Knowledge vs. Belief

[Storm]

A belief should have a strength of evidence which can be independently verified and accepted by unbiased external sources if it is to be deemed knowledge.

I would argue that trance states fall under this category.

Any neurologically healthy person can acheive one. Learning is tricky, but within everyone's grasp. Further, neurotheology has begun to explore their nature reinforcing my instinct that anyone can learn.

Will details and interpretations differ? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the foundation.

 

[Sunstone]

My argument would be that if it can't be verified by other people, it is not founded, and therefore can't make the jump from belief to knowledge.

So, in other words, I do not know the sky is blue this morning until someone agrees with me that it's blue? Sounds a bit ridiculous. The intersubjective verifiability of a proposition may establish the proposition's verifiability, but does it really establish whether the proposition is knowledge or not? It seems to me there could be such a thing as intersubjectively unverifiable knowledge -- or private knowledge.

 

[Magic Man]

So, in other words, I do not know the sky is blue this morning until someone agrees with me that it's blue? Sounds a bit ridiculous. The intersubjective verifiability of a proposition may establish the proposition's verifiability, but does it really establish whether the proposition is knowledge or not? It seems to me there could be such a thing as intersubjectively unverifiable knowledge -- or private knowledge.

I don't think he meant that everything you claim to know has to be verified by others first, but that it has to be able to be verified by others. The sky being blue could be verified by others, even if it hasn't been for you today.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There is no stipulation that knowledge has to be true. I've gotten wrong answers on tests where I was sure I knew the answer.

I think when it comes to something completely subjective, there is no substantive difference between belief and knowledge.

 

[Storm]

I think when it comes to something completely subjective, there is no substantive difference between belief and knowledge.

I'm unclear on this: are saying you disagree with my argument, or declaring it semantic (which it is)?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm unclear on this: are saying you disagree with my argument, or declaring it semantic (which it is)?

For subjective things, whether one calls it belief or knowledge, is a matter of semantics.

 

[Storm]

For subjective things, whether one calls it belief or knowledge, is a matter of semantics.

OK. Yeah, I agree, but sometimes semantics are worth hammering out. I like precision.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think he meant that everything you claim to know has to be verified by others first, but that it has to be able to be verified by others. The sky being blue could be verified by others, even if it hasn't been for you today.

Could be verified by others? Well, so could the Buddha's mystical experiences. It might be unlikely that the Buddha's mystical experiences are verified by others, but the possibility that they could be still exists.

 

[Magic Man]

Could be verified by others? Well, so could the Buddha's mystical experiences. It might be unlikely that the Buddha's mystical experiences are verified by others, but the possibility that they could be still exists.

I think you're stretching it. If you stopped someone and asked them to look at the sky and tell you what color it is, they could. I don't think there's any reason to overthink it.

 

[Storm]

I think you're stretching it. If you stopped someone and asked them to look at the sky and tell you what color it is, they could. I don't think there's any reason to overthink it.

Disagree. Learning to acheive trance states may be more difficult than looking up, but it's not impossible. And apparently, the Buddhists who've done it thought it confirmed the Buddha's interpretation.

 

[Magic Man]

Disagree. Learning to acheive trance states may be more difficult than looking up, but it's not impossible. And apparently, the Buddhists who've done it thought it confirmed the Buddha's interpretation.

But achieving a trance state and believing that that trance state is proof of some mystical realm or supreme being are two different things. Sure, you can verify that it's possible to go into a trance state, but that doesn't verify that as a mystical experience.

 

[Storm]

But achieving a trance state and believing that that trance state is proof of some mystical realm or supreme being are two different things.

Not my argument. The point in question was whether trance states are inter-subjectively verifiable, not correctly interpreted.

IOW, the Buddha had a theophany. He then passed on his interpretations. Over time, other people had similar experiences and agreed with him. That's verification.

Now, the verified knowledge might be false, or it might not. But it was verified.

Sure, you can verify that it's possible to go into a trance state, but that doesn't verify that as a mystical experience.

They're interchangeable terms, love. Whether mystical experiences are correctly interpreted or not, the phrase is just a label for the experience.

 

[linwood]

IOW, the Buddha had a theophany. He then passed on his interpretations. Over time, other people had similar experiences and agreed with him. That's verification.

Now, the verified knowledge might be false, or it might not. But it was verified.

I don`t see it that way.

What has been verified is the fact that trance states exist and happen.

The "knowledge" gained within those trance states can never be verified by anyone.

 

[linwood]

I would argue that trance states fall under this category.

Any neurologically healthy person can acheive one. Learning is tricky, but within everyone's grasp. Further, neurotheology has begun to explore their nature reinforcing my instinct that anyone can learn.

Will details and interpretations differ? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the foundation.

I`m not arguing that trance states can`t be verified as I`ve verified them personally.

I`m arguing that the knowledge(beliefs) that arise from these trance states cannot be verified.
I cannot even verify the "knowledge" I`ve gained through my own explorations.

 

[blackout]

*sighs*

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.

I never implied you were.

Just sharing my thoughts.

(and I did read the posts this time)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This morning, I dropped the tube of toothpaste in the sink. I know that this occurred. However, as no one else was there, this event cannot be verified by anyone else.

Can this event be classified as knowledge, since it cannot be verfied, or can I only claim to believe that I dropped the toothpaste in the sink?

 

[linwood]

Could be verified by others? Well, so could the Buddha's mystical experiences.

How?

What objective system can verify the effect of interacting neural chemicals within an individuals mind while at the same time verifying the interpretation and effect they would or could have on the individual having them?

In effect "objectifying" them.

This isn`t possible.

 

[Storm]

I don`t see it that way.

What has been verified is the fact that trance states exist and happen.

The "knowledge" gained within those trance states can never be verified by anyone.

Well, I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate. I explained why I consider it verified and you've given me no explanation for your rejection.

I see it like interpreting a poem. The poet utilizes a particular metaphor. One person says, "I think it represents _______". Another reads the poem and says "yeah, that's what I think it means." Now, the interpretation may or may not be what the poet had in mind, but it's been verified.

Likewise, the Buddha may or may not have interpreted his theophany correctly. However, others have had similar experiences and agreed that he did. That's verification.

How is this any different than looking up and seeing blue sky?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How is this any different than looking up and seeing blue sky?

The sky is an external, objective thing. Interpretations of personal experiences are internal, subjective things.

 

[linwood]

How is this any different than looking up and seeing blue sky?

Because everyone see`s a blue sky while few people ever fully interpret poetry the same way.

I also think the earlier comparison of dropping a tube of toothpaste to mystical theology is more than a bit of a fallacy.