How Do You Define Knowledge?

[drkitten]

I remember asking myself one late night while drinking tea, "What is knowing?" and I repeated this question to myself a few times and realized I wasn't entirely sure.

This is one of those situations where ten pages of discussion can save you two minutes in the library.

The standard philosophical definition of "knowledge" is a "justified, true, belief."

Allow me to unpack that :

* Justified : for something to be "knowledge," you need to have a reason to believe it; just making stuff up isn't a valid path to knowledge, but reasoning and evidence are. Note that "justification" isn't the same as "proof"; a justification can simply be along the lines of "very probable," (I 'know' that the tallest building in DC is the Washington Monument, because it was when I was there several months ago and I haven't heard about it being knocked down.)

* True : you can't 'know' something that isn't true (no matter how compelling the justification is).

* Belief : To know something, you must actually hold that it's true.

You might then ask, well is it appropriate to equate defined words with knowledge? Is language, with it's defined words, a form of knowledge?

Not in this framework; beliefs are propositions; you can't "know" the definition of a word -- what you know is that the definition of a word is such-and-such. Which makes more sense, because you can't know the definition without knowing what the definition is.

There's a lexical ambiguity in English where you can use the word "know" to mean acquantainceship or familiarity -- "I know Baltimore fairly well, but I've only been to Annapolis twice in my life." That's not generally considered to be "knowledge" in a philosophical sense.

 

[ttoyooka]

The standard philosophical definition of "knowledge" is a "justified, true, belief."

I think that's a good and useful definition; of course, the really interesting part of the question is how we choose to justify our beliefs.

I think, as skeptics, we ascribe to a kind of realism in the sense that we trust that our senses are giving us honest feedback about the world (as opposed to the "brain in a vat" or "matrix" situation), but tempered with an understanding of how our senses are fallible. We are reasonably skeptical about what other people tell us, but we understand how science works to arrive at the most objectively justifiable beliefs, so we make informed choices about which experts to believe. And with a firmer grip on science we are better-equipped to evaluate new ideas that come our way.

Is that a pyramid with a solid foundation, or a house of cards? I guess that's a philosophical question.

 

[drkitten]

Is that a pyramid with a solid foundation, or a house of cards? I guess that's a philosophical question.

Oh, it's completely a house of cards; as you pointed out, we reject the 'brain-in-a-vat' scenario despite there being no evidence against it whatsoever.

But brains-in-vats are like deceptive Goddidit-creationism. They're an end to any interesting discussion, because you once you assume that truth is not even in principle accessible, there's no reason to try to figure anything out.

 

[ttoyooka]

Oh, it's completely a house of cards; as you pointed out, we reject the 'brain-in-a-vat' scenario despite there being no evidence against it whatsoever.

But brains-in-vats are like deceptive Goddidit-creationism. They're an end to any interesting discussion, because you once you assume that truth is not even in principle accessible, there's no reason to try to figure anything out.

Isn't it a bit over-the-top to say all our knowledge is built on a house of cards, when--as you say--the alternative is to claim that knowledge is impossible even in principle?

 

[drkitten]

Isn't it a bit over-the-top to say all our knowledge is built on a house of cards, when--as you say--the alternative is to claim that knowledge is impossible even in principle?

No.

 

[ttoyooka]

Isn't it a bit over-the-top to say all our knowledge is built on a house of cards, when--as you say--the alternative is to claim that knowledge is impossible even in principle?

No.

Do you trust your own beliefs because, as poor as their foundations are, they are the best we can do? And if so, are there other links in the chain of reasoning (e.g. trusting other people's claims, or trusting science) that you'd call into question because the foundation is not based on evidence?

Or do you believe something else entirely?

 

[drkitten]

Do you trust your own beliefs because, as poor as their foundations are, they are the best we can do?

... and because they appear to be useful.

Science, in particular, is an almost purely utilitarian endeavor. The medical but also general scientific literature is rife with historical examples of this; Semmelweis and handwashing, Withering and foxglove, Dalton and atomic theory (and specifically his law of "greatest simplicity"), Planck and the ultraviolet catastrophe.

 

[Wowbagger]

Power.

 

[SnakeTongue]

If you're interested in my informal thoughts on the subject, I think of "knowledge" as information that has been accepted and assimilated by the brain. In other words, anything I simply "know" is knowledge. Anything I have to look up or make an effort to remember is information.

For example, if someone asks me "what is 7 plus 3" I know the answer is 10 without even thinking about it. So for me "7+3=10" is knowledge. But if someone asks me "what is 437 plus 248" I wouldn't unthinkingly "know" the answer to be 685. So for me "437+248=685" would be information, but not knowledge. (But the process of how to reach that answer is knowledge, as I simply "knew" how to get that answer, even if it took an effort to reach it.)

Of course, if the question "what is 437 plus 248" was asked of me frequently enough, "437+248=685" would soon become knowledge rather than just information.

So exactly what information constitutes knowledge differs from one person to the next depending on experience and education.

I almost agree.

Knowledge is awareness.

Did we learn from dreams? Did we develop universal concepts from dreams?

To know is nothing more than to be awake. Any awake being will absorb information and process information. The result is knowledge, even if contradict a scientific model.

When I say a "awake being", I am referring to any living being, from the microscope amoeba to the giant elephant.

All living beings have knowledge, because all living beings absorb information and process information.

And just when they are awake...

 

[drkitten]

I almost agree.

Knowledge is awareness.

Did we learn from dreams? Did we develop universal concepts from dreams?

To know is nothing more than to be awake. Any awake being will absorb information and process information. The result is knowledge, even if contradict a scientific model.

When I say a "awake being", I am referring to any living being, from the microscope amoeba to the giant elephant.

All living beings have knowledge, because all living beings absorb information and process information.

And just when they are awake...

And here we have another example of someone toiling for years to rid himself of as much knowledge as possible.

And almost succeeded, too. Only the correct grammar saves this from being wrong in every possible respect.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Half the battle.

 

[SnakeTongue]

And here we have another example of someone toiling for years to rid himself of as much knowledge as possible.

And almost succeeded, too. Only the correct grammar saves this from being wrong in every possible respect.

And your point is?

 

[ttoyooka]

Do you trust your own beliefs because, as poor as their foundations are, they are the best we can do?

... and because they appear to be useful.

Okay... our views on science and knowledge seem to be closer than I previously thought.

Let me ask you this, though - do you think science is uncovering objective truths about the universe, or is it merely producing more and more useful models? I myself can't come down firmly on either side on this question. Science--physics in particular--seems to be converging towards a final theory that represents something fundamental behind the nature of the universe, but then again, it's not necessarily clear that we're not just converging that way because of some human desire, or social need.

Tak

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I've never seen that word before, but I can glark its meaning from the context.

I struggled a little with the word too, and risked it because it appropriately conveys what I wanted to mean, this is, that there are no isolated, objective "facts" but repeatable observations that are given from certain points of reference.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... and because they appear to be useful.

Science, in particular, is an almost purely utilitarian endeavor.

Indeed, this is why I don't buy the ideas of people who like to believe that science is about "defining reality".

 

[paximperium]

Indeed, this is why I don't buy the ideas of people who like to believe that science is about "defining reality".

It is about modeling reality. The "ultimate truth" may be impossible but science is currently the only way to even come close to it.

 

[epix]

It is about modeling reality. The "ultimate truth" may be impossible but science is currently the only way to even come close to it.

How many flies in the world are airborn at given time t-zero?

We don't know, but science is closing hard on answering the question.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It is about modeling reality. The "ultimate truth" may be impossible but science is currently the only way to even come close to it.

Wrong.

Science is about being able to use facts, and facts are repeatable observations. All that about "truths", "ultimate truths", are myths, just like the supernatural stuff of your preference. You can't model reality, "reality" is a mental model, a particular world view made around facts. Some world views are able to encompass more facts, but that's about it.

 

[Robin]

Wrong.

Science is about being able to use facts, and facts are repeatable observations. All that about "truths", "ultimate truths", are myths, just like the supernatural stuff of your preference. You can't model reality, "reality" is a mental model, a particular world view made around facts. Some world views are able to encompass more facts, but that's about it.

Perhaps you are begging the question by imposing your own definition of reality.

I don't consider my own mental model as reality - I consider reality to be the verifiable consistency between mental models in general.

In that case something would be real only inasmuch as it can be modelled.

 

[Chucky]

This is one of those situations where ten pages of discussion can save you two minutes in the library.

The standard philosophical definition of "knowledge" is a "justified, true, belief."

Allow me to unpack that :

* Justified : for something to be "knowledge," you need to have a reason to believe it; just making stuff up isn't a valid path to knowledge, but reasoning and evidence are. Note that "justification" isn't the same as "proof"; a justification can simply be along the lines of "very probable," (I 'know' that the tallest building in DC is the Washington Monument, because it was when I was there several months ago and I haven't heard about it being knocked down.)

* True : you can't 'know' something that isn't true (no matter how compelling the justification is).

* Belief : To know something, you must actually hold that it's true.

Ok, I read a series of comic books about superheroes and their exploits. I follow the story and somewhat asks me what's happened over the last few issues and I tell them about it from memory. Now I don't believe in superhuman exploits. This is material which in fact, is all made up. I know that it is not true, and yet I can relate knowledge of what happened and why. I might remember this storyline for decades and re-tell it a few times.

This is lasting knowledge isn't it?