knowledge vs. belief

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Uh. Yes, good and evil are entirely human cultural contructs. IMO.

Nature is my darling, because She is the only darling, but I also know that She is sharp of tooth and bloody of claw.

I would assert that this is not "evil". And, really, the natural world doesn't kill "indiscriminately"; think of how populations are controlled without human interference - how a greater food supply stimulates the bearing of more offspring...how ovepopulation of one species results in a population surge in the predators of that species.

There is no *intent to harm* in any of this, which is what evil is, IMO. There is no joy in causing suffering.

There is just the wheel, turning this way and then that, to keep things in balance.

This is an interesting perspective, one I have been seeking to exchange views with. I see you are slowly going through a lot of the older threads, and I am thrilled that you are adding your perspective to them.

I want to be sure I am not imposing, but at your convenience could I ask you to consider looking at the "morality in evolution" thread in the philosophy section. It is very long, I am not asking you look at all of it, but the first page or two (about 30 posts). There you will see I asked a question that would be suited to your outlook, in that I would be interested to hear what you may have to add.

Thank you in advance. I want to add I think you are a great sport. It is seldom we get active participation from pagans outside of the pagan board. It is appreciated, on my part.

[Käthe]

juantoo3,

I'll look at the thread you suggested as I have time.

Thank you for your welcoming attitude, I appreciate it.

As for participating anywhere and everywhere...why, I'm a Pagan, and the whole wide Multiverse is my Church, so why not play/dance/worship in all of it?

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Pope Benedict talks of the 'dictatorship of relativism', which I would call the tyranny of mediocrity ... and which leads to an 'intellectual nihilism' which is an abdication of responsibility.

Thomas

This is completely at odds with my own thinking on this matter.

Because I know that I am the source of my thoughts and feelings and beliefs (and judgements and evaluations and so on), I MUST BE personally responsible for what they bring about. There is no abdication of responsibility; just the opposite, in fact.

I own my "relative" views of things. My ownership applies even to those things I have "inherited" and have not examined.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I see you are slowly going through a lot of the older threads, and I am thrilled that you are adding your perspective to them.

I'm doing this in my own peculiar way; by clicking on the "what's going on" thingie, and scanning through the topics that are currently being viewed, either by real people or by those odd things called spiderbots or whatever. When a topic title listed there catches my attention, I click on over to it and give it a look-see. (It's kind of like throwing lots).

At some point I may decide to thoroughly investigate one board at a time by going back to the first pages of topics and working my way forward, but for the time being I'm quite happy to follow the method I'm using right now to find things of interest.

[lunamoth]

I think that there are different kinds of knowledge and to have a meaningful conversation the particpants need to first agree to what kind of knowledge they are talking about. I'm not a philosophy scholar, so I apologize in advance to laying out an amateur's framework for this.

scientific or literal knowledge--knowing based upon fact supportable, or at least theoretically supportable, by material evidence and observation.

wisdom knowledge--knowing based upon culture or tradition, or in contrast to culture/tradition (one way or another it is in reference to tradition)

sacred knowledge--knowing based upon faith (in the lack of objective evidence, not in spite of contrary evidence)

rational knowledge--knowing based upon reason--must accept a base assumption, even if that base assumption is "only things that I can touch/observe/measure are real."

I also see that there is overlap in these catagories. So, for example, I consider Jesus turning water into wine as sacred knowledge. As literal knowledge I would expect to find material evidence that such a thing is possible without trickery or illusion. It is also wisdom knowledge in that it teaches us something about Christ's mission in contrast to conventional/traditional wisdom.

just some thought,
lunamoth

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

scientific or literal knowledge--knowing based upon fact supportable, or at least theoretically supportable, by material evidence and observation.

wisdom knowledge--knowing based upon culture or tradition, or in contrast to culture/tradition (one way or another it is in reference to tradition)

sacred knowledge--knowing based upon faith (in the lack of objective evidence, not in spite of contrary evidence)

rational knowledge--knowing based upon reason--must accept a base assumption, even if that base assumption is "only things that I can touch/observe/measure are real."

Ok. How do you go on to use your model and understand the relationship between belief and the four knowledge categories? Are there four corresponding belief categories, as well?

Also, I suppose that you would like to have a set of categories that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. I am not sure that, for example, rational knowledge isn't really part of scientific knowledge (or vice versa).

