Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 09-15-2002, 02:04 PM

Clutch:

My point wasn't that one should count noses, but simply to be aware of the kinds of errors that can occur; not to trust too much.

Keith.

John Galt, Jr. · 09-15-2002, 02:29 PM

Keith,

Can I determine the largest city in Nebraska by looking in an encyclopedia (Brittanica, say) or not. If not, then how can I find out which city is the largest in Nebraska? Can I find out who was Vice President to the President before Lincoln? How would I do this, according to you?

John Galt, Jr.

John Galt, Jr. · 09-15-2002, 02:32 PM

Clutch,

How have I acquired all of the knowledge you say I/we have if not via evidence? Is all of it/some of it/any of it subject to challenge to produce the evidence for it?

John Galt, Jr.

Infinity Lover · 09-15-2002, 03:13 PM

John...
Don't forget to doublecheck whether Clutch is a reliable source, or indeed one person...

Just concerned that you're not making a bigger issue out of this than is needed, or becoming paranoid about reference guides

.

In a way 'rational beliefs' is a contradiction in terms. Ultimately believing is no longer doubting something, even though you can't be sure.

There's such a thing as reliability.
A source you don't nessecariliy have to check, under the knowledge that it's open to investigation. A quality that deities lack.

But that's my 2 cts.

Clutch · 09-15-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote:

How have I acquired all of the knowledge you say I/we have if not via evidence?

The point is justification, not acquisition.

Quote:

Is all of it/some of it/any of it subject to challenge to produce the evidence for it?

All of it, presumably. Just not all of it at once. Thinking seriously about the truth or the warrant of some belief requires taking whole regions of other beliefs as fixed, even if only provisionally.

Keith Russell · 09-15-2002, 06:45 PM

John asked:
Keith,
Can I determine the largest city in Nebraska by looking in an encyclopedia (Brittanica, say) or not.

No. Looking for the information there only tells you what the Encyclopedia Brittanica says is the largest city in Nebraska.

John continues:
If not, then how can I find out which city is the largest in Nebraska?

You can call the Nebraska tourism bureau, but that will only give you what they think is the largest city. You could call the census department, but they would only give you their answer. If all of them gave you the same answer, you can probably (!) trust that you have it right.

John concludes:
Can I find out who was Vice President to the President before Lincoln? How would I do this, according to you?

This is a little easier; Vice Presidents are usually around for at least four years; whereas populations change daily, sometimes even more often than that.

Still, if I had a grade (or a large bet) riding on the answer, I'd check at least two sources (and none of them would be the internet) and make sure they both agreed. (Those pesky misprints, don't ya know!)

Keith.

John Galt, Jr. · 09-16-2002, 03:41 AM

Clutch, Keith,

Is there a disagreement(are there disagreements) between you two or not? IF so, where? At times the two of you seem to be on different sides of this issue; at other times, on the same side. I am trying to find out just what your views are.

Clutch,

You said,

Quote:

The point is justification, not acquisition.

in response to my question

Quote:

How have I acquired all of the knowledge you say I/we have if not via evidence?

Let me rephrase the question in the following way: "How have I acquired all of the 'information'(that you call knowledge)you say I/we have if not via evidence?" The legitimacy of the justification will depend upon the accuracy of that to which I appeal for justification, won't it.m As I understand Keith's points, this is what is behind his remarks about mere claims.

John Galt, Jr.

Red Expendable · 09-16-2002, 10:07 AM

Well, you could always go to every city in Nebraska, and count that population of each city.

Or if you are talking about size, you could measure the size of each city, and get your answer that way.

Not very practical, but hey, if it's that important to you....

All joking aside. You could also say that if you can't trust the evidence in the encyclopedia, then the same could go for what a person is taught in schools - teachers, and professors, the textbooks, etc., etc. Every source of info, from your mother and father, to a stranger on the street, the newspapers, etc. all of these are falliable when it comes to giving you facts.

Are you going to verify every piece of information you receive from everyone and everything, just so you can be sure about every little detail? Probably not. Only where it counts.

One example would be regarding prescriptions from a pharamcy. Prescription misfills are VERY common. People get wrong meds all the time, or high dosages, other peoples, meds, etc. People die, or get sent to the hospital from these errors. If you get a med you never have taken before, you probably would be better off if you check to see it's the correct med. You could check it at the counter, or you could check it at home through a pill reference book. But who says the reference book is correct?

Maybe the pharamcist looks at the pill and says, 'Yes, that's correct'. And after taking the med you get sick, and find out later he was wrong.

How will you ever KNOW what is the correct pill?

RedEx

Mickey · 09-16-2002, 10:43 AM

John Jr.

Isn't the question you are asking "can we have knowledge"?
Seems to me that the quoted sentence"rational beliefs are based only on evidence" is meant to define a difference between belief and knowledge.Simple belief need be based on nothing more than a feeling or impression.For your belief to be accepted by others as according with a set of facts(i.e.,being true)you have to provide a chain of evidence,facts and information which can be shown to link your belief to truth.In other words beliefs you hold,can only become knowledge for others,if they are able to verify them.
My view is that there is no means of knowing any absolute true facts.We can only hold reasonable beliefs subject to their being verified or falsified.

