fictional?

What do you mean by “factual” and “fictional”? You do not know, other than the possibility.

And let me counter, why do you think that a God would remain hidden to reason within the possibility?

 

[NowAgnostic]

The solution: there is no second-order knowledge. But even that throws us back into perplexity…

I’ll say. If you don’t know that you know then maybe you don’t know. Just like if you don’t know if it’s going to rain tomorrow then maybe it won’t.

One problem is that knowledge must be true. This, prima facie, excludes all second-order knowledge, because how can you *know *that something you believe is true?

But if it’s true that something you believe is true then, being true, it can be knowledge, right, by this criterion? So in itself there could be second-order knowledge. But then how do you know that’s true? Etc., etc.

This could only be sustained if we had direct unmediated access to truth, and we had knowledge that we had such access – but even in that case, we could still coherently doubt that we had access!

We could doubt we had knowledge of such access.

A simpler question, though: Can we justify our beliefs that we can justify our beliefs? Yes, it seems that we can. So a non-skeptic might say that this is all we need – if our first and second order beliefs happened to conform to reality, then we would have knowledge.

And how is it known they conform to reality?

This may not be an infinite regress, if there a “basic” beliefs, e.g. that “this is a hand”. You bring up a good problem with this kind of foundationalism, however: as soon as you put together a set of conditions for “basic beliefs” (say, being self-evident), you open yourself to the question “Why?” – which seems to indicate that those beliefs weren’t basic after all, if they have to be justified.

Right.

Alternately, perhaps an infinite regress isn’t a problem: Peter Klein thinks we hold an infinite number of beliefs which justify each other all the way down. (He might be right: consider, did you hold a belief that 5,644,898,212 was an even number before you read this sentence? I suspect you did.)

This sounds like coherentism. None of these beliefs need conform to reality if they’re justifying each other. Sure, if you’re willing to give up the idea that knowledge need conform to reality there’s no problem. Maybe there is no reality, only illusion.

It is when you start studying epistemology that skepticism starts to look awfully compelling.

Yep.

I’m convinced that the requirement that we “know what we know” is far too stringent. In English, “know” is usually just a word indicative of certainty. But since that definition is too subjective, we have this idea that there is some objective definition: perhaps, justified true belief (JTB). But how is JTB not subjective? Justification is in the eye of the beholder, it seems.

Exactly, this is just restating the problem with new terminology.

The most logical position may be to hold that there are “educated opinions” and “uneducated opinions”, although we can’t develop a science to judge between the two. It seems that certain virtues on the part of the knower – critical thinking, keenness of insight, intelligence, level of attention, etc. – will lead to more instances of true belief and less instances of false belief.

And how do you justify that belief?

It’s just “turtles all the way down” no matter how you slice it it seems.

We might call this “epistemic virtue”, and accept that some beliefs are better than others, and thus avoid the pitfalls of slippery “knowledge”.

OK but now you have only beliefs not knowledge. Yet the Church maintains things can be known, not just believed. For instance, from Vatican I:

If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

Moreover your biblical literalist and six-day creationist will disagree with the above. He will say that all this critical thinking and intelligence and education stuff correlates with rejection of Divine revelation as stated in Genesis.

As for “the Church insists believers have no doubt whatsoever that what is claimed to be Divinely revealed is in fact so”, can you tell me where you found this insistence? The Church has insisted that the faithful not contradict Church teaching, but this is a far cry from demonizing doubt. Proper doubt is a virtue, because it creates a contrast of the mind, against which the truth will be far more evident.

Yes I can.

From Vatican I:

Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question…

If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

 

[spockrates]

You get it!

How about because of their completely gratuitous nature? They have no precedent in the material world and when reason attempts to use them, they become something else. Reason cannot “digest” them. They have a meaning independent of reason, not provided by reason.

They are either useless accidents all sharing the attribute of infinity, all with an insubordinate impact on the being, or are part of a different infinite order.

Well, what a sorry state I find myself in! I have not the intellect to wrap my mind around beauty and reason. So I suppose I equally impudent to discern whether they are accidents or ordered!

Are you saying that since I cannot know the truth of the existence of these, I cannot know the truth of the existence of the one said to be the source of these?

 

[spockrates]

What do you mean by “factual” and “fictional”? You do not know, other than the possibility.

And let me counter, why do you think that a God would remain hidden to reason within the possibility?

Well, I do have this one mere glimmer of hope:

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

–Spock

 

[Biggie]

Well, I do have this one mere glimmer of hope:

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

–Spock

On the way out, I would answer my own question to you. God hides behind possibility in order that we might love him. Love requires freedom for both the lover and the beloved to walk away.