[lunamoth]

Just thought about the term gnosis, which is also knowledge or perhaps more specifically 'recognition.' Maybe another way to say this is 'unveiling' that which is there but we previously failed to see. Thus, there is no new information given, but a new understanding or a paradigm shift. I think this is seen in our baptism where the Holy Spirit, which is always present, is not so much as imparted as it is discovered as our old self dies. Likewise, opening up the parables of the Kingdom of God show that that Kingdom is not something to be built as much as it is something to be found.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by DIKL

Ok. How do you go on to use your model and understand the relationship between belief and the four knowledge categories? Are there four corresponding belief categories, as well?

Also, I suppose that you would like to have a set of categories that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. I am not sure that, for example, rational knowledge isn't really part of scientific knowledge (or vice versa).

Hi DIKL,

I edited my post to reflect that these types of knowledge are not mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

Belief is a slippery word, even more so than knowledge. That's why I disagree with Thomas, or perhaps it was you, when above it was said that scientists have 'beliefs' about their work. Scientific language is intentionally precise and non-emotive, even if it is true that scientists can not always perfectly separate objectivity from subjectivity. That's why we have peer review to expose those things that are not empirical. A scientist will use the term hypothesis. A well-supported hypothesis may be considered a theory. Data are measurable facts.

But you are right that to have a meaningful conversation about belief the definition of 'belief' must first be agreed upon, just as the definition of knowledge must be agreed upon. I realize that in philosophy there are definitions of these things already, but not all of us converse in philosophical logic.

Anyway, to answer your question, I would place belief within the catagories of wisdom or sacred knowledge, which I have already said are not mutually exclusive. I see sacred knowledge as knowledge supported by divine revelation. Thus, if that divine revelation is found in an accepted scripture or tradition, as in Christianity, then sacred knowledge is a subset of wisdom knowledge. But if that divine revelation is personally received, then it may or may not also be wisdom, depending exactly what the belief is about (i.e., personal or community).

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Just thought about the term gnosis, which is also knowledge or perhaps more specifically 'recognition.' Maybe another way to say this is 'unveiling' that which is there but we previously failed to see. Thus, there is no new information given, but a new understanding or a paradigm shift. I think this is seen in our baptism where the Holy Spirit, which is always present, is not so much as imparted as it is discovered as our old self dies. Likewise, opening up the parables of the Kingdom of God show that that Kingdom is not something to be built as much as it is something to be found.

lunamoth

Hmm, interesting. Knowledge as a fixed star, always there, clouded but waiting to be sighted.

Right now I'm thinking of a discussion around knowledge as a function of 'degree of uncertainty' and 'degree of agreement'. Quahom1 has posted definitions of belief and knowledge that I found thought-provoking...
I'm visualizing a person that starts with a vague belief, full of doubt...he studies the matter, gathers observations, formulates theories...doubt begins to scatter, i.e. the 'degree of uncertainty' decreases as he turns more and more convinced of the 'truth'...

Finally, there is no doubt and uncertainty whatsoever. Then the belief has been replaced by 'knowledge'. Or is there more to it?
Maybe others have to agree to the new truth for it to really be considered true? Or is it enough that a single person has no doubt in his mind?

I guess I'm looking at knowledge as a social dimension, something that is created by the perception and social structures of human kind, and thus, constantly changing and never fixed. Hmm.

Just some unstructured thoughts, sorry.

DIKL

[lunamoth]

Further, sacred knowledge is also rational knowledge. The difference is that the base assumption does not require a material proof. In fact, even the statement I chose as an example of rational knowledge, "only things that I can touch/observe/measure are real," or Descatres famous "I think therefore I am," are basic assumptions that can't be proved. In essence, even these are based on a certain amount of faith.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by DIKL

Hmm, interesting. Knowledge as a fixed star, always there, clouded but waiting to be sighted.

Cool way of phrasing it.

Right now I'm thinking of a discussion around knowledge as a function of 'degree of uncertainty' and 'degree of agreement'. Quahom1 has posted definitions of belief and knowledge that I found thought-provoking...
I'm visualizing a person that starts with a vague belief, full of doubt...he studies the matter, gathers observations, formulates theories...doubt begins to scatter, i.e. the 'degree of uncertainty' decreases as he turns more and more convinced of the 'truth'...

The thing is, it again depends upon what kind of knowledge you are talking about. The funny thing about science is that, while it is true that first you start with a hypothesis and then move to greater or less certainty depending upon your data, as you advance to the limits of our currect technology and understanding you start to become less and less certain. It is this boundary between what we know and what we are about to know that keeps our scientific understanding of the universe pushing forward. But, you are correct to a point in that we can become more and more certain of a certain hypothesis if it is correct.

But, how would you apply this path to certitude about things that are spiritual, if you accept the premise that there is Something More than we can measure.

