Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69544 wrote:

What you know to be true could be false. One never has "absolute" knowledge, if that's what you're implying.

If one says they believe (using the notion I believe you were using), this means they think they know. How is this dishonest?

You surely mean what you believe you know to be true could be false. To know that p is true, and for p to be false, is a contradiction. That is what the term "know" means. I cannot know that p, and p be false. I am not sure what absolute knowledge is supposed to be. I suspect you mean "certainty", the impossibility of being wrong. But one can know without being certain. One knows if one is not wrong; it need not be that it is impossible for him to be wrong. It is possible that I am mistaken that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. For instance, the capital might have been switched five minutes ago, without the news having gotten out yet. But, of course, that doesn't mean that such a thing did, in fact happen, and if (as I expect) it did not happen, then I am right that Quito is the capital, and so, I know it is.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------

Fido;69610 wrote:

What we say we know, we know with some evidence.. What we say we believe we often accept contrary to evidence..

It is certainly true that we cannot know unless our belief is adequately justified (some evidence will not do) We can believe without adequate evidence for what we believe, and it is possible to believe, as you say, contrary to evidence. Belief with little or no evidence, or even contrary to evidence, is often called, "faith".

@kennethamy,

So to put it all in simple terms:

1) Something is true: maybe
2) Something is false: maybe
3) Something may be true or false: maybe

I can buy that. Uncertainty pretty much describes life.

Rich

@JeffD2,

kennethamy wrote:

You surely mean what you believe you know to be true could be false.

What we believe we know is what we know. What we know can be true or false.

Quote:

One knows if one is not wrong; it need not be that it is impossible for him to be wrong.

What one knows could be wrong. One can know if one is not right or wrong.

If you classify "knowledge" as those things which are not wrong, I don't think anyone has much knowledge. Knowledge, then, would only be what we can empirically observe at any single point in time, because after that point, it could be wrong*. I think you must mean, "One knows if one believes they are not wrong", and in this case, I'd agree. Because, of course, no one knows anything they believe to be false.

*This doesn't really even make sense because I constructed "point" and "time" to articulate this thought. There are no "point(s)" in time, so empirical observation is in a constant state of flux. Thus, knowledge is also.

Quote:

For instance, the capital might have been switched five minutes ago, without the news having gotten out yet. But, of course, that doesn't mean that such a thing did, in fact happen, and if (as I expect) it did not happen, then I am right that Quito is the capital, and so, I know it is.

Even if the capital was changed, but you hadn't received knowledge of the change, you still knew the capital was Quito. You just happened to be wrong. Your example simply illustrates how knowledge is relative.

Fido wrote:

What we say we know, we know with some evidence.. What we say we believe we often accept contrary to evidence..

Not necessarily. One can use "believe" as a synonym for "know". I can say I believe Pam is in the living room after just seeing her in the living room, and I would have adequate justification for believing such. Belief is not generally used contrary to evidence. Most people would begin to doubt if there is contrary evidence, from what I've seen. Belief can be used with little or no evidence, though, as kennethamy pointed out.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69634 wrote:

What we believe we know is what we know. What we know can be true or false.

Quote:

Even if the capital was changed, but you hadn't received knowledge of the change, you still knew the capital was Quito. You just happened to be wrong. Your example simply illustrates how knowledge is relative.

Quote:

One can use "believe" as a synonym for "know".

You are changing the definition of "know". Knowledge means justified true belief; therefore, by definition, we cannot know X if it is false - we can only believe it. We can, of course, believe we know it, but our belief will then be wrong; since X is in fact false, we do not know X. The point is basically a linguistic rather than a philosophical one.

@ACB,

ACB;69655 wrote:

You are changing the definition of "know". Knowledge means justified true belief; therefore, by definition, we cannot know X if it is false - we can only believe it. We can, of course, believe we know it, but our belief will then be wrong; since X is in fact false, we do not know X. The point is basically a linguistic rather than a philosophical one.

Let's take an example:

1.) The vase is on the table is true.
2.) Zetherin believes the vase is on the table.
3.) Zetherin is justified in believing it is true the vase is on the table.

Let's now take a realistic approach to the matter, rather than using a fixed system truth table:

Who's going to continuously verify #1 for me? Certainly I cannot be at home empirically observing the vase on the table all day. If someone asks me at work if the vase is on the table, I would say: "I know the vase is on the table". I could be wrong - someone could have robbed my house while I was gone, hitting the vase off the table. If we are to conclude I only believed I knew, rather than knew the vase was on the table upon leaving for work, this seems ridiculous. For we could apply this logic to anything and find that we didn't know, we only believed we knew.

