It is also good at denying true associations, based on an erroneous worldview.
So how do we determine the true associations from the false ones? What method do we use?
2 Likes
Well, some have to start by expanding their worldview to allow some possibilities that they presently deny. If they are denied by presupposition, then no quantity of evidence will be compelling.
Such as the possibility that they are making false associations.
1 Like
That is not a presupposition, that is a given as a possibility and not a problem. What is a problem is the denial of possibilities.
Here’s a single event with massive and unmistakable meaning infused, no association with meaning infused into sequences required, but very demonstrative of God’s providential M.O., if one’s worldview presuppositions can allow for the possibility of the reality:
Yes. However I am not basing my argument on those extreme cases. I am asserting that any attempt to assign the word ‘knowledge’ to that which cannot be demonstrated to be true, or has not been so, is not just fraught with problems, but is ultimately self-defeating since it renders the word ‘knowledge’ meaningless.
If all we mean when we say we know is that our thoughts, ideas, suspicions, hunches or theories (colloquial usage) about the world can be placed on an equal footing with empirically verifiable facts, or at least justifiable belief beyond a reasonable doubt (grounding in evidence of our senses and objectively verifiable). Because we have not paid close attention to this trend, we have slipped down the very slippery slope of eroding the very meaning of truth and evidence and now we are in the very abyss that we hoped the field of epistemology would help us avoid. Now what we hear everyday is things like this; ‘there are just different ways of knowing and they are all valid’ or ‘its just my truth verses your truth’ or ‘I have alternative facts’ and ‘scientific thinking is just another worldview’.
By throwing everything into the knowledge basket, we rob ourselves of the language we need to course correct, and steer ourselves out of this epistemological abyss. The challenge is that for some Christians, this threatens questions of belief, or faith, and of what they believe is a personal knowledge of God. This is a difficult subject for many, but if we do not use our language well, we will fail to establish the veracity of anything.
2 Likes
There’s also a ditch on the other side. Limiting knowledge to what can be demonstrated ultimately reduces knowledge to nothing, since none of our senses are foolproof, and none can be verified without the circularity of trusting our senses to tell us our senses can be trusted. We could all be brains in a vat. Or only one of us may be a brain in the vat while the rest of us are part of that brain’s dreaming (my money’s on @MarkD being the real one).
To trust our senses to generally give us accurate information about the real world is a step beyond what can be verified. That means every sensory verification we make has an unverifiable foundation. To say knowledge is only what is empirically verified is self-defeating, reducing knowledge to an empty set.
5 Likes
Hi Mitchell
its late here and I need to go to bed, but I thought I would quickly correct something. You are quite right about the point below:
I really did word that poorly. I am well aware that science progresses by dis-proof and the fuel that drives the machinery of science is doubt. Allow me to rephrase please.
What I was attempting to convey, was conflated with an earlier point I made about testimony in court where the term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is apropos. I confess to being a bit lazy there, and your rebuke was justified! Obviously, in science, we never prove anything. I should have elaborated with examples such as evolution and gravity etc, where, given the enormous body of evidence that is explained by these theories, serious doubt of the sort that suggests they are completely wrong is unreasonable. Even so, doubt must always be present in science in order to keep it healthy and so nothing in science should ever be entirely free of doubt no matter the confidence we may have in it. I hope that clears up this point a little?
The other points I will tackle once I have finished pumping out the 
2 Likes
I feel like this whole thread is conflating knowledge and truth.
I know there are all sorts of abstract discussions about certainty, correspondence, justified vs warranted belief and whatnot. But at the end of the day, I would say, all knowledge is a human construct, none of it is a perfect representation of truth. So if you start saying, “it’s not knowledge unless it’s objectively, verifiably true” than they only things we can know are of the 2+2=4 variety. I think human knowledge is more encompassing but also more fallible. Even many of the things we believe are objective are not completely objective.
I think that you may be conflating truth and reality here.
What I would say, is that the degree to which our human constructs comport with reality is the degree to which they are true. However, we cannot call this knowledge without a means to establish the truth value of these constructs. Otherwise it is all just a lot of thought in a vat.
1 Like
That is what I’ve always said as well.
Perhaps but it is also true that we must act on beliefs which do not meet the strict definition of knowledge all the time. As embodied creatures in a world that constantly challenges us we have need to carry on as if some things are true with or without proofs.
I agree. And I think some reality is pretty objectively knowable. But some social and cultural realities are subjective and depend on the perceptions and conceptual frames of the participants that are creating the realities.
I think you are right that some of the disconnect is with the semantic range of the word knowledge. My framework for discussion comes from education, sociology, and cognitive linguistics, where the focus is always on how knowledge is constructed and communicated. Determining the truth value of propositional knowledge is not what is in view. But if what you are saying about knowledge is right, then the vast majority of our human learning is not acquiring knowledge, it’s something else.
2 Likes
Agreed.
Others here are saying that somehow the fact that we must act and make decisions on our beliefs about the world, somehow upgrades those beliefs to the status of knowledge. I say that the imperative to move forward and make choices is just that, independent of the status of our beliefs.
1 Like
I think we are closing in on things here Christy. Its 1.15am in Australia now. I will come back to you on this once I have slept for 1.45, then got up to watch the inauguration, then slept again then worked and then thought a bit… 
1 Like
I see that as a subjective opinion, not as a piece of knowledge.
1 Like
I fully agree. All we can ever claim to have is imperfect models that approximate reality. How imperfect the models are is where most of the debate occurs.
Once again, I heartily agree. The best we can ever do is intersubjective, which we often call objective in the name of pragmatism. We could spend centuries arguing about the sky being blue, or we could get past the epistemological hurdles and figure out why the sky is blue. As the old saying goes, “Perfect is the enemy of good”. If we throw out good models because they aren’t perfect then we get nowhere.
2 Likes
Understandably, given your presuppositions. I might even say you have no choice.
Those presuppositions being a reliance on evidence, reason, and logic.
1 Like
It’s difficult for a resolute materialist to believe in the immaterial. Even when there is evidence, they cannot accept it as such.