How do you know!?!

tim wood

As the "Philosophy" shelves in any box-store book store can testify, "philosophy," so-called, shelters much and many, and much and many it shouldn't. Throw out the alchemy, the astrology, the witchcraft, the psychobabble, and all the other nonsense often found there, and what remains as subject matter of philosophy is still large, capacious, able to accommodate much. And across the realm there often seem different rules of engagement, different understandings and practices. Different purposes and goals. With at the extremes even not much commonality. In short, a kind of squishy-seeming entity and enterprise.

But there also seems a piece of iron at the core of all philosophy properly so-called. Captured in four words (and some punctuation). "How do you know!?!"

With this question asked, all ignorance is put on notice of banishment. Some, of course, will not go easily, in my opinion the underlying reason being that ignorance sometimes cannot nor will not recognize itself. And in this way becomes a kind of pig-in-the-parlor. With the exception that pigs are reckoned clean and intelligent animals, thus but for some accidents of manner might otherwise be welcome - which ignorance, lacking both, cannot nor ever should be.

I say ignorance, but it's an axiom of mine that we're all ignorant, in the face of which we resolve to learn and know as much as we can as well as we can, the integrity of our efforts together with what we win as knowledge being our just, true, and only rewards (maybe some of us get the girl too, maybe, somewhere). Adherence to ignorance, on the other hand, when identified as ignorance, I call stupidity, and practitioners stupid. Not to be confused with incapable or unintelligent. And these persistent stupid are eventually revealed as enemies. Of reason, understanding, knowledge itself, across history, of everything of worth.

I submit we have our share here. Probably far from as many as could be here - credit to our moderators. And even a little handicapped by the nature itself of a website. But we have the iron tool: how do you know!?

It seems to me that on a philosophy website that question is the one question that may always be asked, and must always be answered. Some people may have their own reasons for not answering. But answering is the price of playing. In sum, I argue that any person or argument non-responsive to the question may be dismissed - a short extension of Hitchens's razor. And, that we all ought not to "play" with them. Either they'll learn to play better or go away.

The underlying sense of it - my argument - is that when out of the raw limestone of mere ignorance we try to find and carve out our "angel" of knowledge, a stupid ignorance conceals just what that angel might look like or be. Who wants to be deprived of or derailed from that experience?

TVCL

↪tim wood

Do I have the read of this correct if I conclude that you're not trying to pose the question as-such for now, but are trying to present it as the question that tethers and judges philosophical discussion as-such?

khaled

I don’t think that question remains answerable when asked in succession enough without forming circular logic. I think there is at least one “pivot” to every belief. An unproven claim that is just accepted. I remember long ago (maybe a year or 2) I was replying to you specifically after you said something along the lines of “Should we concede all civilization and progress in the favor of the annoying child that just keeps asking “why?””. This sounds like a very similar thing.

TVCL

↪khaled

Is there a "sweet spot" between the question being asked too much and not being asked enough? On the one hand, if no justification for one's claims are given, any old thing can fly. Then again, as you say, asked insistently it starts to roll-over on itself... what are your thoughts?

khaled

↪TVCL

I don’t think there is such a sweet spot. Someone can explain all of physics by referring to a God that moves things on a whim and that the reason there is regularity and the appearance of laws is just pure chance and that would be just as “epistemologically valid” as our actual theories of physics. As to which will be believed that is a different matter entirely. The whimsical god theory I just mentioned will definitely be cast aside as invalid when it is only really improbable.

However what I have noticed is that beliefs that tend to obscure their “pivot” the most are the most believed. If you present just the pivot as a belief (like the whimsical god) people will have no reason to believe you. However the more deductions and logical steps you take further away from said pivot the more believable the thing is. Because it makes it seem like there is no pivot making the belief seem “objective” when really it’s that the pivot is so obscure that by the time you find it you have invested too much in the interpretation of the world resulting from it that you end up believing it anyways.

In other words a belief is more believable the more times you have to ask “But why” or “But how do you know” to get to an unproven premise.

TVCL

↪khaled

That might explain why a belief gains higher traction but that's judging all answers to "how do you know" as being equally valid or convincing. The question demands standards but it does not - by itself - dictate what those standards must be. However, if the question is never asked or is trivialised there are no standards at all.

As a parallel question then, do you differentiate the whimsical god theory from actual physics or do would you regard them ask being equally indicative or truth/knowledge?

tim wood

↪TVCL

Pretty much. I mean it as a tool. Maybe not always needed. Edit: to judge, but also to whip out the pretenders. Both probe and weed-whacker.

@khalid Lol, that rings a faint bell! I hold - not my original idea - that some thoughts are just plain presupposed in the sense that the other thinking is based on them - axioms of the thinking, so to speak. And those would be special cases because in terms of the thinking in question, you don't know, you just presuppose. That every effect has a cause is one such.

