Reply to tim wood Do I have the read of this correct if I conclude that you're not trying to pose the question as-such for now, but are trying to present it as the question that tethers and judges philosophical discussion as-such?
I don’t think that question remains answerable when asked in succession enough without forming circular logic. I think there is at least one “pivot” to every belief. An unproven claim that is just accepted. I remember long ago (maybe a year or 2) I was replying to you specifically after you said something along the lines of “Should we concede all civilization and progress in the favor of the annoying child that just keeps asking “why?””. This sounds like a very similar thing.
Reply to khaled Is there a "sweet spot" between the question being asked too much and not being asked enough? On the one hand, if no justification for one's claims are given, any old thing can fly. Then again, as you say, asked insistently it starts to roll-over on itself... what are your thoughts?
Reply to TVCL I don’t think there is such a sweet spot. Someone can explain all of physics by referring to a God that moves things on a whim and that the reason there is regularity and the appearance of laws is just pure chance and that would be just as “epistemologically valid” as our actual theories of physics. As to which will be believed that is a different matter entirely. The whimsical god theory I just mentioned will definitely be cast aside as invalid when it is only really improbable.
However what I have noticed is that beliefs that tend to obscure their “pivot” the most are the most believed. If you present just the pivot as a belief (like the whimsical god) people will have no reason to believe you. However the more deductions and logical steps you take further away from said pivot the more believable the thing is. Because it makes it seem like there is no pivot making the belief seem “objective” when really it’s that the pivot is so obscure that by the time you find it you have invested too much in the interpretation of the world resulting from it that you end up believing it anyways.
In other words a belief is more believable the more times you have to ask “But why” or “But how do you know” to get to an unproven premise.
Reply to khaled That might explain why a belief gains higher traction but that's judging all answers to "how do you know" as being equally valid or convincing. The question demands standards but it does not - by itself - dictate what those standards must be. However, if the question is never asked or is trivialised there are no standards at all.
As a parallel question then, do you differentiate the whimsical god theory from actual physics or do would you regard them ask being equally indicative or truth/knowledge?
Deleted UserAugust 17, 2020 at 20:31#4439920 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to TVCL It would be weird to regard them as equally indicative or not equally indicative. That would assume there is some function which you can give an ontological theory that then spits out a probability of said theory being “the case”. How would you make such a function when people can’t even decide if there is a “the case” or if truth is fundamentally subjective.
Furthermore it assumes that that function would spit out an equal probability for both theories which I don’t see reason to believe
So I think the best answer I can give is “I use actual physics because it suits my purposes better but I don’t believe that it is “the answer” just because it works so well. I am open to the possibility that I’m wrong”
One of the problems with humans right now...is the unwillingness to acknowledge that there are things we humans DO NOT KNOW...and may well NEVER KNOW.
We can hypothesize, or offer conjecture, or suppose, or outright guess on those things, but the ethical thing to do with things we do not know is to acknowledge that we do not know.
Another problem with humans right now...is that they tend to suppose that the only things that exist are things humans can detect in some way...to sense or otherwise perceive.
We are probably no more knowledgeable about "what is" than ants in the backyard are knowledgeable about the cosmos.
The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"
Humans should learn to shout their ignorance...and be proud of the acknowledgment of their ignorance if not of the ignorance itself.
I say ignorance, but it's an axiom of mine that we're all ignorant, in the face of which we resolve to learn and know as much as we can as well as we can, the integrity of our efforts together with what we win as knowledge being our just, true, and only rewards (maybe some of us get the girl too, maybe, somewhere). Adherence to ignorance, on the other hand, when identified as ignorance, I call stupidity, and practitioners stupid. Not to be confused with incapable or unintelligent. And these persistent stupid are eventually revealed as enemies. Of reason, understanding, knowledge itself, across history, of everything of worth.
Well stated. Bears repeating (reposting) on every thread.
The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"
Why "should" it? Any answer to the second question will always beg the first question. To wit: How do you know that your answer to "Is it even possible for any human to know?" is true? :yikes:
Well I think background context matters quite a bit here. How does one know what exactly. Different bits of knowledge can be known in different ways, acquired by different means, so...
I agree that a broad-brush answer would have to be too vague for much at all.
