So my first question is: Is an authoritative source sufficient evidence? — Pantagruel

Especially if we're talking about reliable sources corroborating each other, especially under something like peer review, where you have good reason to believe are using epistemic methods that you'd agree with, and the claims do not seem purely speculative, etc. then I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient.

Ok, so there is a "reliability hierarchy".
Do you need to be aware of that hierarchy? Doesn't this lead to an infinite regress? Or a 'conspiracy of mutual endorsement'? And is knowledge based on accepted authority the same as authoritative knowledge?

For me, it's not a hierarchy, just a list of quality criteria for it.

I'm not sure why it would lead to an infinite regress.

Re conspiracy, aside from being someone who doesn't believe in any conspiracies*, it's important to understand that knowledge doesn't imply something that can't be wrong.

(re conspiracies, I'm referring to something where a lot of people are cooperating on something covertly, with a very different official story, where the conspirators are able to keep the conspiracy a secret indefinitely, so that the conspiracy isn't obvious with respect to evidence, so that it becomes the official story instead)

Well, if source A relies on corroboration from source B, which relies on corroboration from source C, etc.,
Unless you are explicitly saying that there is some 'foundational set' of authoritative sources which all mutually validate one another. Like a coherence theory. Even so, I would still ask, do the subject matter authorities then have a kind of knowledge (about their authoritative domain) that is superior to the knowledge that they have of other domains?

"True belief", "what do we really know?" and "beliefs about what one knows versus knowledge" are words that just muddy the water. I do think I understand what you are saying though. For me, I really know nothing when it comes to science, I cannot give proper explanations for many things, even basic things like gravity and electricity. It is a stretch to say that I "know" about these things, I have placed my faith in the consensus. It's closer to faith than knowledge.

My faith is not given thoughtlessly and I do not give all authoritative bodies my faith. Nor faith in whatever they say. Scepticism is maintained and I never really consider anything to be known, there are just degrees of certainty and degrees of confidence.

I would seek to understand the nature of the consensus, the ways in which it is successfully applied, the degrees to which I accept the logic behind it. I'm only forced to "know" when I need to evaluate an opinion that lacks consensus but if it lacks consensus then it's almost certainly lacking in the indisputable empirical proof as well.

There is always faith though, in at least, the senses and the way in which you experience the world at the most base level. If knowledge requires faith, true knowledge is just a distinction between what is being given faith like what you see versus what others saw. On a practical level, it's important but philosophically, I don't see where the line is drawn and I struggle to see any factor in where it would be drawn but personal opinion.

I really like your honest exposition of your own thought process because it is pragmatic, how belief and knowledge really 'work' in your experience. And I agree that a pragmatic approach (how do we actually use knowledge) can be more productive that a complex analysis of "what constitutes knowledge." Especially where there are so many disagreements over details.

I agree that a pragmatic approach (how do we actually use knowledge) can be more productive that a complex analysis of "what constitutes knowledge." Especially where there are so many disagreements over details. — Pantagruel

Pragmatism or the much dreaded 'common sense' do make sense here. Especially when we make the assumption that something presented to us as a fact wouldn't be either real or is a biased view/interpretation with some other agenda behind it. There too we should use pragmatism and common sense. How big should the conspiracy be that people have been tricked into believing?

And let's remember that modern knowledge is based on all before it creating a complex system. In a way all knowledge is "standing on the shoulders of giants" and the actual experiments done today can be in the end very simple, even if they used advanced mathematics and advanced machines to make an observation.

I remember the story of one Greek (who's name I've unfortunately forgotten) who showed by experiment that air exists, that it's not only a separate 'wind' that we feel. He took up a cup made from mud, turned it upside down, and submerged it into water. When he took the cup back up he showed that the bottom of the cup wasn't wet, hence there had to something in the way of the water. Idiotically simple, but many experiments typically are so even today.

Yes, which is why alluded to knowledge being "embedded" in the world in which we function practically from day to day. I do think that this is the case and that knowledge should ultimately have some kind of practical impact or implications, or at least that these should form part of the measure of what knowledge is.

Well, if source A relies on corroboration from source B, which relies on corroboration from source C, etc.,
Unless you are explicitly saying that there is some 'foundational set' of authoritative sources which all mutually validate one another. — Pantagruel

The foundational set you use is the folks doing the observations, experiments, etc.--basically journal articles. Sources secondary to that should be citing the journal articles in a way that's easy to track down.

As people hate so much authorities today, they tend to sometimes misunderstand what healthy skepticism is and notice when that scepticism of 'the authorities' turns into nonsense. When you can pick what you like to be the facts, thanks to our new social media landscape, it's no wonder why people are so confused.