Mickey

Keith Russell · 09-16-2002, 01:03 PM

Mickey said:
"John Jr.
Isn't the question you are asking "can we have knowledge"?
Seems to me that the quoted sentence"rational beliefs are based only on evidence" is meant to define a difference between belief and knowledge.Simple belief need be based on nothing more than a feeling or impression.For your belief to be accepted by others as according with a set of facts(i.e.,being true)you have to provide a chain of evidence,facts and information which can be shown to link your belief to truth.In other words beliefs you hold,can only become knowledge for others,if they are able to verify them."

--Mickey, I agree with you completely up to this point. I disagree with you when you say this:

Mickey: My view is that there is no means of knowing any absolute true facts.We can only hold reasonable beliefs subject to their being verified or falsified."

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2002, 02:04 PM	#31
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Clutch: My point wasn't that one should count noses, but simply to be aware of the kinds of errors that can occur; not to trust too much. Keith.

09-15-2002, 02:29 PM	#32
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Keith, Can I determine the largest city in Nebraska by looking in an encyclopedia (Brittanica, say) or not. If not, then how can I find out which city is the largest in Nebraska? Can I find out who was Vice President to the President before Lincoln? How would I do this, according to you? John Galt, Jr.

09-15-2002, 02:32 PM	#33
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Clutch, How have I acquired all of the knowledge you say I/we have if not via evidence? Is all of it/some of it/any of it subject to challenge to produce the evidence for it? John Galt, Jr.

09-15-2002, 03:13 PM	#34
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	John... Don't forget to doublecheck whether Clutch is a reliable source, or indeed one person... Just concerned that you're not making a bigger issue out of this than is needed, or becoming paranoid about reference guides . In a way 'rational beliefs' is a contradiction in terms. Ultimately believing is no longer doubting something, even though you can't be sure. There's such a thing as reliability. A source you don't nessecariliy have to check, under the knowledge that it's open to investigation. A quality that deities lack. But that's my 2 cts.

09-15-2002, 06:45 PM	#36
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	John asked: Keith, Can I determine the largest city in Nebraska by looking in an encyclopedia (Brittanica, say) or not. No. Looking for the information there only tells you what the Encyclopedia Brittanica says is the largest city in Nebraska. John continues: If not, then how can I find out which city is the largest in Nebraska? You can call the Nebraska tourism bureau, but that will only give you what they think is the largest city. You could call the census department, but they would only give you their answer. If all of them gave you the same answer, you can probably (!) trust that you have it right. John concludes: Can I find out who was Vice President to the President before Lincoln? How would I do this, according to you? This is a little easier; Vice Presidents are usually around for at least four years; whereas populations change daily, sometimes even more often than that. Still, if I had a grade (or a large bet) riding on the answer, I'd check at least two sources (and none of them would be the internet) and make sure they both agreed. (Those pesky misprints, don't ya know!) Keith.

09-16-2002, 10:07 AM	#38
Red Expendable Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 791	Well, you could always go to every city in Nebraska, and count that population of each city. Or if you are talking about size, you could measure the size of each city, and get your answer that way. Not very practical, but hey, if it's that important to you.... All joking aside. You could also say that if you can't trust the evidence in the encyclopedia, then the same could go for what a person is taught in schools - teachers, and professors, the textbooks, etc., etc. Every source of info, from your mother and father, to a stranger on the street, the newspapers, etc. all of these are falliable when it comes to giving you facts. Are you going to verify every piece of information you receive from everyone and everything, just so you can be sure about every little detail? Probably not. Only where it counts. One example would be regarding prescriptions from a pharamcy. Prescription misfills are VERY common. People get wrong meds all the time, or high dosages, other peoples, meds, etc. People die, or get sent to the hospital from these errors. If you get a med you never have taken before, you probably would be better off if you check to see it's the correct med. You could check it at the counter, or you could check it at home through a pill reference book. But who says the reference book is correct? Maybe the pharamcist looks at the pill and says, 'Yes, that's correct'. And after taking the med you get sick, and find out later he was wrong. How will you ever KNOW what is the correct pill? RedEx

09-16-2002, 10:43 AM	#39
Mickey Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Stoke On Trent England Posts: 94	John Jr. Isn't the question you are asking "can we have knowledge"? Seems to me that the quoted sentence"rational beliefs are based only on evidence" is meant to define a difference between belief and knowledge.Simple belief need be based on nothing more than a feeling or impression.For your belief to be accepted by others as according with a set of facts(i.e.,being true)you have to provide a chain of evidence,facts and information which can be shown to link your belief to truth.In other words beliefs you hold,can only become knowledge for others,if they are able to verify them. My view is that there is no means of knowing any absolute true facts.We can only hold reasonable beliefs subject to their being verified or falsified. Mickey

09-16-2002, 01:03 PM	#40
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Mickey said: "John Jr. Isn't the question you are asking "can we have knowledge"? Seems to me that the quoted sentence"rational beliefs are based only on evidence" is meant to define a difference between belief and knowledge.Simple belief need be based on nothing more than a feeling or impression.For your belief to be accepted by others as according with a set of facts(i.e.,being true)you have to provide a chain of evidence,facts and information which can be shown to link your belief to truth.In other words beliefs you hold,can only become knowledge for others,if they are able to verify them." --Mickey, I agree with you completely up to this point. I disagree with you when you say this: Mickey: My view is that there is no means of knowing any absolute true facts.We can only hold reasonable beliefs subject to their being verified or falsified." Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.