Unless all knowledge results from the exact some process... which I would not dismiss offhandedly, so...
tim wood
5k
?Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.
As to knowledge itself, that seems in every case particular knowledge, always associated with the that which is known, and in that sense, known.
Ignorance, grounds only for itself. The "I don't know" is worthy of respect. But it must thereafter be silent - in terms of knowledge.
In terms of nonsense, however, ignorance often does have a lot to say, and usually says it and often insists on it. Perhaps the operative word in "how do you know?" is the "how." If a claim cannot assay that, then what differentiates it from halluciation, madness, or fond "thinking"?
I disagree totally with that part, Tim.
The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.
Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
It isn't.
To be silent rather than express objection (even militancy) in favor of what you term "ignorance" on the issues is unethical. So are demands that one be silent on them. Fact is, the term "ignorance" is a misnomer here. It is not ignorance to recognize a lack of knowledge. It may be ignorance not to do so.
The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"
— Frank Apisa
Why "should" it? Any answer to the second question will always beg the first question. To wit: How do you know that your answer to "Is it even possible for any human to know?" is true? :yikes:
"Should" and "probably shout/should probably" are two different concepts. You are asking me about something I never asserted.
180:?Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.
— tim wood
:up: Or "Mr. Coin"-tosses
Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses.
Nothing wrong with guessing at all. My guess is we all do guessing most of our day...each and every day.
It seems to me that on a philosophy website that question is the one question that may always be asked, and must always be answered. Some people may have their own reasons for not answering. But answering is the price of playing. In sum, I argue that any person or argument non-responsive to the question may be dismissed - a short extension of Hitchens's razor. And, that we all ought not to "play" with them. Either they'll learn to play better or go away.
The underlying sense of it - my argument - is that when out of the raw limestone of mere ignorance we try to find and carve out our "angel" of knowledge, a stupid ignorance conceals just what that angel might look like or be. Who wants to be deprived of or derailed from that experience?
Do we really need to know how we know, to be able to know something?
This seems to be an assumption that goes largely unquestioned, and it certainly seems questionable to me, if not plainly false.
On the face of it, it seems reasonable to think that we first need to know how we know, what constitutes knowledge etc, if we want to know something. But I think upon further scrutiny it's not evident at all.... At this point of scientific understanding of the brain, it's seems perfectly possible that the biological brain has it's own set of criteria, heuristics, algorithms, or however you want to call it, that subconsciously do a lot of the work in forming knowledge... without us knowing why and how it does it.
The example that I tend to give to demonstrate that this particular assumption is at least not evident, is self-learning neural nets, AI. Nobody knows, not even itself, the criteria by which it determines what it determines, but it certainly 'knows' things for all intends and purposes.... it knows how to play chess better than any human to name one example. And if you look under the 'hood' of said AI, all you will find is a neural net which is ultimately a bunch of switches that have been fine-tuned by certain experiences/inputs. It's not even evident that you could in principle translate the positions of those switches (which effectively constitutes how it knows something) into neat criteria or concepts that we could understand.
I suspect this particular assumption will eventually also end up in the dustbin of misguided philosophical ideas born out of an overvaluation of conscious rational thinking.
tim wood
5k
"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
— Frank Apisa
This "quote" so distorts what I actually wrote...I just disregarded what else you had to say.
Do a real quote...and then comment on it. I'll respond.
tim wood
5k
?Frank Apisa Uh, Frank, I did quote you. I used the quote function. What is reproduced in my post is exactly what you wrote in yours - is why it's called the quote function. Maybe a little hair of the dog?
Absolute nonsense, Tim. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
Here is the quote in its full context:
I disagree totally with that part, Tim.
The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.
Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
It isn't.
This is what you quoted:
"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math."
If you think that truncated quote expresses what I was saying in my comments, you are WRONG.
Deleted UserAugust 19, 2020 at 14:42#4445960 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 19, 2020 at 15:00#4446010 likes
Do we really need to know how we know, to be able to know something?
— ChatteringMonkey
It seems to me that on a philosophy website that question is the one question that may always be asked.
— tim wood
Olivier5
186
?Frank Apisa
Ok so you’re at least certain of one thing.
I am certain of lots of things.
