Starboy

Hi Keith,

I asked the question to try to gain a better understanding or your use of the word knowledge. It appears to me that in your mind knowledge == truth == reality.
Is this so?

BTW, don�t tell any mathematicians that they are scientists; you are likely to get a punch in the nose.

Starboy

Plump-DJ

To Kant..

I meant to reply sooner but time is not always on my side.

I will again respond in short, since i feel i've already made the point I wanted to make. *Regardless* of which epistemic route you wish to go down (and i was from the outset aware of outher "routes") as soon as you say "I have knowledge about an objective realy around me" (objective meaning it exists wether you or i are here to have a looksy and for the most part goes about it's business) or "My beliefs or thoughts correspond to 'that which is'" then they're going to get asked "Doesn't the nature of reality as it is in herself (Metaphyiscs) affect how we know things and wether we can know anything at all and thus shouldn't we address that question first?"

If one does not accept the traditional notion of what it means to know or have knowledge (at least that's how i understand it) then they hardly need to answer that question. They simply redefine the traditional idea so they don't have to deal with it. However *i think* most people accept that this is what it means to have knowledge.

In regards to Manion's article, i wonder if any of the epistemic "movements" you mention don't suffer from a bad case of being irrelevant. I don't believe they solve the problem of knowing any more then empiricism or rationalism do because of the question I asked above. This in my view is the crux of the matter.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Keith Russell

Starboy:

No, 'knowledge' is not the same as reality, and more than concepts are the same as reality-external-to-consciousness.

'Knowledge' is information about reality. Knowledge is real, in that the information is stored in consciousness as energy, or that words are printed on paper in ink, or in particular arrangements of magnetic data, emulsion on film, paint on canvas, etc.

But, 'knowledge' is not the same as (and should not be confused with) what it it is knowledge of...

Keith.

Starboy

Kieth, in your mind is truth == reality?

Starboy

Simon Magus

Good evening philosophers.

I believe that all knowledge consists of bits of information called axioms and a set of rules for processing those axioms. I believe that this "knowledge" may in certain instances correspond to a greater or lesser degree with "truth" that is entirely independent of the knowledge we have of it.

Neurologically speaking, most of the processing goes on in our frontal lobes, where our rules for conducting logic are encoded. The axioms are drawn from memories stored in the temporal lobes and from new data that is received via the senses. Our logical processing goes on in our frontal lobes whether we believe it does or not.

Unfortunately for scholars and the scientific community, a large proportion of the lay population rely heavily on their subjective units or "limbic systems" to guide them in their approach to knowledge. This often leads to serious errors of logical judgement.

For example, lay philosophers have been known to scoff at, ridicule, and make jokes about post-modern epistemologists and their inability to understand something as basic as the Parable of the Marsh by R.M. Pirsig:
Lay scholars have also been known to never attain gnosis of the fact that circular reasoning is invalid. Take for example Hall-Craggs' corrupt attempts to demonstrate that the discipline of Gross Anatomy of the head is in any way valid:
Like the study of the Head an Neck, I maintain that in epistemology the acceptance of certain axioms relating to knowledge, truth and the discernment thereof should yield fruit in one's ability to discern the veracity of forthcoming axioms. Axioms, I might add, that the cruel world stubbornly continues to inflict upon post-modern epistemologists with monotonous regularity.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Simon Magus ]</p>

Feather

Wait just a minute! I'm not a mathematician. I'm a physics grad. student. So I'm better than a mathematician (neener neener)

Clutch

Fine, here's an epistemic foundation: For any proposition P, if you had to bet on it, would you bet for or against P? (Or even money?)

Asked and answered.

Starboy

Oops, sorry Feather. I was trained as a Physicist. No insult intended. Physics is one of those sciences where it is necessary to learn a good deal of mathematics as well as science.

Starboy

Keith Russell

Starboy:

Yes, reality = existence = truth.

Keith.

Primal

Kant: You're points are not in any sense legitamate and hence not going to get a proper response. All you have done is accuse me of blanket fallacies without one bit of support.

Strong words, but with little backing. Your version of an ad hominem was I "accuse subjectivists of abondoning logic", which would not actually be a personal attack, that would be me describing a position, not insulting a position as a refutation. At most, even if you disagreed, you could say it was a straw man, but to say it was an 'ad hominem' is pure fantasy. That's just one example of your substuting abuse for argument though.

As for my definition of subjectivism, I define the position as saying that all that exists is subjective i.e. a matter of pure opinion. Even logic. This is supported by your own statement:

BTW, please come up with something useful instead of militantly making statements like:


Without any support. Geee: I might have made a straw man, why? Well here you give no answer, I just might have done it. Good point.

Well then you may have made a false accusation of fallacy by that same token.


Now as for John Galt Jr. who actually retained a degree of civility and open-mindedness, I will answer him properly:

I would say this was a case of reaching an end point. In that you at some level decided that certain testimony derived from sensation can be taken at face value. The end point would be: testimony and sensation.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>