Unless you're trying to imply we know nothing, and believe we know the things we think we know. That seems like changing the definition, doesn't it? I mean, why apply a notion (knowledge) to humans if humans don't even have the capacity to know?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69689 wrote:

Unless you're trying to imply we know nothing, and believe we know the things we think we know. That seems like changing the definition, doesn't it? I mean, why apply a notion (knowledge) to humans if humans don't even have the capacity to know?

Hi,

It is an interesting phenomenon that people insist that they Know. Why is it so important for people to have this attribute?

Heraclitus posited that everything is in a constant flux and therefore nothing can be known (in the manner we normally use the word). It is a matter of probabilities. Very similar to Quantum Theory.

Now, Aristotle comes along, and simplifies life into very simple Truth tables. Everyone loves it, while Heraclitus is pretty much lost. Why?

I think it is because throughout history people who say I KNOW, on average, make a lot more money than people who say I THINK I KNOW. I figured this out early in life while working as a computer consultant. Smile

In general, people like the comfort of KNOWING as above to MAYBE, and as a consultant, I was more than happy to provide that comfort. After all, we all have to work within the constraints of Life.

I think that is why scientists are so popular and make a good living. They have a system to prove that they KNOW, even though everything that has been ever been research as subsequently be overturned or contradicted by another piece of research. Scientists have to live also, and what better way to live then to come up with NEW RESEARCH. It at least earns you a journal placement. Smile

It's all OK.

Rich

@richrf,

Yes, rich, you're right.

See, I like to use "know" for those things I have a high certainty of being "right" about.

So, in my vase example, I did have a high certainty of being right about the vase being on the table. I had no reason to believe the vase was not on the table upon leaving for work, thus I would have said, "I know the vase is on the table". If, on the other hand, I knew my wife sometimes takes the vase off the table in preparation for supper, I would have said, "I believe the vase is on the table". This is because I have some reason to believe the vase is not on the table anymore; I don't have high certainty.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69699 wrote:

Yes, rich, you're right.

See, I like to use "know" for those things I have a high certainty of being "right" about.

So, in my vase example, I did have a high certainty of being right about the vase being on the table. I had no reason to believe the vase was not on the table upon leaving for work, thus I would have said, "I know the vase is on the table". If, on the other hand, I knew my wife sometimes takes the vase off the table in preparation for supper, I would have said, "I believe the vase is on the table". This is because I have some reason to believe the vase is not on the table anymore; I don't have high certainty.

Hi Zeth,

I am in your camp.

Rich

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69689 wrote:

I could be wrong - someone could have robbed my house while I was gone, hitting the vase off the table. If we are to conclude I only believed I knew, rather than knew the vase was on the table upon leaving for work, this seems ridiculous. For we could apply this logic to anything and find that we didn't know, we only believed we knew.

When you are asked at work if the vase is on the table, and you answer "I know the vase is on the table", it is implicit in your answer that such knowledge has a temporal element. Namely, as you mention, the vase was on the table upon leaving for work.

If a robber knocks your vase off the table at time t2, your knowledge about time t1 still stands. We wouldn't say that you only believed you knew that the vase was on the table upon leaving for work - you did and still do know that the vase was on the table upon leaving for work. This is not to say that knowledge is fleeting. You had every reason to believe that the vase was still on the table. Does this count as knowledge? Maybe knowledge is an accurate description unless and until it is known otherwise.

But if was actually false that a vase was on the table when you left for work (suppose it was actually only the reflection of a vase that was on your mantle) then you were wrong about knowing; you only believed you knew.

@richrf,

richrf;69704 wrote:

Hi Zeth,

I am in your camp.

But Zetherin likes to say "I know", whilst you like to say "I think I know". Isn't that an important difference?

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------

Zetherin;69689 wrote:

If someone asks me at work if the vase is on the table, I would say: "I know the vase is on the table". I could be wrong - someone could have robbed my house while I was gone, hitting the vase off the table.

So once you discovered this, would you say: "The vase was not on the table, but I knew it was"? Surely not!

@JeffD2,

Goapy wrote:

But if was actually false that a vase was on the table when you left for work (suppose it was actually only the reflection of a vase that was on your mantle) then you were wrong about knowing; you only believed you knew.

If I saw the reflection of the vase and thought it was actually on the table, I would still say I know the vase is on the table. I could be wrong (it could only be a reflection), but I believed it was on the table and I had ample justification to say such. One only ever has what they empirically observe to go off of.

