Does absolute truth exist?

[Speakpigeon]

How can you use words as "know" and "knowledge" when you dont have a concept that matches them?

It's a derail.

I'm not sure why we would necessarily mean a concept whenever we use a particular word. Words don't necessarily mean concepts. Concepts are just one species of ideas we can have. So, we can use a word to mean an idea which is not a concept. You know, when I say, "Ouch!", I don't believe for a moment that I have a concept of "ouch". Do you?
EB

 

[Juma]

How can you use words as "know" and "knowledge" when you dont have a concept that matches them?

It's a derail.

I'm not sure why we would necessarily mean a concept whenever we use a particular word. Words don't necessarily mean concepts. Concepts are just one species of ideas we can have. So, we can use a word to mean an idea which is not a concept. You know, when I say, "Ouch!", I don't believe for a moment that I have a concept of "ouch". Do you?
EB

"ouch" is an interjection, not a verb or noun. Its is not an idea.

"Know" and "knowledge" on the other hand is definitely concepts that need to defined to have a clear meaning if you use them.

 

[George S]

It's a derail.

I'm not sure why we would necessarily mean a concept whenever we use a particular word. Words don't necessarily mean concepts. Concepts are just one species of ideas we can have. So, we can use a word to mean an idea which is not a concept. You know, when I say, "Ouch!", I don't believe for a moment that I have a concept of "ouch". Do you?
EB

"ouch" is an interjection, not a verb or noun. Its is not an idea.

"Know" and "knowledge" on the other hand is definitely concepts that need to defined to have a clear meaning if you use them.

Knowledge is a tricky thing. It has been called justified true belief. Newton, as it turns out, was right and wrong. His knowledge of how the universe behaves was justified false belief. It works to explain the solar system, well almost; close enough that landing a craft on Mars need not account for more. Did Newton have knowledge of the laws of physics? If so, then justified belief is knowledge of a kind. The kind that is never absolute; mutable upon new and better evidence. Never absolute because of the need to account for the unknown probability of unknown unknowns. We keep on learning more so uncovering unknown unknowns happens all the time. Things we realize we don't know converting them to known unknowns. Then the unknown is investigated. "That's funny," says the scientist, and he investigates.

Knowledge -- probability of belief justified by Bayes' Theorem. I "know" becomes "by my calculation the probability I am correct exceeds .99999." I "suspect" ... exceeds .6. I "am pretty sure" ... exceeds .75.

 

[fromderinside]

The expression "best knowledge" is an oximoron if by "knowledge" you want to mean actual knowledge but I understand that you don't. "Best knowledge" can only means sensibly a belief. So, the claim that "science is our best belief" would be better, and I might even agree with it but this applies only to our beliefs about the material world.


I'm not idealistic at all as I must have told you several times already but you are quite good at forgetting.

I don't have a concept of knowledge so it can't be obscene. From time to time I try to make one but without success.

I have looked into the ones that other people have proposed and each time it thought it was crap. Since they all disagree between themselves each of these concepts must have a majority against it with me.

I would call the JTB concept pretty obscene so we must have different values.
EB

How can you use words as "know" and "knowledge" when you dont have a concept that matches them?

Is it sufficient that all one hundred people who know me agree with what I tell them I know?

 

[Juma]

How can you use words as "know" and "knowledge" when you dont have a concept that matches them?

Is it sufficient that all one hundred people who know me agree with what I tell them I know?

Is that your definition of "know" or "knowledge"? Is that speakpidgeons definition of "know" and "knowledge"?

This is a thread where we discuss if "absolute truth" is a meaningful concept. Its not a discussion about sportresults...

Truth and knowledge are intertwined concepts. That is why it matters to this discussion.

"knowledge" us used in at least two ways:
1) a body of justified beliefs. (As in "this is common knowledge")
2) a very abstract, practically unusable, measure of the quality of information. (Knowledge as "true information"). This meaning is only "useful" when discussing metaphysical issues.

The confusion of these two results in a lot of unneccessary discussions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's a derail.

I'm not sure why we would necessarily mean a concept whenever we use a particular word. Words don't necessarily mean concepts. Concepts are just one species of ideas we can have. So, we can use a word to mean an idea which is not a concept. You know, when I say, "Ouch!", I don't believe for a moment that I have a concept of "ouch". Do you?
EB

"ouch" is an interjection, not a verb or noun. Its is not an idea.

You're suddenly shifting from "word" to "verb or noun". Are you planning to shift again?

So, before I waste more of my time talking to you, explain to me what is a "concept" according to you.

"Know" and "knowledge" on the other hand is definitely concepts that need to defined to have a clear meaning if you use them.

No. Some people have a concept of knowledge, i.e. they believe a particular concept they have in mind is an accurate, or possibly just a good, description of something they happen to believe exists somehow. Then, they may or may not have a word to refer to this concept. They may also believe something exists without having a concept to describe it. If so, then again they may or may not have a word to refer to this thing. Most people don't have anything like a concept of most of the things they believe exist.