Do you suppose that because I am agnostic (small "a'", not an Agnostic) on issues of gods...I am agnostic on all things? Do you suppose because I do not find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on the existence of gods, I cannot find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on anything else? If one of our local small town football teams were to play the Kansas City Chiefs (the winner of the NFL Superbowl last year)...do you suppose I could not make a meaningful guess about who would win?
180 Proof
1.6k
?Frank Apisa Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself.
— tim wood
:smirk:
I never do.
CiceronianusAugust 19, 2020 at 20:48#4447360 likes
I think that claims that there is no God, or it's likely there is no God, are typically made as responses to claims that there is a God or likely is a God. They're made in the context of God-claims. Can one think of any instance in which someone went about declaiming there is no God except in the context of God-claims? Not even Nietzsche did so. People don't go from door to door asking if we have heard there is No Good News, or to confirm that we have not accepted Jesus as our savior.
So, I'm inclined to think there are differences between such negative and affirmative claims, and true I suppose to my legal background I tend to feel that those who make an affirmative claim have the burden of proof, and nobody should be required to prove a negative. [A Judge actually asked me once to prove there was no law providing such-and-such, which would have required that I provide for review every existing law.]
That's not to say, though, that I encourage anyone to discuss or argue over whether or not there is a God.
Good for you. The topic of the thread being ‘how do you know?’, you might wish to explain ‘how’, or in your own terms ‘how is it even possible to know anything’.
Adherence to ignorance, on the other hand, when identified as ignorance, I call stupidity, and practitioners stupid. Not to be confused with incapable or unintelligent. And these persistent stupid are eventually revealed as enemies. Of reason, understanding, knowledge itself, across history, of everything of worth.
Exactly. Thats essentially the nature of politics and religion. These two branches of philosophy (they're actually part of the same branch, IMO) are where the use of logic and reason are typically abandoned in favor of pushing an agenda (proselytizing). The participants aren't interested in truth as they use statistics to support certain narratives while ignoring other stats that could support another narrative. They are unwilling to look at alternative explanations because they've been indoctrinated into believing that there is a right way to think and a wrong way to think, and logic doesn't determine what is right to think, rather it is their emotional state that determines what it right to think.
One solution would be to abolish the political parties and religious denominations. This would prevent people from thinking that they have to adhere to some type of group-think.
Ciceronianus the White
1.2k
I think that claims that there is no God, or it's likely there is no God, are typically made as responses to claims that there is a God or likely is a God.
I agree.
But the logical response would be, "I disagree with that assertion...and you have a burden of proof."
If, however, you go that not-required further step of saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...you transfer the burden of proof to yourself. Neither of those statements are "negative statements." Both are positive statements.
Olivier5
188
I am certain of lots of things.
— Frank Apisa
Good for you. The topic of the thread being ‘how do you know?’, you might wish to explain ‘how’, or in your own terms ‘how is it even possible to know anything’.
Richard Feynman was fond of saying (I paraphrase), "I know something about knowing things...and actually knowing things is a very, very difficult thing to achieve."
So, when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know."
I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.
I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.
I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...you are reading the words I typed and understanding what I am saying. I would venture a guess (perhaps wrongly) that you will continue playing your game and attempt to make this into something more than what prompted its instigation, namely me writing the words, "When I say I am guessing...I am guessing" which was prompted by your response to me earlier writing, "I call my guesses...guesses."
Olivier5
189
when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know."
— Frank Apisa
Do you care explaining what you see as the formal and informal senses of the verb « to know »? For me it has one meaning only.
I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...
— Frank Apisa
I do. I understand you’re trying to draw me in some sort of word game. But I am more interested in talking to you.
if my explanation of what I mean with an informal "I know" as: "I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion. I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion"...is not enough for you...you will have to go without a further explanation, because you simply do not want to understand.
A formal I know will probably be limited to a solipsistic "I know the thing I call "I" exists."
So will you, apparently. You don’t seem quite certain about what you mean by ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ knowledge.
I suppose you mean ‘absolutely certain knowledge’ vs ‘not-100%-certain-but-close knowledge’. If that’s the case, you’re saying ’we can’t be certain of much’, or ‘we never know anything for sure’.
