@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:Still, your argument has a point of departure: the hypothesis that all unicorns are white. Without observation of actual unicorns, that hypothesis is not actual knowledge, and nothing you derive from it will amount to knowledge.
No, I have
actual knowledge, in that I know if the conditions are met, then the conclusion is ineluctable. Observation is not necessary in order for me to be completely confident of that fact.
Olivier5 wrote:I am saying it is derived logically from prior observation. If you had never ever heard of or seen litmus paper and base solutions, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything.
Not so. Suppose all boojums are snarks, and suppose X is a boojum. I
know that X is a snark, despite the fact that I've never observed a boojum or a snark (or X, for that matter) in my life.
But perhaps you are using "knowledge" in a way that is different from the way I use it. Let's say:
(1) Red litmus paper turns blue when exposed to a base solution;
(2) X is a base solution; and
(3) If red litmus paper is exposed to X, it will turn blue.
As I understand it, you are saying that (1) and (2) constitute "knowledge" because they are based upon observations. But what about (3)? Are you saying that it is
not knowledge because it is based on a deductive inference? Or are you saying that it
does constitute knowledge because it is
derived from empirical observations?