Scientific Knowledge

Indeed. Because mathematics is pure deductive logic. Everything that is derived is implicit in the starting axioms. In effect you cannot discover anything that wasn't inherent in your premises to begin with.But in science when we talk about "correct" we are not simply talking about some sort of internal logical consistency based on axiomatic assumptions. We are ultimately talking about a comparison with the physical reality we are seeking to investigate.

Scientific answers to these questions work. They make predictions that we can test, and the theories we accept are the theories that work within this context. I think you are using a very narrow definition of "work". We are a very curious race (well, at least some of us). We want to know how the world around us operates. Scientific explanations work as an answer to these questions. Scientific experiments based on these answers produce results we can see for ourselves. As a side benefit, basic scientific knowledge also allows us to develop technologies that make our day to day lives a bit easier. However, I will go out on a limb and state that the number one benefit of science is that it sates our curiosity in a way that no religion has ever been able to do.

That gets to the point that was implicit in my post. There isn't just one kind of truth (or correctness). Mathematical truth is different from scientific truth, and one cannot compare them. Similarly, religious truth is different from other kinds of truth such as scientific truth and mathematical truth.People often talk as if there were some single notion of truth, and that everything fits within that one kind of truth. Theology is particularly bad about that manner of speaking. We need to recognize that there are many kinds of truth, and we easily switch between them depending on context.

But what is "religious truth" ? Is it simple conformity to dogma ? Or is it something else ? Can a thing be a "religious truth" and also false under more normal standards of "truth" ?

It seems so. Otherwise evcforum would not exist.

Hi StragglesOnce again you miss the important elements of my posts to create a false straw man that you then pretend is my position. This would at first blush seem an honest post, however this Is not my position. In fact it is blatantly COUNTER to my position. That makes your whole argument based on this false statement irrevocably wrong (once again). The astute and clear thinking observer will note significant differences between this actual statement and the way it was portrayed by Straggler.The astute and clear thinking observer will note that these differences take into account the uncertainty that Straggler poses above as a problem for my position. When you read the actual position this apparent conflict evaporates, like so many similar arguments Straggles has tried to make about my position/s.The astute and clear thinking observer will also note that Taq commented in Message 3The problem is not with my argument but your misunderstanding of it. Note to ADMIN: this kind of behavior of taking an argument from one thread and imposing it into another (and another and another) is what I call stalking. It is unfair to the other participants in the threads.It's real easy, Straggles:EvC Forum: dBCodes Don't say I never taught you anything now.Enjoy.

You're absolutely right; we're working with epistemology. Which is why the worn out classical definition of: ... doesn't fly.If truth were required for something to be considered knowledge, then it would be difficult for us to ever say we know anything, as the truth of what we 'know' could easily change, at which point we'd have to rewrite our history declaring that we did not know something but only believed it.But this isn't how the world spins. And, as you've brought up the usage of the term by regular speakers of the language, it isn't how most people use the word knowledge. In general, something is knowledge if it meets the criteria of being knowledge as defined in a given epistemology (for example, it must be sensible; it must be logical; etc.) regardless of whether it is, in actuality, true or false or neither.I know my pizza will be $11.89; it matters not if they screw up and only charge me $9.89 as this doesn't change that I knew something five minutes agoeven if it turned out I was wrong.Truth absolutely must be removed from the equation, or we end up in the paradox of having to rewrite the past to change our report of previous mental states, claiming we only believed what we actually knewwe were actually sad, not angry. But belief and knowledge, like sadness and anger, aren't the same thing, and people don't act on them as though they are either; so obviously we cannot be running around with a system for understanding either of them that requires they be so interchangeable.This is why it is very easy for scientists to possess knowledge: they simply have to define what it is they are going to consider knowledge, and then set out finding stuff that jibes with that definition.We can know whatever we want so long as we decide to call it knowledge.JonEdited by Jon, : Thanks Omni

Which is why I followed that by saying

quote:

---

It is of course then a question of whether or not a belief is 'justified' or 'true'.

---

Well we could set up Criteria of truth as a means to resolving the 'what is truth?' question. But yes, we could hold knowledge which turns out to be false. This is a pitfall, but its one we're stuck with if we're going to have such a thing as knowledge at all. I doubt most people would talk about criteria of epistemology, but your point still misses the mark: Your everyday users are using 'knowledge' to mean the same thing I was doing. If you think there is a difference it's because you misunderstood my point.In order for something to be knowledge it has to be true. In order for us to label something as knowledge we have to believe it is true and have good reason to be highly confident that it is true. We might label something as knowledge that later turns out to be false. In which case we didn't know the thing previously, we mistakenly thought we knew it. Or maybe you misremembered the price. But you can still say 'know' if you can justify that knowledge and have good reason to suppose it is true. Almost everybody agrees that a belief has to be true in order for it to be classified as knowledge. And yes, it does mean that we can be wrong about what is knowledge. But the possibility of being wrong, and correcting ourselves doesn't mean we have to rewrite the past and it is not paradoxical. It is an error, it got corrected.I understand where you are trying to aim there, but it is not a real life concern. It might be of concern to epistemologists but most of them ascribe to some kind of principle of fallibilism these days as far as I can tell.

quote:

---

I know where my keys are. Oh wait, no I don't.

---

No problems there. We don't have to rewrite my words and there is no paradox. There is a misidentification of knowledge that is corrected. We thought it was knowledge, but it transpired it wasn't. No big deal.We thought we knew there were 9 planets in our solar system, but recent observations have shown that there are either more or less, depending on how we define such things. Exactly my point. And they know they can still be wrong with that claimed knowledge. There is a built in tentativity to scientific knowledge, and the knowledge 'used by the man on the street'. There is no need for 100% certainty, no claims to access absolute truths.

jibes
One nit picked.

subscribe
Two nits picked.Edited by Omnivorous, : corrected the chaos created by a touchpad cursor

I doubt that.Perhaps if there is an edit to your definition: 'belief they think is justifiable and think is true'. Most people consider things they know to be true, even if their consideration is wrong. What is the difference between something being knowledge and something being labeled as knowledge? Isn't it the same thing? But I don't have those things, so I cannot say 'know'. But that doesn't mean I also cannot say 'knew'. Sure; lots of people will spout out that worn out definition they learned in high school when asked to define 'knowledge'. But few will ever actually use the word according to how they've defined it. More of the 'being' versus 'being labeled' distinction? I don't buy it. Fully agreed. And I think we both follow on this simple point: knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Nazis?You lose.

Pfft. I didn't write it... xkcd did. I just thought it mirrored you fairly well. Regardless, y'all should click that link... that fucker's spot-on hilarious.

If something is knowledge then it is true, and it can be justified as being so by the person who has it.However, we cannot know with absolute certainty if something is true. So we can only label something as knowledge provisionally (also, whether or not the justification is sufficient isn't objectively derivable). Therefore: we might be wrong in our labelling.That's the difference, as subtle as it might be. What? What's your point? When the average Joe on the street uses the word 'know' how is it different from the way I was using it?You were saying they were doing it based on some epistemological framework. As I was. So what's the difference? The particular epistemological framework in use? Probably, but that's hardly surprising. Either way, most people would require knowledge be true, and on reflection that it be justified. What it means for something to be classified as true or justified is where the differences between people normally manifest.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.