That’s something I tend to agree with. But precisely for this reason, I don’t equate knowledge with absolute certainty. It’s all about the shades of grey, the nuances. There is a difference between an uninformed guess and an informed one, and between an informed guess and a conclusion based on detailed analysis of available evidence.
Comments (47)
However what I have noticed is that beliefs that tend to obscure their “pivot” the most are the most believed. If you present just the pivot as a belief (like the whimsical god) people will have no reason to believe you. However the more deductions and logical steps you take further away from said pivot the more believable the thing is. Because it makes it seem like there is no pivot making the belief seem “objective” when really it’s that the pivot is so obscure that by the time you find it you have invested too much in the interpretation of the world resulting from it that you end up believing it anyways.
In other words a belief is more believable the more times you have to ask “But why” or “But how do you know” to get to an unproven premise.
As a parallel question then, do you differentiate the whimsical god theory from actual physics or do would you regard them ask being equally indicative or truth/knowledge?
Furthermore it assumes that that function would spit out an equal probability for both theories which I don’t see reason to believe
So I think the best answer I can give is “I use actual physics because it suits my purposes better but I don’t believe that it is “the answer” just because it works so well. I am open to the possibility that I’m wrong”
One of the problems with humans right now...is the unwillingness to acknowledge that there are things we humans DO NOT KNOW...and may well NEVER KNOW.
We can hypothesize, or offer conjecture, or suppose, or outright guess on those things, but the ethical thing to do with things we do not know is to acknowledge that we do not know.
Another problem with humans right now...is that they tend to suppose that the only things that exist are things humans can detect in some way...to sense or otherwise perceive.
We are probably no more knowledgeable about "what is" than ants in the backyard are knowledgeable about the cosmos.
The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"
Humans should learn to shout their ignorance...and be proud of the acknowledgment of their ignorance if not of the ignorance itself.
Well stated. Bears repeating (reposting) on every thread.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Why "should" it? Any answer to the second question will always beg the first question. To wit: How do you know that your answer to "Is it even possible for any human to know?" is true? :yikes:
Quoting tim wood
:up: Or "Mr. Coin"-tosses ...
"How do you know?" is a fine question to ask.
Do you find that there is a single universal answer(outline or some such) to everything that we know?
Well I think background context matters quite a bit here. How does one know what exactly. Different bits of knowledge can be known in different ways, acquired by different means, so...
I agree that a broad-brush answer would have to be too vague for much at all.
Unless all knowledge results from the exact some process... which I would not dismiss offhandedly, so...
I'm unsure.
I disagree totally with that part, Tim.
The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.
Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
It isn't.
To be silent rather than express objection (even militancy) in favor of what you term "ignorance" on the issues is unethical. So are demands that one be silent on them. Fact is, the term "ignorance" is a misnomer here. It is not ignorance to recognize a lack of knowledge. It may be ignorance not to do so.
"Should" and "probably shout/should probably" are two different concepts. You are asking me about something I never asserted.
Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses.
Nothing wrong with guessing at all. My guess is we all do guessing most of our day...each and every day.
I would not want to have the task of listing all the things that sail over your head, 180.
Do we really need to know how we know, to be able to know something?
This seems to be an assumption that goes largely unquestioned, and it certainly seems questionable to me, if not plainly false.
On the face of it, it seems reasonable to think that we first need to know how we know, what constitutes knowledge etc, if we want to know something. But I think upon further scrutiny it's not evident at all.... At this point of scientific understanding of the brain, it's seems perfectly possible that the biological brain has it's own set of criteria, heuristics, algorithms, or however you want to call it, that subconsciously do a lot of the work in forming knowledge... without us knowing why and how it does it.
The example that I tend to give to demonstrate that this particular assumption is at least not evident, is self-learning neural nets, AI. Nobody knows, not even itself, the criteria by which it determines what it determines, but it certainly 'knows' things for all intends and purposes.... it knows how to play chess better than any human to name one example. And if you look under the 'hood' of said AI, all you will find is a neural net which is ultimately a bunch of switches that have been fine-tuned by certain experiences/inputs. It's not even evident that you could in principle translate the positions of those switches (which effectively constitutes how it knows something) into neat criteria or concepts that we could understand.
