Thursday, February 28, 2013

Knowledge

I seem to be answering some of the same questions about knowledge multiple times, so I thought I'd try to bring them together under one heading.

How do we know things?

We learn things (that is, come to know them) by using our senses and our brain.  We observe things and draw rational conclusions based on these observations.  Things that are true can be shown to be true; that is, they are confirmed by repeated observations.  When we have sufficient confidence that something is consistently true, we say that know it.

This is not to say that we claim 100% certainty, however.  For example, we observe that the sun rises in the east.  Repeated observations confirm that this happens every morning.  It's possible that the sun could rise in the west, but this would violate everything we have learned over the generations about the laws of physics.  So it's extremely likely that the sun will always rise in the east; we can say this will a very high degree of confidence.  Our degree of confidence is so high we are comfortable saying that we KNOW the sun will always rise in the east.

If you do not agree with my framing of knowledge and how we know things, please offer an alternative conception, along with any objection you may have.  That way, we can compare the two conceptions to see which better addresses the objection, and makes the most sense in general.

18 comments:

  1. DVD,

    So are you saying that we can never know if anything is really true?

    I could lay out my theory of knowledge, but I think you already know it from the other threads. If you'd like me to present it here in more of a comprehensive, summarized form, please let me know, and I'll be happy to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your question has been asked and answered.

    I don't really think it'd be necessary for you to lay out your idea of knowledge unless you're going to try to poke holes in mine. I think you're right; I'm pretty sure I have a basic idea of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My latest response to "Why is the Bible not Evidence?" addresses these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DVD Bach,

    In your worldview, how would you determine "which better addresses the objection, and makes the most sense in general"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Same way anyone would. Why? How would you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would compare it to what God has revealed in the Bible (and logical implications based on that).

    I assume you would take a different approach. Are you saying that you would just make a subjective judgment? If not, please clarify.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How does the Bible answer the question you asked about my worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Bible gives the correct interpretive framework for understanding reality. It is self attesting.

    Your worldview is not. That is the fundamental problem with it. Whatever else it may claim to be able to prove/verify, it can never verify itself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Neither can yours, since it's based on an assumed conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You can call it an assumed conclusion, or circular logic, but the fact is that you can't know anything unless you make an assumption. "If you don't make any assumptions, you can't make any conclusions."

    But there is a difference between our worldviews. My worldview, based on God's existence and the Bible, is self-attesting. That is, it provides verification of itself without having to make additional assumptions. Your worldview does not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. False. I've already provided you an example of where the Bible is wrong. The is no water above the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, *there* is no water above the atmosphere...

      Delete
  12. False. I've already addressed the "water above the atmosphere" issue.

    The Bible does not say that there is currently water above the atmosphere (although it doesn't deny it either). You have not provided any evidence that there was *never* water above the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can link you to resources on planetary formation that would confirm, using observable evidence about the universe, that there was never water above the atmosphere. If I do so, would you read them?

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, I wouldn't, since you haven't yet established the validity of extrapolating evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You're lying, since I've offered you a way to do so yourself, and you know that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You mean by using circular logic? I thought you didn't believe circular logic is a valid form of reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lie. By testing it yourself; you know that.

    ReplyDelete