But also as a mailed fist to hold in the face of a recreant. That is, "how do you know?" can be either a friendly inquiry or a serious challenge - a test whereby one's thinking is maintained, or must yield.

khaled

↪TVCL

It would be weird to regard them as equally indicative or not equally indicative. That would assume there is some function which you can give an ontological theory that then spits out a probability of said theory being “the case”. How would you make such a function when people can’t even decide if there is a “the case” or if truth is fundamentally subjective.

Furthermore it assumes that that function would spit out an equal probability for both theories which I don’t see reason to believe

So I think the best answer I can give is “I use actual physics because it suits my purposes better but I don’t believe that it is “the answer” just because it works so well. I am open to the possibility that I’m wrong”

Frank Apisa

↪tim wood

One of the problems with humans right now...is the unwillingness to acknowledge that there are things we humans DO NOT KNOW...and may well NEVER KNOW.

We can hypothesize, or offer conjecture, or suppose, or outright guess on those things, but the ethical thing to do with things we do not know is to acknowledge that we do not know.

Another problem with humans right now...is that they tend to suppose that the only things that exist are things humans can detect in some way...to sense or otherwise perceive.

We are probably no more knowledgeable about "what is" than ants in the backyard are knowledgeable about the cosmos.

The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"

Humans should learn to shout their ignorance...and be proud of the acknowledgment of their ignorance if not of the ignorance itself.

TVCL

↪khaled

We're in agreement here.

tim wood

↪Frank Apisa

But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.

As to knowledge itself, that seems in every case particular knowledge, always associated with the that which is known, and in that sense, known.

Ignorance, grounds only for itself. The "I don't know" is worthy of respect. But it must thereafter be silent - in terms of knowledge.

In terms of nonsense, however, ignorance often does have a lot to say, and usually says it and often insists on it. Perhaps the operative word in "how do you know?" is the "how." If a claim cannot assay that, then what differentiates it from halluciation, madness, or fond "thinking"?

180 Proof

I say ignorance, but it's an axiom of mine that we're all ignorant, in the face of which we resolve to learn and know as much as we can as well as we can, the integrity of our efforts together with what we win as knowledge being our just, true, and only rewards (maybe some of us get the girl too, maybe, somewhere). Adherence to ignorance, on the other hand, when identified as ignorance, I call stupidity, and practitioners stupid. Not to be confused with incapable or unintelligent. And these persistent stupid are eventually revealed as enemies. Of reason, understanding, knowledge itself, across history, of everything of worth. — tim wood

Well stated. Bears repeating (reposting) on every thread.

The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?" — Frank Apisa

Why "should" it? Any answer to the second question will always beg the first question. To wit: How do you know that your answer to "Is it even possible for any human to know?" is true? :yikes:

↪Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance. — tim wood

:up: Or "Mr. Coin"-tosses ...

RogueAI

There's a non-trivial chance that we're either Boltzman brains or in a simulation. A healthy degree of skepticism about most things is in order.

creativesoul

↪tim wood

"How do you know?" is a fine question to ask.

Do you find that there is a single universal answer(outline or some such) to everything that we know?

tim wood

↪creativesoul

Develop the question a little more (if you want to)? I can't find a handle on it.

If you mean that, in reply to the question, "How do you know?" there is a single form the answer should take, that form, it seems to me, would have to be hopelessly general and flexible.

creativesoul

↪tim wood

Well I think background context matters quite a bit here. How does one know what exactly. Different bits of knowledge can be known in different ways, acquired by different means, so...

I agree that a broad-brush answer would have to be too vague for much at all.

Unless all knowledge results from the exact some process... which I would not dismiss offhandedly, so...

I'm unsure.

Frank Apisa

tim wood
5k
↪Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.

As to knowledge itself, that seems in every case particular knowledge, always associated with the that which is known, and in that sense, known.

Ignorance, grounds only for itself. The "I don't know" is worthy of respect. But it must thereafter be silent - in terms of knowledge.

In terms of nonsense, however, ignorance often does have a lot to say, and usually says it and often insists on it. Perhaps the operative word in "how do you know?" is the "how." If a claim cannot assay that, then what differentiates it from halluciation, madness, or fond "thinking"? — tim wood

I disagree totally with that part, Tim.

The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.

Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.

It isn't.

To be silent rather than express objection (even militancy) in favor of what you term "ignorance" on the issues is unethical. So are demands that one be silent on them. Fact is, the term "ignorance" is a misnomer here. It is not ignorance to recognize a lack of knowledge. It may be ignorance not to do so.

Frank Apisa

The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"
— Frank Apisa
Why "should" it? Any answer to the second question will always beg the first question. To wit: How do you know that your answer to "Is it even possible for any human to know?" is true? :yikes: — 180 Proof

"Should" and "probably shout/should probably" are two different concepts. You are asking me about something I never asserted.

↪Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.
— tim wood
:up: Or "Mr. Coin"-tosses — 180

Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses.

Nothing wrong with guessing at all. My guess is we all do guessing most of our day...each and every day.

180 Proof

↪Frank Apisa

Your gibberish sails right over my head again, Frank.