Finally, there is no doubt and uncertainty whatsoever. Then the belief has been replaced by 'knowledge'. Or is there more to it?
Maybe others have to agree to the new truth for it to really be considered true? Or is it enough that a single person has no doubt in his mind?

I guess I'm looking at knowledge as a social dimension, something that is created by the perception and social structures of human kind, and thus, constantly changing and never fixed. Hmm.

Just some unstructured thoughts, sorry.

In some areas of science you can reach the point of no doubt when there is enough accumulated data. However, is this the only way of knowing that is viable or important? Some people think so. But, there are other things about being a human where knowledge is useful but certitude is unattainable in an objective way. Is there meaning to our existence? Is the universe nurturing, hostile, or indifferent to our existence? How you believe about this affects how you live.

I'm rambling here too.

lunamoth

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Belief is a slippery word, even more so than knowledge. That's why I disagree with Thomas, or perhaps it was you, when above it was said that scientists have 'beliefs' about their work. Scientific language is intentionally precise and non-emotive, even if it is true that scientists can not always perfectly separate objectivity from subjectivity.

Data are measurable facts.

Actually, you're disagreeing with me. I'm the one claiming that that the only 'facts' there are, if any, are the mere direct observations we can make. (Direct observations are only those we make with the aid of our own senses, not through measuring devices).
I do agree that the aim and language of science is to be objective and non-emotive. But as science is a human process, it can never be truly objective.
At the heart of science is the relation between observations and theories. An observation is worthless without a theory that explains exactly what that observation is indicating.

If the theory lets us predict the future (within some limiting conditions), then it is a good theory. Observations that do not fit the theory (but are within the limitations) are either categorized as measuring or test setup errors of some kind, or they are indicating that the theory does not hold. So science evolves as new theories with better predictive value and less constraints replace old theories. Theories are also rooted in culture and history, as is everything human. How could we then ever declare to have reached "the one and only truth"?

Once the earth 'was' flat. Now it is round.
Once wood and other fabrics burned according to how much 'flogiston' they contained. Now they burn according to how much oxygen is available.
Once it was 'natural' for objects to fall. Now objects follow curvatures in space, caused by other larger objects.
Once light travelled at infinite speed. Now only at ca 300 000 m/s.

Yet all the direct observations continue to be the same!

As I see it, most knowledge evolves like this, albeit not in such a structured manner as for scientific knowledge. Even you and me Lunamoth, in this discussion are trying to prove our varying theories of what "knowledge" is, pointing to different observations, etc.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by DIKL

Actually, you're disagreeing with me. I'm the one claiming that that the only 'facts' there are, if any, are the mere direct observations we can make. (Direct observations are only those we make with the aid of our own senses, not through measuring devices).

Why would you rule out observations that can be made using devices like microscopes, telescopes, mass spectrometry, or cyclotrons?

I do agree that the aim and language of science is to be objective and non-emotive. But as science is a human process, it can never be truly objective.
At the heart of science is the relation between observations and theories. An observation is worthless without a theory that explains exactly what that observation is indicating.

Certainly there is a creative and inspirational part of science and it is not always conducted by the cut and dried "scientific method" as described in introductory texts. But, I don't really see where we are disagreeing. Still, it is the intent of science to not be subjective, to weed out those findings which can't be reproduced by another person following the same protocol. That's the problem with scientific investigations into things like telepathy. The results are not/have not yet been reproducible by any disinterested party.

If the theory lets us predict the future (within some limiting conditions), then it is a good theory. Observations that do not fit the theory (but are within the limitations) are either categorized as measuring or test setup errors of some kind, or they are indicating that the theory does not hold. So science evolves as new theories with better predictive value and less constraints replace old theories. Theories are also rooted in culture and history, as is everything human. How could we then ever declare to have reached "the one and only truth"?

Whoa, I was with you up to the last sentence here. Are you saying that the earth may not revolve around the sun?

data: observable/measurable pieces of information (average temperatures are warmer near the equator than near the poles of the earth)

hypothesis: a model or assumption based upon an observation, formulated in a way that is experientially testable (a mutation in gene x will affect function y).

theory: a 'grown up hypothesis' strongly supported by testing and empirical data. A model useful for making predictions about the related phenomeon (evolution)

fact: an objectively irrefutable piece of information (the earth revolves around the sun; the boiling point of water is 100 degrees C)

Once the earth 'was' flat. Now it is round. Once wood and other fabrics burned according to how much 'flogiston' they contained. Now they burn according to how much oxygen is available.
Once it was 'natural' for objects to fall. Now objects follow curvatures in space, caused by other larger objects.
Once light travelled at infinite speed. Now only at ca 300 000 m/s.