Yes, to embed knowledge into your own life would be one solution. Yet people take these things as, well, entertainment and simply don't make an effort to think themselves and/or study the issues to get a true understanding. Nope. Just to watch that tantalizing and entertaining pseudo-documentary that shows how "you have been fed lies" and how "it's all a huge conspiracy" with sinister plans for the small people like you. Entertaining especially when you feel marginalized not having that academic degree from an Ivy League university. For some this entertainment gives even a community, a home and a way rebel, to be different. Hence no wonder a few people think that the World is flat. It's far too difficult to go to the seashore and observe how large outgoing ships "sink" and incoming "emerge" from water. Or boring.

One word answer Nothing. We know what our senses perceive. And there is no gurantee what we percieve is right. Even if the authorities are conveying the true message but we are unable to perceive it correctly and yet believe that we understood that correctly. And even if we are perceiving correctly and all of our senses are on the spot(something that we couod bever know) what the authorities are conveying there is no possible way to have absolute certainty that what authorities conveyed was true. Even if the message conveyed explains our everyday life accurately. An example would be how quantum mechanics led to decline the decline of newtanian physics as newtanion physics was able to explain ecerything correctly but not on the microscopic level which people discovered as science progressed. At the end it boils down to what Socrates said " I know nothing and I know that I know nothing". I hope I was able to interpret the meaning of your post correctly and would be glad if I contributed something meaningful to the discussion. If not, forgive me. Feel free to reply or criticize.

'Knowing' is sometimes more than just 'believing', as in 'doing' or 'not doing': I know that I shouldn't keep doing that harmful thing, but I keep on doing it; so, how can I really say I know it?

rectifying yourself isn't a part of knowing in my opinion. I think knowing is related only to knowledge rather than actions of someone

rectifying yourself isn't a part of knowing in my opinion. I think knowing is related only to knowledge rather than actions of someone — Sheik Yerbouti

OK, never mind that one. When something keeps on working, then we gain knowledge and trust that it is something known and repeatable. I trust/know that a new morning will come on.

In my opinion that is only related to things that are provable . For we know that there are other galaxies beside milky way but how we are able to prove or trust that. Neither it is something that will happen like morning. However it is part of our knowledge. And if something keep on happens, its not neccessary that it is true or could be a part of our knowledge. For example of someone keeps on doing good things but has a malicious intent, we know him to be good and think that we are knowledganle however in reality it is our ignorance which we discern as knowledge

how we are able to prove — Sheik Yerbouti

How could we ever know the composition of a star? It’s not like we could go there to collect a sample.

“Impossible,” it was thought.

Then starlight shadows were found that spelled out a complete list of the ingredients—a quantum mechanical bar code of its elements.

Is an authoritative source sufficient evidence? — Pantagruel

Yes, albeit contingent. Multiple sources can be authoritative differently, thus sufficient differently.
————————-

Does the person who has experimentally verified an hypothesis have "more knowledge" than a person who has read about and understands those experimental results? — Pantagruel

No. The former has knowledge of the experiment; the latter has knowledge of the report on the experiment. Even if the end knowledge is the same, more knowledge is involved in the experience of doing than the experience of reading about the doing.
————————-

Living in a world shaped by knowledge is not the same thing as having knowledge about the world in which you live. — Pantagruel

The only knowledge sufficient to shape a world must be a common empirical knowledge. There is no such thing as common knowledge, meaning a thing or series of things every inhabitant of the world knows. If there is no common empirical knowledge, then the only knowledge that shapes a world is individual knowledge, or arbitrary collections thereof sufficient for distinguishable parts of the shape of the world, which then is no longer necessarily empirical knowledge. If individual knowledge shapes a world, then it is false that a world shaped by knowledge is not the same as having knowledge about the world in which you live. It is your knowledge that shapes the world in which you live, for you.

Or not.....

If individual knowledge shapes a world, then it is false that a world shaped by knowledge is not the same as having knowledge about the world in which you live. It is your knowledge that shapes the world in which you live, for you. — Mww

I know that my house is built of bricks. But I don't know how to build a house out of bricks.

Isn't that the refutation of your statement?

Once people believed that earth only consists of four elements. However science progressed and now we have a whole periodic table. Maybe a thousand years later, humankind would be able to prove things wrong the that we judge right today. Hence we are never able to prove anything and our knowledge is constricted and always will to our senses and intellect which isn't infinte and might omit details that mankind is never able to know. Colours are infinite yet we are unable to imagine any new colour. Yes one can say that with our current abilities this is how far we have reached in understanding our surroundings but can't prove in any that what we know is true. Hence absolute certainty in any matter including knowledge is just a delusion.

