Keith Russell

John:

Why accept even the existence of Everest on faith?

Why not believe only what you know?

You know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books, films, and personal testimony, and you know that Everest is possible, and--to the best of your knowledge--the various claims of Everest seem non-contradictory.

What else do you need to know? Why should you claim to know anything more than this?

And, why would you claim that what you do know is in any way based on anything like 'faith'?

Keith.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

John Galt, Jr.

Keith,

I am a bit puzzled by your response to my post. You said Is it your view that I do not know that there is a mountain called 'Everest'?

You then go on to make remarks that seem unavailable to you, given previous comments. You say With respect to your remark that I know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books, films, and personal testimony, what makes you think that I satisfy your requirements for knowledge. That is, you attribute knowledge to me, without any evidence at all that my awareness of the these facts is based on evidence.

Moreover, as a matter of fact, I do know that Everest is mentioned in many books, but this isn't based on any evidence that I have collected-- I haven't, for example, checked many books to see if they menction Everest. I do know that Everest is the highest mountain, and so I thereby know that it will be recorded as suchh in many volumes that I know exist in various libraries around the world. But this knowledge is not based on any evidence; at least not anything that you would call evidence, if I understand you correctly. I have accepted, in the course of my intellectual maturation, a variety of facts about the world-- general facts about libraries, about the kinds of things they stock, about the way books are sorted in the libraries. I have just accepted this as part of the huge corpus of knowledge that I have just accepted without checking it out. In fact, many/most of various ways that I have to check things out are only as a result of the fact that I have just accepted without evidence, sources as authoritative, data as facts.

Do you know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books? How do you know this? In answering this question, do not formulate your answer to accord with your preconceptions about the nature of knowledge. Examine to see how you actually have come to know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books.

John Galt, Jr.

Clutch

JG, Jr.,

Is this some sort of "reset after four weeks" program? Why are you back to this?

You have reliable evidence about Everest. Reliable, because it comes through channels that are rationally viewed as reliable. Because you have, in turn, excellent evidence for that. The sources of evidence that tell you about Everest, or the best of them at any rate, have told you many other things which have overwhelming been borne out by your subsequent experience.

So what could conceivably motivate your claim that your Everest belief is based on "faith"? Except for a wish to present beliefs held on the basis of no evidence as being no different from beliefs like that about Everest.

Keith Russell

Keith,
I am a bit puzzled by your response to my post. Keith:
Why accept even the existence of Everest on faith?
Why not believe only what you know?

Is it your view that I do not know that there is a mountain called 'Everest'?

Keith: John, I view is as fairly likely that you possess no first-hand knowledge (experience) of Everest. If that assumption is correct, then yes, I do not think that you can say you know that there is a mountain called 'Everest'.

John: You then go on to make remarks that seem unavailable to you, given previous comments.

Keith (earlier):
You know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books, films, and personal testimony, and you know that Everest is possible, and--to the best of your knowledge--the various claims of Everest seem non-contradictory.

John: With respect to your remark that I know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books, films, and personal testimony, what makes you think that I satisfy your requirements for knowledge.

[b]Keith: John, again, that seemed the most likely asusmption on my part; that you are aware only of claims of Everest, but have no first hand knowledge of it. If this is wrong, if you do have first-hand knowledge/experience of Everest, I am sorry--I assumed incorrectly.

John: That is, you attribute knowledge to me, without any evidence at all that my awareness of the these facts is based on evidence.

Keith: Again, I can only say that I was assuming that you did not have first hand expericne of Everest, but had only the same awareness of the claims of Everest that I myself have.

John: Moreover, as a matter of fact, I do know that Everest is mentioned in many books, but this isn't based on any evidence that I have collected--

Keith: Right, so you really don't 'know' that Everest exists, you have only heard numerous claims that it does, from trustworthy sources, none of whom contradict each other. That is what you know.

John: I haven't, for example, checked many books to see if they menction Everest. I do know that Everest is the highest mountain--

Keith: If we're being precise here, you actually don't know that. You only know that these aforementioned sources all claim that it is, and that no other sources contradict them.

John: --and so I thereby know that it will be recorded as suchh in many volumes that I know exist in various libraries around the world.

Keith: I think you have the cart before the horse. You know that it is claimed that Everest is the highest mountain, and you know that these claims are found in many books. You don't actually know that it is the highest mountain.

John: But this knowledge is not based on any evidence; at least not anything that you would call evidence, if I understand you correctly.

Keith: I call them claims--not evidence. (You are correct.)

John: I have accepted, in the course of my intellectual maturation, a variety of facts about the world--general facts about libraries, about the kinds of things they stock, about the way books are sorted in the libraries. I have just accepted this as part of the huge corpus of knowledge that I have just accepted without checking it out.

But, since you haven't checked it out yourself, why accept it fully? Why take the 'leap of faith' and accept these claims fully, completely? Accept them only to the degree that such claims should be accepted, and no further.

John: In fact, many/most of various ways that I have to check things out are only as a result of the fact that I have just accepted without evidence, sources as authoritative, data as facts.

Keith: As long as you recognize that you have accepted claims, and that no claim should be trusted to the same degree as first hand evidence/experience, no problem. I don't think you should apply 'faith', however, and accept these claims to the same extent as you accept the evidence of experience.

John: Do you know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books?

Keith: Yes.

John: How do you know this?

Keith: because I have seen it mentioned in numerous books.

John: In answering this question, do not formulate your answer to accord with your preconceptions about the nature of knowledge. Examine to see how you actually have come to know that Everest is mentioned in numerous books.

Keith: As I said, I have seen it mentioned in numerous books.

Keith.