So, I just happen not to accept any concept of knowledge that I know of as a good description of what I think of as knowledge. That of course is no barrier for me to know certain things and to understand what you mean when you use the word "knowledge". But definitions are only means of convenience and human beings did well without them for a very long time. Dictionaries is a very recent invention in the scheme of things. Knowledge came first, concepts can only come second, if at all. And definitions of knowledge only appeared very late, possibly only with Socrates. I believe people knew things well before being able to articulate a description of their concept of knowledge. They also didn't need any concept of knowledge to have a word to communicate successfuly about what they thought they knew. "Ouch" is a word, not even a noun or a verb, let alone a concept, and yet we communicate successfuly about whatever we use "ouch" to refer to.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

"knowledge" us used in at least two ways:
1) a body of justified beliefs. (As in "this is common knowledge")

"This is common knowledge" doesn't mean at all "this is justified common belief". It means instead that it is something most people would agree that they know. Belief in God is a common belief and people who believe in God would say it's justified and maybe it's true that God exists, yet even they don't say it's knowledge.
EB

 

[Juma]

"knowledge" us used in at least two ways:
1) a body of justified beliefs. (As in "this is common knowledge")

"This is common knowledge" doesn't mean at all "this is justified common belief". It means instead that it is something most people would agree that they know. Belief in God is a common belief and people who believe in God would say it's justified and maybe it's true that God exists, yet even they don't say it's knowledge.
EB

Then ignore the example and move on...

 

[Juma]

Knowledge came first,

How the heck could anyone have any use of that information when you cannot communicate what you mean by "knowledge"?

 

[Speakpigeon]

"This is common knowledge" doesn't mean at all "this is justified common belief". It means instead that it is something most people would agree that they know. Belief in God is a common belief and people who believe in God would say it's justified and maybe it's true that God exists, yet even they don't say it's knowledge.
EB

Then ignore the example and move on...

Rather, give us another example.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Knowledge came first,

How the heck could anyone have any use of that information when you cannot communicate what you mean by "knowledge"?

Yeah, I'm trying to communicate with you and see all the good it does! I certainly didn't say anything about information. Can't you just read what people say for a change?!


Perhaps knowledge is useful to the person (or perhaps, mind) who has it. Who knows? I don't.

Then, second, if the person is so minded, he or she can try to communicate something to other people. But that's a different issue. See?


Certainly I don't understand how the knowledge I have could be usefull. If I knew my knowledge of X is useful, I would probably have to know that my knowledge of that too is useful. It looks like some kind of infinite regress, an abyss to the enquiring mind, a horrible impossibility.
EB

 

[Juma]

How the heck could anyone have any use of that information when you cannot communicate what you mean by "knowledge"?

Yeah, I'm trying to communicate with you and see all the good it does! I certainly didn't say anything about information. Can't you just read what people say for a change?!


Perhaps knowledge is useful to the person (or perhaps, mind) who has it. Who knows? I don't.

Then, second, if the person is so minded, he or she can try to communicate something to other people. But that's a different issue. See?


Certainly I don't understand how the knowledge I have could be usefull. If I knew my knowledge of X is useful, I would probably have to know that my knowledge of that too is useful. It looks like some kind of infinite regress, an abyss to the enquiring mind, a horrible impossibility.
EB

Are you drunk or high or both? This dont make sense at all.

I didnt talk about information, i didnt want your knowledge.

I simply asked what the I should do with the information that "knowledge came first" if you dont tell me what you mean with "knowledge".

Is that somehow hard to grasp?

 

[fromderinside]

Is it sufficient that all one hundred people who know me agree with what I tell them I know?

Is that your definition of "know" or "knowledge"? Is that speakpidgeons definition of "know" and "knowledge"?

This is a thread where we discuss if "absolute truth" is a meaningful concept. Its not a discussion about sportresults...

Truth and knowledge are intertwined concepts. That is why it matters to this discussion.

"knowledge" us used in at least two ways:
1) a body of justified beliefs. (As in "this is common knowledge")
2) a very abstract, practically unusable, measure of the quality of information. (Knowledge as "true information"). This meaning is only "useful" when discussing metaphysical issues.

The confusion of these two results in a lot of unneccessary discussions.

So universality in a set doesn't work. So, why should we discuss absolutes about which we can not be certain for a variety of reasons. We don't know the physical world, we don't know about before us or after us, we don't know others, we can't know things since wee can never know a thing is unique, etc. Saying one knows something is meaningful only to that one and his interpretation of something.

Taking apart your points directly: Common knowledge is met by universal agreement among the 100 people I know that agree with me. Metaphysical issues are by definition 'coffee table talk' about stuff some think interesting, even important. Is that useful? By what metric? Truth and knowledge are convenient set points representing conviction and understanding.

We can discuss this until the cows come home. Since its already been discussed for more than 2500 years with no resolutions nor useful definitions (JTB) I consider it no more than a parlor game. We concluded about 300 years ago that rational method is limited by value and that the only thing we can tag as having value is the material world. So lets not go back to meaningless discussions. Let's concentrate on what we can evaluate, understanding and information.

You sure as hell aren't interested in discussing mind and psychology with one who will resort to interpreting studies based on several tens of thousands of hours of study and research in what are humans and how humans work at a conversational level.

