knowledge

...and (3) the word "ability" in "ability to predict" implies a "lasting" quality from activity to activity.
This should be taken to be a quality of "cognitive activity" as opposed to a quality of "external reality".

Well, I guess I'm in that meta-semantic trap.

To my way of thinking: context or not, if the datum in my mind can be verified to match reality, then it is knowledge.

Obviously, I am with George on this...although I suspect we are about to engage in a definitional discsussion about what constitutes reality.

No Joe,
All we are doing is negotiating "success".

A does "know" until he agrees otherwise, or until his "knowledge" fails him on some idiot quiz show....knowledge is about "what to do next".


(Ref current sitation in Ukraine !)

George,

What do you mean by "verification" ?

If go into the next room and the IS a chair there, did I "know" there WAS a chair there at the time of my statement ? (or vice versa...there ISNT a chair there....)The question never arises ! All that matters was my "degree of confidence" in the prediction in order to use the word "know".

And if I say "there IS a computer screen in front of me " does this constitute "knowledge". I NEVER SAY IT except to some hypothetical "third party" who I visualize at not being here!

You did not know that there was a chair there at the time of your
statement.

Now if you mean that we must take what we know (the chair was there)
and make assumptions (it's probably still there) in order to carry on our
lives, then of course I agree with you.

By verification, I mean some feedback that what I know corresponds to
reality. Now does that knowledge persist if I blink? If I turn my head?
If I look out the window for a while? A slippery slope, that.

George,

I neither "knew" nor "didn't know" thare was a chair in the next room until I needed a chair, thats the point. I "need"...I "visualize"....I am "successful"....I "knew".

Did I "know" there was a coffee stain on my table....not until I needed an example of the infinite number of perceptions that rarely have my attention.

And that's the point that, quite frankly, I don't get.
There's all sorts of data rattling around in my head. Some of it is
knowledge. You tell me that no, it isn't - not until I need it. Why not?
Why isn't it knowledge anyway?

...because "it" isn't anything at all unless you engage in an internal conversation invoking hypothetical "needs". Frank is right in where this leads....you are actively structuring reality according to your sociolinguistic conditioning.

Reality is what it is. My capacity to know it is limited. I structure it to the
extent that I arrange my knowledge of it according to the patterns I
percieve.

(Alas, I have not a clue what sociolinguistic conditioning is.)

I think searching for a definition in this maze is hard. There are many factors at play. In many cases strong belief can make what you believe in a fact. Example: I believe so strongly that my wife is going to leave me that she tires of my paranoia and takes off.

At other times an apparently sound deduction turns out to be incorrect, and therefore everything that was based on it must be reevaluated. Just because it is considered a fact does not neccecarily mean its true.

You can easily find people in the world today who are absolutely positive that creation happened as described in the bible. They may be right depending on how you interpet the genesis.

If all that exists is the meaning of the subject, who can say what is true and not? Who gets to lable some things knowledge and others as fable?

heres an internal conversation to consider.

Q: what do I "know"....
A:here's an example that meets that need...2+2=4....
Q. Wait a minute ...isn't that an abstract form of predicting counting objects and does it not presuppose the permanance of the objects to be counted .....
A. So when I say I "know" 2+2=4 I am saying I have confidence in predicting the outcome of my counting provided that certain conditions about "reality" are met.....like the relative permance of objects.
Q. And isn't that "permanence" reified by language which has "nouns" as time independent abstractions... like "stick" or "stone"....
A. So the word "stick" is itself a prediction of by range of interactions with an object bearing that name. And saying this "is" a stick is really about predicting my possible interaction with it.

Yes. Another curios thing is this. It is generally accepted that the sum of the angles of a triangle with straight sides is constant at 180 degrees, and can never be more. The truth of this statement depends on how one defines a straight line. If it is the shortest distance between two points it is true. But if "the shortest distance" is defined by the path the light takes from the source to the eye, the sum of the angles can be more than 180 or less. This is because of gravity. Sometimes light passes within the field of bodies with such high gravity that the path of the light is affected. It still travels the shortest distance, but the line is no longer straight...

Ah, numbers! I hadn't thought about them.

I see math (or maths, since you are in the UK) as properties of reality,
patterns we have percieved and abstracted. I don't think I need to
assume anything about the permance of counted objects in reality. I can
imagine those objects and their numeric relationships still stay the same.
Interesting thought.

I've just re-read my last post and I have no idea what I was on about!

Time for me to leave.
Thank you gentlemen for an entertaining conversation.

I think this is the difference, between my version of faith and many others version of faith. Because I consider it very important, I do not take my faith lightly. I seek to verify my beliefs in a systematic manner.

I would also say Frank that perhaps you and I can agree that the difference between guess, and opinion is the 'stakes'.

I really don't care whether you are a good golfer so I guess that you are.

But if I had a choice between you and Fresco to play in one on one and I didn't want to loose - I might try to form an opinion about you both so that I could choose wisely. I can use some evidence to form my opinion but until I get systematic and do some sort of data search - I do not have knowledge - just opinion

However, if I were playing in a tournament and 50,000 dollars was on the line, with a 5,000 entry fee, I might seek to support my opinion and get a better knowledge about you so I can determine if I should plunk my 5,000 dollars down. I could watch films of you golfing - I could ask golf partners of yours - I could check your league handicap etc.

I think this frames the question well.

Faith, in my opinion cannot be knowledge - because it lack the normal means of gathering data. I can gather data - and I can form opinions - and when I choose to act on that opinion - I have faith that I am right.

TTF

And we might start a spin-off thread about insanity...

...and use the illustration of you depending on my golfing ability to win a bet.

Any size bet! :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

Knowledge - systemitized experience.
Faith - Assention to an argument of dubious credibility

Please explain.


No, that's not what knowledge is "about" -- not even according to your own definition. If that were what knowledge was about, then we could have no knowledge of past events.

Joe I did include "retrodiction" in my definition. But a historian is essentially working "forwards" from perceptual state to perceptual state during "evidence gathering" in order to piece together the "relevant past". This "knowledge" is highly selective and relates to current decision making/social negotiations or establishment of paradigms such as evolutionary theory. Perhaps in the extreme "history is bunk" (Henry Ford).