The 'true' variable seems to be convoluted. Say, for instance, when I left for work the vase was on the table. Halfway through my shift, my wife takes the vase off the table to clean. Before I get home, she puts the vase back on the table. According to your logic, I didn't know the vase was on the table during the time period she took the vase off the table for cleaning.

This seems ridiculous to me, and it severely limits the semantical content of the word, "know". One never has 100% certainty, and in using the word "know", we acknowledge this. If we don't use the word in this manner, how can we use the word?

Goapy wrote:

You had every reason to believe that the vase was still on the table. Does this count as knowledge? Maybe knowledge is an accurate description unless and until it is known otherwise.

Once it is known otherwise, the knowledge changes. Before that point, it is still knowledge. Knowledge is relative, "true" only insofar as we can reason in many cases.

Let's take a look at an example (and I forget who on this forum shared this a whole ago):

In the medieval ages, geometers believed that one could square a circle. This was considered scientific knowledge. Centuries later, we discover it's impossible to square a circle. Are we to say they didn't know? If you say this, then we can surely apply this to every piece of current scientific knowledge. Because, a thousand years from now, other humans could find us to have been wrong.

ABC wrote:

But Zetherin likes to say "I know", whilst you like to say "I think I know". Isn't that an important difference?

Not for me, because I have not developed a distinction between the two. What I know is what I think I know. How could it not be?

ABC wrote:

So once you discovered this, would you say: "The vase was not on the table, but I knew it was"? Surely not!

I would say, "I knew the vase was on the table before leaving for work. However, I was wrong."

As mentioned, one can be right or wrong about what they know.

ABC and Goapy,

What else do we have but degrees of certainty? Those things we consider to have a higher degree of certainty we deem to know, do we not?

Disclaimer: I understand there are differing notions of the word "knowledge", across many disciplines of philosophy. I'm simply sharing the one that makes the most sense to me.

@ACB,

ACB;69724 wrote:

But Zetherin likes to say "I know", whilst you like to say "I think I know". Isn't that an important difference?

Not to me. Concepts are more interesting to me than words. In general, I am in agreement with Zetherin. He expresses it in a way that is comfortable for him. And the same for me. That is fine as far as I am concerned with. However, others may be more concerned with the usage of words (which is a different story all together), and they may want to discuss word usage. I can see that also. It is just not where I am at.

Rich

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69728 wrote:

What else do we have but degrees of certainty? Those things we consider to have a higher degree of certainty we deem to know, do we not?

Yes, and so long as our belief is not contradicted, it is reasonable to say that we do in fact know. For practical purposes, we need not worry about remote possibilities of error. Thus the concept of 'knowledge' does indeed have a useful function. However, the situation is quite different if the thing we believed (with strong justification) turns out to be false. According to the normal use of the word, we then have to say that we did not in fact know but only thought we did.

If you said to me "I knew the vase had been on the table the whole time", I would automatically conclude that it had been on the table the whole time. If you then added "but I was wrong", I would think you were contradicting yourself.

I agree that it is useful to distinguish between knowledge and mere belief according to the strength of the evidence. But if the evidence swings conclusively in the other direction, I can see no purpose in maintaining that there was ever knowledge of the thing in question. Nor have I heard anyone else do so.

@ACB,

ACB;69724 wrote:

But Zetherin likes to say "I know", whilst you like to say "I think I know". Isn't that an important difference?

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------

So once you discovered this, would you say: "The vase was not on the table, but I knew it was"? Surely not!

Many times we know, we think we know. But clearly, it is not true that whenever we think we know, we know. As in any other case, we may think that something is true, but what we think true may not be true, and then, we have made a mistake. Example: We may think an apple does not contain a worm, and then it turns out that it does. We have made a mistake. Apply this to knowing: we may think we know, but then it turns out that we don't know because what we thought we knew is not true. Again, we have make a mistake about whether we know, just as we have made a mistake about whether the apple contains a worm. No difference.

How could anyone say that the vase was not on the table, but he knew it was? That is a contradiction. If you know that something is true, then, how can it not be true? But, of course, you can believe you know something is true, and consequently claim that you know it is true, but it turn out not to be true. Therefore, you thought you knew, but you did not know, as I pointed out in what I wrote above.
On he other hand, we can believe (not know) something, and it be false. And that would not mean I just thought I believed it (as in the case of knowing). It would mean that I did believe it, and I was mistaken. That's an important distinction between knowing and believing. You cannot know and be mistaken, although you can think you know and be mistaken. But you can believe and be mistaken. It is not that when you discover you are mistaken you have to say, "I only thought I believed". You did believe, and you were mistaken. Knowledge cannot be wrong. Belief can be wrong.