I suspect this particular assumption will eventually also end up in the dustbin of misguided philosophical ideas born out of an overvaluation of conscious rational thinking.
Are you even absolutely certain that you are guessing?
This "quote" so distorts what I actually wrote...I just disregarded what else you had to say.
Do a real quote...and then comment on it. I'll respond.
When I say I am guessing...I AM guessing.
Absolute nonsense, Tim. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
Here is the quote in its full context:
I disagree totally with that part, Tim.
The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.
Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
It isn't.
This is what you quoted:
"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math."
If you think that truncated quote expresses what I was saying in my comments, you are WRONG.
I'm not sure what your point is?
Nothing crazy about me...nor am I talking to myself.
If you think so poorly of me...stop engaging me. If you are capable of that.
I thought maybe you are guessing that you are guessing. Possible?
Anything not established as impossible...is possible.
But when I say I am guessing...I am guessing.
Ok yes I see, my bad.
Ok so you’re at least certain of one thing.
:smirk:
I am certain of lots of things.
Do you suppose that because I am agnostic (small "a'", not an Agnostic) on issues of gods...I am agnostic on all things? Do you suppose because I do not find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on the existence of gods, I cannot find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on anything else? If one of our local small town football teams were to play the Kansas City Chiefs (the winner of the NFL Superbowl last year)...do you suppose I could not make a meaningful guess about who would win?
C'mon.
I never do.
So, I'm inclined to think there are differences between such negative and affirmative claims, and true I suppose to my legal background I tend to feel that those who make an affirmative claim have the burden of proof, and nobody should be required to prove a negative. [A Judge actually asked me once to prove there was no law providing such-and-such, which would have required that I provide for review every existing law.]
That's not to say, though, that I encourage anyone to discuss or argue over whether or not there is a God.
Good for you. The topic of the thread being ‘how do you know?’, you might wish to explain ‘how’, or in your own terms ‘how is it even possible to know anything’.
Exactly. Thats essentially the nature of politics and religion. These two branches of philosophy (they're actually part of the same branch, IMO) are where the use of logic and reason are typically abandoned in favor of pushing an agenda (proselytizing). The participants aren't interested in truth as they use statistics to support certain narratives while ignoring other stats that could support another narrative. They are unwilling to look at alternative explanations because they've been indoctrinated into believing that there is a right way to think and a wrong way to think, and logic doesn't determine what is right to think, rather it is their emotional state that determines what it right to think.
One solution would be to abolish the political parties and religious denominations. This would prevent people from thinking that they have to adhere to some type of group-think.
I agree.
But the logical response would be, "I disagree with that assertion...and you have a burden of proof."
If, however, you go that not-required further step of saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...you transfer the burden of proof to yourself. Neither of those statements are "negative statements." Both are positive statements.
Richard Feynman was fond of saying (I paraphrase), "I know something about knowing things...and actually knowing things is a very, very difficult thing to achieve."
So, when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know."
I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.
I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.
I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...you are reading the words I typed and understanding what I am saying. I would venture a guess (perhaps wrongly) that you will continue playing your game and attempt to make this into something more than what prompted its instigation, namely me writing the words, "When I say I am guessing...I am guessing" which was prompted by your response to me earlier writing, "I call my guesses...guesses."
Do you care explaining what you see as the formal and informal senses of the verb « to know »? For me it has one meaning only.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I do. I understand you’re trying to draw me in some sort of word game. But I am more interested in talking to you.
if my explanation of what I mean with an informal "I know" as: "I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion. I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion"...is not enough for you...you will have to go without a further explanation, because you simply do not want to understand.
A formal I know will probably be limited to a solipsistic "I know the thing I call "I" exists."
So will you, apparently. You don’t seem quite certain about what you mean by ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ knowledge.
I suppose you mean ‘absolutely certain knowledge’ vs ‘not-100%-certain-but-close knowledge’. If that’s the case, you’re saying ’we can’t be certain of much’, or ‘we never know anything for sure’.
That’s something I tend to agree with. But precisely for this reason, I don’t equate knowledge with absolute certainty. It’s all about the shades of grey, the nuances. There is a difference between an uninformed guess and an informed one, and between an informed guess and a conclusion based on detailed analysis of available evidence.