Good point, and one I’ve been thinking about myself. It seems to me that whatever “innate” knowledge we do posses was still ultimately gained empirically, through the process of evolution. By populations of organisms interacting with the environment did ancestral species “learn” about their environments, and the “innate” knowledge was written by the process of mutation and selection into their genomes, and passed on to their descendants. In this sense evolution at the population level is a form of transgenerational empirical learning process.
1 Like
This is interesting:
Given that 93% of people in the world are religious in some way, you can say that it is literally true that 93% of people sense God in some way.
2 Likes
That is not knowledge. It is an attempt at an argument.
We do not know God exists in the way we know the sun is larger than the earth.
Maybe one cannot do that. In which it would not be possible for this person to know that redness exists.
So what?
I am not talking about rational justification. I am talking about KNOWLEDGE, such as the knowledge we have that the sun is larger than the earth, or that 2 + 2 = 4.
No. It has to be demonstrably true within a particular epistemic system or framework. Again, the way 2+2=4 is true in math, and that the sun is larger than the earth is true in science.
No, you can’t say that. That would be a false equivalence to say that merely because someone identifies as religious that means they are “sensing God”.
4 Likes
Well, it’s not. The PSR, by itself, is a statement, not an argument. You can build arguments for the existence of God using the PSR as one of the premisses, but I’m talking about the PSR itself.
Why do you think the PSR is not knowledge?
Secondly, it feels like you’re just arguing circularly:
- You ask of examples of knowledge which is not like math, logic, or science.
- I give such an example.
- You accuse the example of not being knowledge because it is different from math, logic, or science.
Do you think that the statement “Redness exists” could be considered knowledge, then?
What is knowledge? Define it for me in a precise, non-circular way. (And if you use the word “demonstrate” or “evidence”, make sure to define that word precisely as well.)
Belief justified by evidence.
Evidence is data that is more likely on a particular hypothesis than on any competing hypothesis.
By implication, all knowledge is tentative, and can be held to varying degrees of certainty. If belief in X is justified by lots of really good evidence, and that evidence is data which is extremely unlikely on any competing hypothesesis, then you could be said to know X to a very high degree of certainty.
2 Likes
How do we know logic and reason are valid in the first place, speaking of ways of knowing. Maybe we just evolved to imagine they were, because it gave us an adaptive advantage. Please prove logically that logic that logic is valid.
We don’t. We have no choice but to assume that as an axiom or we can go nowhere metaphysically or epistemologically. If we wish to be able to make sense of anything, to hold conversation, to gain knowledge, we must start by assuming logic.
2 Likes
So an absurdist is justified. On the other hand, so are Christians.
When you begin your statement with the word “so” it implies you mean the statement follows from mine? I’d like to see that argument.
This is also a statement:
“Unicorns prefer eating dandelions to asparagus.”
Is that knowledge?
Just that someone may simply refuse to accept that axiom.
Yes. Even blind people know this.
They may, and I don’t believe I’d be able to persuade such a person with a logical argument, if they have rejected logic as the ultimate bedrock upon which to hold conversation.
If one rejects logic, one is by definition illogical. I’d join you in calling such a person an absurdist, but I’m sure that would not persuade them either.
6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge
Depending on what you mean by the PSR I could be okay with calling it knowledge, but we’d have to be very clear on what we mean by it.
If take the PSR to mean “the intuition that everything has some explanation”, then yes I’d call that knowledge. Not knowledge held to an absolute certainty, there could be things that are inexplicable. And I believe we also have good reasons to think why we have evolved to feel like this is the case, even though it might not actually be.
But I’ve seen some Christians take the PSR further and insist that it is the principle that we should prefer to accept any rationally sufficient explanation for X in so far as we can come up with one, rather than simply admit we don’t know, or admit that there could be some things that don’t actually have explanations. In that case I wouldn’t call it knowledge, I’d just call it a metaphysical assumption.
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge
14 posts were split to a new topic: What is Knowledge?
OK. Then I would regard “God exists” as a knowledge as well. It doesn’t matter than you disagree: you’re like the obstinate colorblind person who unfortunately does not have the correct faculties to sense the color red.
Probably not.
By the way, what is your preferred definition of knowledge? Am I to assume it is the same as Rumraket’s?
1 Like