@richrf,

richrf;69742 wrote:

Not to me. Concepts are more interesting to me than words. In general, I am in agreement with Zetherin. He expresses it in a way that is comfortable for him. And the same for me. That is fine as far as I am concerned with. However, others may be more concerned with the usage of words (which is a different story all together), and they may want to discuss word usage. I can see that also. It is just not where I am at.

Rich

Every word is a concept...

@Fido,

Fido;69876 wrote:

Every word is a concept...

It is a bit different for me. I consider concepts that which I form in my mind. I consider words a transmission of these ideas. Symbols which I create in order to try to share my idea and form a relationship (consensus) with another being or otherwise.

However, I can see that for you words, in themselves are concepts that you enjoy forming ideas about and transmitting them. Scrabble and crosswords are great games!

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;69878 wrote:

It is a bit different for me. I consider concepts that which I form in my mind. I consider words a transmission of these ideas. Symbols which I create in order to try to share my idea and form a relationship (consensus) with another being or otherwise.

However, I can see that for you words, in themselves are concepts that you enjoy forming ideas about and transmitting them. Scrabble and crosswords are great games!

Rich

Do you think a dog as a concept is some how different from the word: dog??? How about sky, or water, or Justice, or peace??? We think by means of words, and the concepts they convey... You simple cannot talk about one without talking about the other...

@Fido,

Fido;69880 wrote:

Do you think a dog as a concept is some how different from the word: dog???

Yes, that which I picture in my mind is generally not well served by the word. In fact, I may add all kinds of adjectives and still fall short.

Each mind has all kinds of ideas that it seeks to share with other minds - and it does the best it can, with the words that the individual minds have agreed upon (reached some consensus). Some languages are better than others, depending upon where you live, to relate (transmit) ideas.

Quote:

How about sky, or water, or Justice, or peace??? We think by means of words, and the concepts they convey... You simple cannot talk about one without talking about the other...

You may think by means of words. I am not you, so I have no idea. As for me, when I am asleep (I do lots of thinking when I am asleep), I only see images in my dreams. No words - that I can recall.

However, when I wake up, and wish to talk about (transmit) the dreams to someone else, I will use words. Words, for me, are transmission signals. When they are heard by someone else, they form new objects within the relationship, and yes indeed these words can be considered concepts at that point. We can talk about the differences in the way one person conceives the concepts that are formed in the relationship, and the way the other person conceives the concepts formed, if we wish. For me, it is not where my interest lies. But reaching exact consensus on the nature of the word can be fun. Look at all of the definitions for a single word in the dictionary!

Rich

@JeffD2,

kennethamy wrote:

It would mean that I did believe it, and I was mistaken. That's an important distinction between knowing and believing. You cannot know and be mistaken, although you can think you know and be mistaken

As I noted, no one can consistently verify they aren't mistaken about a subject we deem knowledge. This is not humanly possible. According to you, there is no way I can say I knew the vase was on the table upon leaving for work, because, of course, I took my eyes off the vase. We can extrapolate this to nearly anything.

What things do you think you know ? It seems any example you give I could apply your logic and say, "You only believe/think you know". Seems like a waste of a word to me, unless we all agree we cannot know anything, and then we've just deemed it as some metaphysical notion and discussion is over.

ABC wrote:

I can see no purpose in maintaining that there was ever knowledge of the thing in question. Nor have I heard anyone else do so.

Yes, as stated, new knowledge can come about with new information, as my medieval geometer example illustrates.

Keeping that in mind, how are we to assuredly say we know anything when we could in fact be wrong? The medieval geometers believed squaring a circle was scientific knowledge. They were wrong. You can say they didn't "know", but then, as I mentioned, we could realistically say we don't know anything (because 1,000 years down the road, someone could show we were wrong). Should we have to cover our asses about every topic, and never give assurance? Should we really just say we think we know about whatever topic?

That's humble, fine, I'll go with that. Then no one knows anything.

Once again I ask: What else do we have but our empirical observation at any given point in time?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69900 wrote:

That's humble, fine, I'll go with that. Then no one knows anything.

Interestingly, upon reflection, I very rarely use the word know, if ever, to refer to my own observations. Of course, I will use it, if someone tells me something. I will ask, "How do you know?"

Rich

Philosophy Forum

Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

Quick Links

My Account

able2know