Empirical knowledge is approximate. I'd concur with that.

Colours are infinite yet we are unable to imagine any new colour. — Sheik Yerbouti

Yet all our colors are made from the three primaries, no less, if not color-blind. There are three types of proteins in the eye that rotate according to the amount of the respective primary color received.

@PoeticUniverse What if there is a fourth one that our eyes can't percieve and there is a wider spectrum of colours than that of which we currently know of. What I am trying to say that our experiences are limited by our senses from which we derive our empirical knowledge. For example trees do make a noise and if men in past believed that trees are unable to make noise they would have been wrong although their judgement was in accordance with their perception. How can we trust our sense when they have already deceived us in the past and we will know more about this deception as science will progress.

Certainly, if the constituency and manufacture of your house represents the shape of the your world.

Shape stands for extension of objects in the world (your house), or, shape stands for the condition of a thing, in this case of the world in which the objects are extended. Because the shape of the world as an extended object is given, when you speak of the shape of the world you must be referring to the condition of it. In other words, what you or a consensus think of it. Knowledge of electricity may shape the general world but it is very far from shaping the world of an Inuit, whose knowledge of missing seals informs his world almost entirely, with no knowledge at all of global warming.

Right? If not, then sorry I misunderstood.

How can we trust our sense when they have already deceived us in the past and we will know more about this deception as science will progress. — Sheik Yerbouti

'Deception' is not bad when the result is a more useful face painted on reality than a truer one. My red truck is anything but true red, for nature paints with a reflective color scheme. We don't see more than the visible spectrum out of the whole and wider e/m spectrum perhaps because it would be clutter; however, our instruments 'see' it and tell us of it.

I’m beginning to think that knowledge is a belief that things work a certain way, the belief that they will continue to work that way until they no longer work that way. Once that belief is shattered, it is no longer knowledge. The belief must have its foundation in empirical experiences.

An example is the function of bows and arrows. Properly functioning bows if used properly will continue to shoot arrows away from the user. As long as this is the case it is knowledge given someone believes this. There can be knowledge of proper use of bows and arrows, the making of bows and arrows, and the repair of bows and arrows. As long as these things continue to work and someone believes they will continue to work, then they know about the use, construction, and repair of them.

Scientific knowledge is something else. It employs explanatory models. Once something doesn’t fit into that model, the model is modified or scrapped. Scientific knowledge is much more tenuous and less useful than the example I gave above, but this needs justification:

Technology precedes science in a lot of cases. Bows and arrows preceded F=MA, for example. However, E=MC^2 preceded the atom bomb. Bows and arrows will continue to work even without scientific knowledge. Atom bombs can be built by step-by-step instructions (simplistic, I know) without understanding E=MC^2 as North Korea probably did through the aid of Russia. Explanatory models are modified all the time. Sometimes they are even scrapped. However, the knowledge of the steps to build an atom bomb are true as long as atom bombs continue to work, regardless of whether E=MC^2 is modified or scrapped for something that works better as an explanatory model.

Thus, useful knowledge is more compelling than scientific knowledge.

Thus, useful knowledge is more compelling than scientific knowledge. — Noah Te Stroete

Nice.

So my first question is: Is an authoritative source sufficient evidence? Does the person who has experimentally verified an hypothesis have "more knowledge" than a person who has read about and understands those experimental results? — Pantagruel

You may want to treat the test report as a witness deposition in the historical method, to be corroborated with other witness depositions.

I think that he has more knowledge because for him as an eyewitness the test results are more certain than for someone who was not present but only receives the test report. The eyewitness does not need to corroborate his own testimony, unlike the receiver of the testimony.

Versus a person who does not understand the experimental results but obtains information from what he or she believes is a reliable source? — Pantagruel

Someone who does not understand the theory tested, still has a copy of the knowledge, which he could possibly transmit, but not possibly apply. So, yes, he could still be a teacher or so. It wouldn't be the first time.

To me, it seems that the distinction between "storing" the knowledge from an authoritative source and "knowing" must relate to the application of said knowledge in some way. Someone who knows, can do something with that knowledge.

Someone who knows, can do something with that knowledge. — Pantagruel

Maybe there is a need here to distinguish between "to know" and "to understand".

Maybe there is a need here to distinguish between "to know" and "to understand" — alcontali

Hmmm. Yes, I thought that is exactly what you were doing!