Frank Apisa

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Your gibberish sails righy over my head again, Frank. — 180 Proof

I would not want to have the task of listing all the things that sail over your head, 180.

tim wood

"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math. — Frank Apisa

"More likely" - or not - just is the product of logic, reason, science, math. That's why it's called more likely. "I don't know," gets to say its I-don't-know. If it follows that with any form of "therefore I know," then it has crossed the line into nonsense.

And if it says, "You don't now either," then it has to take the usual and reasonable care to know what it's talking about. If I say, "...is more likely," and you say, "You don't know," then you have not understood the conversation, because I have not professed to know. I have professed an understanding of a likelihood.

If I say I do (or do not believe,) and you say, "You don't know," then again you have not understood the conversation. And similarly with any qualified statement that anyone makes. Because usually in such statements is found exactly what people do know.

And If I say that I do not believe in a material God because I find zero evidence in support of such a being, and you say, "You don't know," then you have simply failed completely to understand what was said.

And, having said, "I don't know," there is nothing else of substance for you to add, and repetition becomes an annoying and irritating. I believe you said you were a barkeep at one time: how much repetition of nonsense did you have to put up with then, and how annoying and irritating was it?

ChatteringMonkey

It seems to me that on a philosophy website that question is the one question that may always be asked, and must always be answered. Some people may have their own reasons for not answering. But answering is the price of playing. In sum, I argue that any person or argument non-responsive to the question may be dismissed - a short extension of Hitchens's razor. And, that we all ought not to "play" with them. Either they'll learn to play better or go away.

The underlying sense of it - my argument - is that when out of the raw limestone of mere ignorance we try to find and carve out our "angel" of knowledge, a stupid ignorance conceals just what that angel might look like or be. Who wants to be deprived of or derailed from that experience? — tim wood

Do we really need to know how we know, to be able to know something?

This seems to be an assumption that goes largely unquestioned, and it certainly seems questionable to me, if not plainly false.

On the face of it, it seems reasonable to think that we first need to know how we know, what constitutes knowledge etc, if we want to know something. But I think upon further scrutiny it's not evident at all.... At this point of scientific understanding of the brain, it's seems perfectly possible that the biological brain has it's own set of criteria, heuristics, algorithms, or however you want to call it, that subconsciously do a lot of the work in forming knowledge... without us knowing why and how it does it.

The example that I tend to give to demonstrate that this particular assumption is at least not evident, is self-learning neural nets, AI. Nobody knows, not even itself, the criteria by which it determines what it determines, but it certainly 'knows' things for all intends and purposes.... it knows how to play chess better than any human to name one example. And if you look under the 'hood' of said AI, all you will find is a neural net which is ultimately a bunch of switches that have been fine-tuned by certain experiences/inputs. It's not even evident that you could in principle translate the positions of those switches (which effectively constitutes how it knows something) into neat criteria or concepts that we could understand.

I suspect this particular assumption will eventually also end up in the dustbin of misguided philosophical ideas born out of an overvaluation of conscious rational thinking.

Olivier5

Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses. — Frank Apisa

Are you even absolutely certain that you are guessing?

tim wood

Do we really need to know how we know, to be able to know something? — ChatteringMonkey

It seems to me that on a philosophy website that question is the one question that may always be asked. — tim wood

Ships over the horizon passing in the night?

Frank Apisa

tim wood
5k
"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
— Frank Apisa — tim wood

This "quote" so distorts what I actually wrote...I just disregarded what else you had to say.

Do a real quote...and then comment on it. I'll respond.

Frank Apisa

Olivier5
184
Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses.
— Frank Apisa

Are you even absolutely certain that you are guessing? — Olivier5

When I say I am guessing...I AM guessing.

tim wood

↪Frank Apisa

Uh, Frank, I did quote you. I used the quote function. What is reproduced in my post is exactly what you wrote in yours - is why it's called the quote function. Maybe a little hair of the dog?

Frank Apisa

tim wood
5k
↪Frank Apisa Uh, Frank, I did quote you. I used the quote function. What is reproduced in my post is exactly what you wrote in yours - is why it's called the quote function. Maybe a little hair of the dog? — tim wood

Absolute nonsense, Tim. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

Here is the quote in its full context:

I disagree totally with that part, Tim.

The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.

Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.

It isn't.

This is what you quoted:

"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math."

If you think that truncated quote expresses what I was saying in my comments, you are WRONG.

tim wood

↪Frank Apisa

Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself. It does not become you, and it's a waste of time and effort.

ChatteringMonkey

Do we really need to know how we know, to be able to know something?
— ChatteringMonkey
It seems to me that on a philosophy website that question is the one question that may always be asked.
— tim wood

Ships over the horizon passing in the night? — tim wood

I'm not sure what your point is?

Frank Apisa

tim wood
5k
↪Frank Apisa Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself. It does not become you, and it's a waste of time and effort. — tim wood

Nothing crazy about me...nor am I talking to myself.

If you think so poorly of me...stop engaging me. If you are capable of that.

How do you know!?!

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories