2
   

It is logically impossible to know the past

 
 
maxx333
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 03:11 pm
@pilgrimshost,
it is logically impossible to know anything
0 Replies
 
Shlomo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 02:27 am
@NoAngst,
We learn the past form stories/evidences supplied by other people.
Except extremely tiny slice of reality, this is also the way we learn the present.
So our ignorance of present is not lesser than our ignorance of the past.

The only better alternative to man-made knowledge is knowledge from God.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 02:37 am
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;91187 wrote:
The only better alternative to man-made knowledge is knowledge from God.


What, like the earth is a flat disc held up by four pillars? Oh wait, the Earth is also the center of the universe and all things circle the earth? Or a woman was created out of a rib of a man? How about, you can get an entire species from one male and one female?

How about we correct your statement a little by saying, "gods knowledge" is knowledge of ignorant bronze aged humans.
Shlomo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 02:56 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;91190 wrote:

How about we correct your statement a little by saying, "gods knowledge" is knowledge of ignorant bronze aged humans.


Wonderful solution! I am a bronze aged guy so I can provide first-hand information about the past. :bigsmile:
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2009 11:11 pm
@NoAngst,
It really depends on ones defintion of "knowledge" epistomology.
Prefect knowledge, certain knowledge is largely unattainable.
Practical knowledge is something we may or may not have determined by experience. Practical knowledge is changing knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Sorryel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2009 07:42 am
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;91192 wrote:
Wonderful solution! I am a bronze aged guy so I can provide first-hand information about the past. :bigsmile:


An intriguing point. If your mental states are authentically "Bronze Age" then we know a lot about the Bronze Age. Even if your mental states are only 50% authentic Bronze Age then we still know quite a lot about the Bronze Age.
And if somebody wants to insist that your mental states are not authentically Bronze Age, that implies that somebody knows something about the Bronze age, or thinks that they do.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 01:38 am
@NoAngst,
I don't see how one can avoid bias in patching together an idea of the past from that which remains in the present, but that's not an obstacle to doing one's best. History is good good stuff. But so is Shakespeare (referring to a much earlier post) and Lewis Carroll.

I would rather lack Thucydides than Shakespeare. But I would hate to do without either.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 09:48 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109545 wrote:
I don't see how one can avoid bias in patching together an idea of the past from that which remains in the present, but that's not an obstacle to doing one's best. History is good good stuff. But so is Shakespeare (referring to a much earlier post) and Lewis Carroll.

I would rather lack Thucydides than Shakespeare. But I would hate to do without either.


I would not try to learn history from reading either of them.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 09:52 am
@NoAngst,
maxx333 wrote:
it is logically impossible to know anything


I don't think so. No.

But why would anyone think it's logically impossible to know the past, when it's clear we know many things from the past? Just because we cannot verify many most of these things, doesn't mean we don't know them. I can safely say I know I just ate this granola bar.

I wonder if the OP thinks that it's impossible to know if he has created this thread?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 09:54 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109598 wrote:
I don't think so. No.


Does that mean agreement or disagreement with the post you are replying to?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 09:57 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109599 wrote:
Does that mean agreement or disagreement with the post you are replying to?


OH! I thought he typed "is it" not "it is". I disagree with him!

It is not logically impossible to know any thing, it just may be implausible (that we know a certain thing). It's definitely plausible that we know some things from the past. In fact, I am quite certain we do.

PS: I was in the process of editing that post when you responded to it. Might want to take a look.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 10:08 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109598 wrote:
I don't think so. No.

But why would anyone think it's logically impossible to know the past, when it's clear we know many things from the past? Just because we cannot verify many most of these things, doesn't mean we don't know them. I can safely say I know I just ate this granola bar.

I wonder if the OP thinks that it's impossible to know if he has created this thread?


What these people mean by "knowledge" is certainty, or the impossibility of error. They don't mean what is meant by "knowledge" and don't distinguish between "knowledge" and "certainty". There is verbal disagreement. Although there is no good argument for thinking that knowledge implies certainty.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 10:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;109602 wrote:
What these people mean by "knowledge" is certainty, or the impossibility of error. They don't mean what is meant by "knowledge" and don't distinguish between "knowledge" and "certainty". There is verbal disagreement. Although there is no good argument for thinking that knowledge implies certainty.


If they mean by knowledge, "impossibility of error", then why is the thread title, "It is logically impossible to know the past"? You don't think the person understood the difference between logical impossibility and plausibility or degree of certainty, and where knowledge fit into the mix?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 11:07 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109616 wrote:
If they mean by knowledge, "impossibility of error", then why is the thread title, "It is logically impossible to know the past"?


Because they think it always possible for a belief about the past to be in error. And, of course, that is true.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Dec, 2009 01:46 pm
@NoAngst,
Ken,

You don't trust Thucydides? I don't go to Shakerspeare for history....unless its for the history of character development.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2023 at 10:34:00