Yet all the direct observations continue to be the same!

As I see it, most knowledge evolves like this, albeit not in such a structured manner as for scientific knowledge. Even you and me Lunamoth, in this discussion are trying to prove our varying theories of what "knowledge" is, pointing to different observations, etc.

So, knowledge evolves while some foundational "truth" remains the same? OK, I'd agree with that. Once again it suggests that truth is something unchanging that is uncovered by progressive knowledge. If one is talking about knowledge of the material universe the truth is an unchanging physical reality, an absolute. I would say that when you are confined to the physical/material universe the word 'belief' is not a very useful term to use. There is only what we know supported by data, what we don't yet know but is testable (at least in principle), and what we can never know because it is untestable.

lunamoth

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Why would you rule out observations that can be made using devices like microscopes, telescopes, mass spectrometry, or cyclotrons?

Because those devices are part of an explanation system. That's the point I'm trying to make. Every observation must be explained by a theory of the world (or rather, an aspect thereof). Already the very idea of having a device specifically designed to prove a theory is following the modern scientific explanation system. How would a microscope prove anything to someone explaining the world in 'magic' terms? It would be like him trying to 'prove' the magic in the world to you and me by drawing pentagrams and holding seanses.

Whoa, I was with you up to the last sentence here. Are you saying that the earth may not revolve around the sun?

Again, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Of course I believe the earth revolves around the sun. But do I know it? No. I just believe everything I've read and seen that asserts it. If I would have been around in an other time and culture in human history, I would maybe 'know' that the sun revolves around earth, and that the earth is flat.

fact: an objectively irrefutable piece of information (the earth revolves around the sun; the boiling point of water is 100 degrees C)

How would you explain this to someone that doesn't use the modern scientific system to explain the world? Then you would have to start with "Assume that all that you can see here is called 'Earth'. It is a round incredibly large object that moves in something called 'space'. Space is..." and so on and on and on. And you would finish with something like "Look here. This is a picture from the Hubble telescope. It proves all the assumptions we made. And look here. This is a thermometer. See this figure right here? It reads 28 degrees Celsius. It proves that other thing we assumed, that there is 'energy' in the air."

Objectively irrefutable piece of information = A piece of information that you, me and everyone else in this culture at this point in time agrees to is 'true'.

So, knowledge evolves while some foundational "truth" remains the same? OK, I'd agree with that. Once again it suggests that truth is something unchanging that is uncovered by progressive knowledge.

Yes, that's how I see it at least. Knowledge is something inherently human, a social construct, and that's why knowledge evolves even if the underlying observations are the same.
A minor caveat can be that you imply a strictly linear progress. It sounds like ideas that were once held for 'true' can never have that position again. I would keep the possibility open for old ideas to come back in some form.

If one is talking about knowledge of the material universe the truth is an unchanging physical reality, an absolute. I would say that when you are confined to the physical/material universe the word 'belief' is not a very useful term to use. There is only what we know supported by data, what we don't yet know but is testable (at least in principle), and what we can never know because it is untestable.

I'm not sure I understand your position. You state above that knowledge evolves while 'truth' stays fixed. Here you revert to what I see as your old position: data is objective and irrefutable, therefore we 'know' it.
It is important to make a distinction between data and information:
Data on its own has no meaning. Only when interpreted by a person (or machine) does it take on meaning and become information.

It might be that 'belief' is not a useful term to use when describing the material universe. But then again, I'm not trying to claim that. Here's what I wrote earlier to Thomas:
I really do believe that all positions are equal in worth. The universe holds countless possibilities, and each human has his intepretation of each possibility. I cannot help but feel humble in front of such complexity.
Nevertheless, I believe that we must have the courage to take a position and to act, in spite of all this insecurity. As we act, we are also showing what position we deem 'truer' than all other.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by DIKL

I really do believe that all positions are equal in worth.

It seems to me that this kind of thinking leads to nowhere.

The universe holds countless possibilities, and each human has his intepretation of each possibility.

Not really. This is an extreme form of relativism. We are more confined by experience and physical reality than that.

I cannot help but feel humble in front of such complexity.

I am also in awe of the universe.

Nevertheless, I believe that we must have the courage to take a position and to act, in spite of all this insecurity. As we act, we are also showing what position we deem 'truer' than all other.

I guess if you view it in the highly relativistic way you describe then it would take courage to act. I don't see it that way. I do accept some basic premises to be trustworthy, including the reality of the physical universe.

peace,
lunamoth