Get off my case.

 

[Juma]

Is that your definition of "know" or "knowledge"? Is that speakpidgeons definition of "know" and "knowledge"?

This is a thread where we discuss if "absolute truth" is a meaningful concept. Its not a discussion about sportresults...

Truth and knowledge are intertwined concepts. That is why it matters to this discussion.

"knowledge" us used in at least two ways:
1) a body of justified beliefs. (As in "this is common knowledge")
2) a very abstract, practically unusable, measure of the quality of information. (Knowledge as "true information"). This meaning is only "useful" when discussing metaphysical issues.

The confusion of these two results in a lot of unneccessary discussions.

So universality in a set doesn't work. So, why should we discuss absolutes about which we can not be certain for a variety of reasons. We don't know the physical world, we don't know about before us or after us, we don't know others, we can't know things since wee can never know a thing is unique, etc. Saying one knows something is meaningful only to that one and his interpretation of something.

Taking apart your points directly: Common knowledge is met by universal agreement among the 100 people I know that agree with me. Metaphysical issues are by definition 'coffee table talk' about stuff some think interesting, even important. Is that useful? By what metric? Truth and knowledge are convenient set points representing conviction and understanding.

We can discuss this until the cows come home. Since its already been discussed for more than 2500 years with no resolutions nor useful definitions (JTB) I consider it no more than a parlor game. We concluded about 300 years ago that rational method is limited by value and that the only thing we can tag as having value is the material world. So lets not go back to meaningless discussions. Let's concentrate on what we can evaluate, understanding and information.

You sure as hell aren't interested in discussing mind and psychology with one who will resort to interpreting studies based on several tens of thousands of hours of study and research in what are humans and how humans work at a conversational level.

Get off my case.

? I havent said that I support these interpretations, only that they are used like that.

 

[fromderinside]

With no progress in about 3000 years .... Time to update.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you drunk or high or both? This dont make sense at all.

I didnt talk about information, i didnt want your knowledge.

I simply asked what the I should do with the information that "knowledge came first" if you dont tell me what you mean with "knowledge".

Is that somehow hard to grasp?

Calm down, Dear. There's no point, really. It was just me misunderstanding your ambiguous sentence.


To answer your question, I leave to others to try to define "knowledge of the material world" (or of any possible "external world"). I believe this kind of knowledge doesn't exist at all but if someone finds a convincing argument that it does then I'm prepared to be convinced.

But, I certainly know pain whenever I am in pain so I do have some other kind of knowledge, applicable to things in my mind, so to speak, like pain and other mental things. This kind of knowledge I believe cannot be defined or even usefully described. You have it or you don't. If you do then you'll understand what I mean. If not, then you won't and there will be nothing I could say to help you understand. I hope that's good enough for you.

So you have to take my word that this kind of knowledge comes first. And there would be no point elaborating on that if you don't have this kind of knowledge. It would be like preaching God to a vegetable. You would have no use for this information.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So personal knowing is it then. Who/what is the person? If it is not you but someone playing you is it actually you or even knowing?

I leave it to you to work that out.

Meanwhile evidence keeps piling up at your doorstep of things you get to think about just because someone apparently made use of that material knowledge (understanding) you don't believe exists.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So personal knowing is it then. Who/what is the person? If it is not you but someone playing you is it actually you or even knowing?

The notion of "person" is not fundamental here. I might be a cabbage for all I know. However, I cannot deny knowing pain whenever I am in pain. Believing I am a human being rather than a cabbage doesn't change my experience of pain.

Meanwhile evidence keeps piling up at your doorstep of things you get to think about just because someone apparently made use of that material knowledge (understanding) you don't believe exists.

Some people may have a certain illusion of free-will. Others have come to believe they actually know the world outside their mind. You are still clutching at what you call "understanding" of this world.

I'm fine with this. I don't mind people believing in God so I don't see why I should get exercised by your little belief here. In fact, for all I know, you may well possess material knowledge. But I certainly don't and perhaps more to the point in your case your idea is contradictory with current scientific beliefs.

Perhaps more likely, and also somewhat more pathetic, is you just misunderstanding what understanding is. You seem to have this idea that one can understand the material world without actual knowledge of it, as if understanding wasn't in fact an instance of knowledge.

Or maybe you are just playing a word game, like so many scientists redefining ordinary words and concepts to suit their ideology, you know, like in 1984. The result of course is that there is no point debating fundamental issues. It's just a waste of time.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Just trying to get around that little problem with extending one's knowing to others. If one can't its useless when what one knows isn't what is reality.

Your turn to dance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just trying to get around that little problem with extending one's knowing to others. If one can't its useless when what one knows isn't what is reality.

Your turn to dance.

I understand that's what you are doing but it's not because you are doing it that what we say about it is true (just as when I said "I understand" I definitely don't know if I really do).

Believing you know, or you understand, or that what you do is useful, puts you in the same category as most philosophers, i.e. the category of people who think that whatever they think they are doing is actually what they are doing. Nothing to be ashamed about. It's only natural, I guess. And I broadly do the same but a little bit of reality check in this respect can’t be bad.
EB