Cacator's Theory of Knowledge

[Cacator]

Group,

In stark contrast to a widely attended school of epistemological thought, namely: that which adheres to a superfluous distinction between "knowledge" (true, justified beliefs) and "SUPERknowledge" (true beliefs, justified at the level of certainty), I've come up with my own little theory of knowledge.

Before providing my theoretical overview, though, I'll highlight what I feel is the most glaring problem (beyond superficiality) of the knowledge/superknowledge distinction.

In line with the definition of "knowledge" as "true, justified belief" (which entails that we can justify a claim to knowledge on the grounds that a "justified belief" happens to be "true", despite not knowing that it is, in fact, true), I've surmized that such "justified beliefs" can go in two directions; if proven true, they can ascend to the Heavenly Heights of "Superknowledge" (!), on the other hand, if proven untrue, they can descend--by virtue of definition--into the muck and mire of "erroneous classification" (i.e. the true state of such knowledge ascriptions...to begin with).

Overview

Now, where my own theory of knowledge differs (primarily) from the above is that I simply don't employ a superfluous category. For me, "justified beliefs", whether true or false, remain in the category of "belief" until such time that their truth or falsity becomes known to the believer. At that point, the following phenomenon takes place: (see added note regarding this point) the belief transcends its walls of classification, becoming knowledge, and a believer on a given matter is transformed into a knower on that matter. Accordingly, from my perspective, "knowledge" and "belief" are the only necessary epistemic categories.

I look forward to any stripe of feedback (whether positive or negative).

Thanks,

Peter Merrick


NOTE: the transcendence/transformation phenomenon occurs whether the belief is proven to be true OR false, because, in either proven case, the former believer would then hold knowledge in respect to the former belief.

[Zhavric]

Having debated here for a month or three, I predict this thread will either wither on the vine or spiral off-topic unless you provide concrete definitions for the following terms:

• Knowledge
• Belief
• Proof

I know that you attempted to define them above, but I also know who posts here and the tendency of post-modernist thinking to insinuate itself into threads. I predict quite a bit of "well, how do you know ???" lines of reasoning.

[underbear1]

"knowledge" itself is just fine to define what is known to be true, there is NO need for another designation of super knowledge.
This is also true of the terms "wisdom", "justice", and "belief"...............we all know what these terms mean and the definitions have been perfectly OK for millenia.

This thread is a good example of KISS, keep it simple stupid!

It also reminds me of Colbert's Report...........truthiness

[Technosoul]

It would seem to me, in my wandering thoughts, that knowledge is rooted in names and naming things, once you have a name for it then it become knowledge. For example you might be looking at five different kinds of flowers, and if you do not know their offical names then people would think you are not knowable about the topic of flowers. But if you can tell people their names in order to identify them, then people will say " gee, you're so smart". (when it comes to that topic).

Now if you can come up with the latin (scientific names) as well as those used in layman circles, then you are even smarter, meaning more knowable because you have memorized more knowledge - which in that case would be all the names for those plants.

Being knowledgable might not be the same thing as knowing. Knowing would be have it's meaning rooted in experience, and the concept of being "at one with" the object being experienced. (however there is a very find line of difference that is difficult to communicate).

Adam knew Eve, and they bore children.

Here we get a different slant on the word "knowing". Knew or know is a four letter word (little jest), but to be more serious - to know something is to experience it, to have unity with it via experience.

This can lead us into what we call "belief" or that superdopper knowledge. Example: one could experience or be at one with the presence of Spirit (God) but lack proof ( so called knowledge) about that topic, other then the knowledge about what name your culture has assigned to It for communicative purposes.

As are as the terms "wisdom" and "justice", I would think that those are different topics. But then again, we are dealing with fine lines - but if there is no difference then why different words, when one word could cover all.

[tman_ndsu08]

There only things you can know for sure are a priori. We defined them to be true.


The rest of the stuff you can only believe to be true, but you can't prove it to be true.

[Technosoul]

There only things you can know for sure are a priori. We defined them to be true.


The rest of the stuff you can only believe to be true, but you can't prove it to be true.

You forgot to give us the proof as to why priori (whatever that is - geewiz, I only had a highschool education - and got below average grades too boot) is true.

[tman_ndsu08]

It's true because we define it to be true.

For example, the statement "all red dogs are dogs" true because we define dogs to be dogs.

We can know it's true without any observation.

A person locked in a sensory deprivation room could know it's true.

[lsbskins1]

t-man tends to be a little... umm, simplistic and a little... umm, wrong sometimes.

a priori: Knowable without appeal to particular experience.

So the whole dog thing does not really work, since one would have to have the expierence of knowing a dog to know a red dog was, in fact, a dog.

Amounts work better. Say you just popped out of the womb and you were thirsty. Instinctually, you sense and know that two pulls from the teat equal more satisfaction that one pull. You know 2 is more than 1, a priori.

[tman_ndsu08]

Nice. Using the the 2b defintion instead of the 1 definition.

1. A Priori: Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect


Exactly as I just demonstrated with the dog example.


One does not need to even know what a dog is in order to know that a red dog is, in fact, a dog.


I could've said that "all red asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's are asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's" and you could know the statement was true without knowing what the hell a asjdoiadsjoijoifgas was.

The exact defintion of A Priori.

[lsbskins1]

Please look to the meaning of the latin phrase. It means " from what goes before", ie.-what you know BEFORE you learn. Again, to recognize a dog, be it red or white or imaginary, one must have already learned "dog". It must be innate to be a priori. But remember, a priori knowlege is important as a solid base, but is not the end all and be all of knowledge. Neither of us would be writing and discussing this if it was. But you certainly do not "define" anything to be true that is a priori. Defining means you learned in relation to something already learned. Defining would negate the idea of a priori.

[tman_ndsu08]

to recognize a dog, be it red or white or imaginary, one must have already learned "dog".

I could've said that "all red asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's are asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's" and you could know the statement was true without knowing what the hell a asjdoiadsjoijoifgas was.

[lsbskins1]

I could've said that "all red asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's are asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's" and you could know the statement was true without knowing what the hell a asjdoiadsjoijoifgas was.

Would I? It might be like saying "all grey bears are bears", in which case, a kola bear is grey, but is certainly not a bear. Your example requires some level of learned, ie observational understanding. It's not about simple, it's not about seeing patterns (necessary for equating red asjdoiadsjoijoifgas's with non-red ones), it's about innate.