| BookTalk.org News |
| • Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim! |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| BookTalk.org Store |
All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Lawrence 
Experienced
Gold Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 132
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: knowledge / belief
|
 |
|
Robert state
| Quote: |
Your argument could be read as implying that knowledge is impossible, because any claim we make may be untrue so cannot be known with certainty.
|
I've said "when you know that you know and why you know it, that is knowledge." I've also said "Know what you believe and why you believe it." To my awareness I've said our reality consists of both knowledge and belief. My essay attempts to encourage people to critically examine their beliefs and examine what they believe is their knowledge and be comfortable with their understanding. The antagonist of my essay are those people who ignorantly or willfully raise a belief to be a fact and demand others believe it is true.
I do not say what any person thinks is knowledge is, or needs to be. an empirically proven fact. I say that my knowing that he/she thinks it is a fact is important for me to critically determine if I think he/she has empirical knowledge that I might adopt for my knowledge. (In dialogue)
Thank you very much for your sharp mind and commenting on my thoughts. I've got to go now but I will finish responding to your last post. L |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lawrence
Experienced
Gold Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 132
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: continued comment
|
|
|
Robert stated:
| Quote: |
| Burton seems to also support this view, taking the observation that people are often wrong when claiming to be certain to the conclusion that no knowledge is certain. Frankly, I think this sort of epistemological relativism is complete rubbish, but I am not sure if you are going that far. |
I am not going that far but I believe you are in error to think such thinking is complete rubbish. The reason my perspective is different from Burton (I have not read his book), is that for my essay it is not important that the speaker is speaking REAL, CERTIFIED, BONEFIDE, 100 PROVEN EMPIRICAL FACT. I really don't have enough recall memory about very many facts to challenge anyone at the cutting edge of now. HOWEVER, if the speaker or writer presents his statements as REAL, CERTIFIED, ETC., I can consider if the topic is important enough for me to invest the time and effort to verify or rebut his presentation. I may just make a note and plan to get back to it later.
I repeat, I have never said all beliefs are equally valid. I say all beliefs are personal. I agree with you, Chris, and Dwill that all beliefs do not appear equally valid to me. I presume beliefs are valid to the individual or else he/she is a charlatan. (A totally different issue)
I still believe you and Chris need to distinguish the difference between beliefs that are incapable of becoming knowledge (god) and beliefs that are capable of becoming knowledge (empirical science). I have made such a distinction and state it as clearly as I know how in the first chapter of the essay. (Dr. Maartan VanSwaay)
I think that's all for now. L |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWill
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 720
Thanks
Given: 1
Received: 11 in 11 Posts
Gender:
Location: Berryville, Virginia
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: Re: I been thinking
|
|
|
| Robert wrote: |
| ...that no knowledge is certain. Frankly, I think this sort of epistemological relativism is complete rubbish. |
Hi Robert,
I'm reading Burton's book, and so far, less than half way into it, he doesn't seems to be saying we can never say that what we know is real. I peeked at the end of the book, and he does appear to be saying there that we can't think of our convictions/beliefs as certain, because this type of certainty is biologically impossible. When it comes to simpler matters of sense data, he only says that what we think is really out there is subject to distortion by internal causes, and that how we end up "knowing" an object depends on our history with that kind of object. For example, we may be alarmed at a flashing red light or not even consciously aware of it, depending on our experience with flashing red lights. Hope this might help.
DWill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
