What is the Nature of Knowledge

[Overdog]

At this point, we have now arrived at the very edge of a vast philosophical and intellectual quagmire known as "Epistemology". So far, we have not fallen in, but I'm afraid if we do, we will never get out.

Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we have avoided the quagmire thus far because we have apparently accepted an idea, or definition, of knowledge that is slightly different from Plato's. In our view, beliefs are just beliefs. We hold beliefs with varying degrees of confidence or emotional attachment, but we still see them as beliefs, or as a "Kind" of knowledge. And to the extent that we see beliefs as a Kind of Knowledge, we have been skeptical...

Suppose we make a point of asking for a justification for every belief. Any given justification will itself depend on another belief for its justification, so one can also reasonably ask for this to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with each belief justified by some further belief. The apparent impossibility of completing an infinite chain of reasoning is thought by some to support skepticism. The skeptic will argue that since no one can complete such a chain, ultimately no beliefs are justified and, therefore, no one knows anything. "The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know for sure."

But in our view, we have another kind of knowledge, Innate Knowledge. Innate knowledge is knowledge that is hardwired into us. It comes from the physical infrastructure which hosts the system of beliefs. It includes emotion, language, instincts, feelings, pattern recognition, and more....

And now I'm going to suggest that we now add Reason and Perceptions (the senses) to the list of Innate Knowledge. This is in line with the classical view expressed in the curriculum description in the previous post. Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can no more speak of Logic and Reason seperately than you can Space and Time.

[Overdog]

It's been awhile since I posted anything in this thread, as I have recently been distracted with issues related to climate models.

But now, having been educated in that regard, I'm ready to continue with this thread.

The following link says something about perceptions and their role with respect to logic and reason. Anyone have any objections to what is in this post?

The Infallibility of Sense Perception

EDIT:
Please ignore references to god in the linked article. I don't want the thread to be subverted into a religious debate. Please focus on the point about the infalliballity of the senses.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Overdog

The following link says something about perceptions and their role with respect to logic and reason. Anyone have any objections to what is in this post?

The Infallibility of Sense Perception

I like it. It's a refreshing deviation from the subjective idealism that's usually supported 'round these parts.

Particularly interesting was this, which I've never heard before:

As such, we say that sense perception is like an axiom in that it cannot be denied without direct contradiction

~modest

[Overdog]

So, is it reasonble to call into question the traditional view of knowledge as justified, true, belief? Apparently it is.

Belief, knowledge and epistemology

The relationship between belief and knowledge is subtle. Believers in a claim typically say that they know that claim. For instance, those who believe that the Sun is a god will report that they know that the Sun is a god. However, the terms belief and knowledge are used differently by philosophers.

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. A primary problem for epistemology is exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge, because in order to be knowledge, there must be some person who knows it.

Later epistemologists have questioned the "justified true belief" definition, and some philosophers have questioned whether "belief" is a useful notion at all.

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the question of whether belief is a useful concept at all, see:
Eliminative materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also of interest with respect to the idea of "biological" knowledge we have been developing is Moore's Paradox.
Moore's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moore's Paradox forces us to think about such diverse topics as, among other things, the relation between assertion and belief, content and expression, the nature of belief, knowledge and rationality. There is, as yet however, no generally accepted explanation to Moore's Paradox in the literature.

I think this is about as far as I can go with this thread...suffice it to say that the definitions and even the very concepts of knowledge and belief are still in question.

Personally, I lean towards the view that we are in need of a new definition of Knowledge (I like the biological one), and that the jury is still out as to whether or not Belief itself is an outdated concept.