Is there anything you know that was not arrived at scientifically?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

nameless
 
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 04:10 pm
@Aedes,
It seems to me that a good definition of 'knowledge' is the contents of 'memory', at any moment.
People try to make it 'more' by egoic identification and emotional content(distortion?).
Without all the 'value judgements', etc..
'Memory' = 'Knowledge'
 
Arjen
 
Reply Fri 30 May, 2008 02:29 am
@nameless,
I would like to point everybody, but Aedes and Resha Caner in particular to my -just posted- blog entry. I think it is very much what we are speaking of. I hope all of you like it.
 
Resha Caner
 
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 06:36 am
@Arjen,
Not that we've reached an agreement, but since activity has died down, let me ask this next question.

The context I tried to set for the discussion had, implicit within it, an idea of a level of confidence.

Of these things you "know" within science and without, in which is your level of confidence higher?
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 12:31 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner wrote:
Not that we've reached an agreement, but since activity has died down, let me ask this next question.

The context I tried to set for the discussion had, implicit within it, an idea of a level of confidence.

Of these things you "know" within science and without, in which is your level of confidence higher?

I think more than one criterium needs to be met. If things are studied only within science it has as much worth as not studied within science, but by the other criteria.

I hope you see my point.
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 12:53 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner wrote:
Is there anything you know that was not arrived at scientifically?

I would ask, is there anything you know that was not biologically arrived at?:rolleyes: even scientific truths, these are supposedly biologically concluded in an experiment far far away. Truth, that stone I just dropped is hot, the pain in my right hand confirms the fact.
 
Resha Caner
 
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 02:39 pm
@boagie,
Arjen wrote:
I think more than one criterium needs to be met. If things are studied only within science it has as much worth as not studied within science, but by the other criteria.

I hope you see my point.


I think I understand you, but should the two conflict, a judgement is made. So, regardless of whether the criteria are different, it becomes an issue of which has the higher level of confidence.

boagie wrote:
I would ask, is there anything you know that was not biologically arrived at?


Temporally, no. Spiritually, maybe.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 08:56 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner wrote:
Is there anything you know that was not arrived at scientifically?

I said in another thread that I would move this question here.


I think what is meant here is trying to figure out if there is any knowledge derived from something other than intellect, stuff that is naturally known of a human being, but I guess that doesn't seem possible to me.Smile
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 09:52 pm
@Holiday20310401,
I know my name it didn't take any experiments any theories or anything for that matter it is was given to me thats all. I Assume you trying to say nothing worth knowing or nothing can be known unless through science that why i used a strange example was easy and to point.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:38 am
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
I know my name it didn't take any experiments any theories or anything for that matter it is was given to me thats all. I Assume you trying to say nothing worth knowing or nothing can be known unless through science that why i used a strange example was easy and to point.


Yes, or another example is, 2+2=4. But the notion of "arriving scientifically" is vague, and needs to be specified.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:39 am
@kennethamy,
Most lessons learned through growing up are not arrived at scientifically. If they were the mortality rate of young children would be high. When your parents tell you need to ingest poison and you obey you survive. Had you experimented with ingesting the chemical you will get sick or die. Another example is crossing the street. You are told that the car could kill you if you get hit. You would not then go and try to find out what actually happens when the car hits you.
 
midas77
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 02:31 pm
@Theaetetus,
There are things we must accept by faith, otherwise life will really be troublesome. We will end up verfying everything. Sometimes the credibility of others should be enough.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 04:47 pm
@Resha Caner,
Resha Caner wrote:
So, my usage acknowledges gray lying between black and white, but also says that their comes a point where life experience causes someone to flip a switch and say "I know", treating an issue as if it is black and white.


... I know how to ride a bike ... I know how to tie my shoes ... the vast majority of what I know is like this, almost none of which I would say was arrived at scientifically ... so here's a related question: is it even possible to take a "scientific" approach to learning how to, say, tie your shoes?
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 07:39 am
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
How do you qualify 'know'. I ask this in all earnesty, because, if I say that I 'know' God exists, is that something I know or something I believe? What defines the boundries of knowing and believing?


de silentio,Smile

To know is to experience, to experience is to know, to know, the experience.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 08:26 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... I know how to ride a bike ... I know how to tie my shoes ... the vast majority of what I know is like this, almost none of which I would say was arrived at scientifically ... so here's a related question: is it even possible to take a "scientific" approach to learning how to, say, tie your shoes?


Knowing how (what is called "skills knowledge") is different from knowing that, (called "propositional knowledge"). The question is about the latter, not the former.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 08:28 am
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
There are things we must accept by faith, otherwise life will really be troublesome. We will end up verfying everything. Sometimes the credibility of others should be enough.


But to accept something as true is not the same thing as knowing it is true. To accept something as true is to believe it is true, and that is different from knowing it is true.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 10:11 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Knowing how (what is called "skills knowledge") is different from knowing that, (called "propositional knowledge"). The question is about the latter, not the former.


... okay - I know that I know how to tie my shoes ... I also know that the Sunday paper in Colorado Springs, CO contains a section called "Sports" ... but maybe I'm still missing your point Wink ...
 
midas77
 
Reply Sun 20 Jul, 2008 11:48 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
But to accept something as true is not the same thing as knowing it is true. To accept something as true is to believe it is true, and that is different from knowing it is true.


There are things we must accept by faith, otherwise life will really be troublesome. We will end up verfying everything. Sometimes the credibility of others should be enough. Why is your post different from mine?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 09:40 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... okay - I know that I know how to tie my shoes ... I also know that the Sunday paper in Colorado Springs, CO contains a section called "Sports" ... but maybe I'm still missing your point Wink ...


My point is that the issue of the thread is not about the kind of knowing in knowing how to tie your shoes, but the kind of knowing in knowing that the paper contains a sports section. So, even if the former does not involve science, as you claim, that would not show that the latter kind of knowing does not involve science.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 10:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
My point is that the issue of the thread is not about the kind of knowing in knowing how to tie your shoes, but the kind of knowing in knowing that the paper contains a sports section. So, even if the former does not involve science, as you claim, that would not show that the latter kind of knowing does not involve science.


... okay - I opened the Sunday paper and there it was: a section called "Sports" ... was that knowledge arrived at scientifically? ...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 24 Jul, 2008 07:34 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... okay - I opened the Sunday paper and there it was: a section called "Sports" ... was that knowledge arrived at scientifically? ...


Of course not, in the sense that you did an experiment, and tested an hypothesis. But the term, "discovering something scientifically" is very vague. Some people mean by that, just using your senses to find out things. And, of course, in that very wide sense, the answer is yes. As someone once said, science is just organized common sense. Now, that's not quite true, but it is true enough.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 07:46:08