Knowledge vs. Belief

[blackout]

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?

YOU know you dropped it.
To everyone else, you can only claim it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

I think your interpretation that I was comparing dropping a tube of toothpaste to a mystical experience was incorrect.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

YOU know you dropped it.
To everyone else, you can only claim it.

Right - hence, the criteria of something being able to be verified by others to be considered knowledge, is incorrect.

 

[Storm]

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

Yeah, but my argument was never about the interpretations, really.

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

But verification is verification. It doesn't have to be universal to qualify.

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

The topic isn't theology. The topic is the nature of knowledge. ats' post was a valid rebuttal to the argument that verification is the sole quality of knowledge.

 

[blackout]

Right - hence, the criteria of something being able to be verified by others to be considered knowledge, is incorrect.

I'm not arguing with you. :no:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, but my argument was never about the interpretations, really.

Okay, well the personal experiences themselves are internal, subjective things. You can measure that someone's brain is in a particular state, but the subjectivity of what they're experiencing is subjective, and cannot be objectively verified. You can measure the visible light wavelength of the sky, and objectively determined that it falls in the range of what people define as "blue."

 

[Revoltingest]

In another thread, I brought up that, while I don't have proof, I claim knowledge on the question of God's existence. It was then argued that this is belief, not knowledge.....
....Objections?

Can I only "sort of" object? I don't think that you can have knowledge of something which is unknowable.
But I recognize that you could have some faculty which I lack, one which gives you access to knowledge of the
supernatural. If I ever know it all, I'll come back & lecture mercilessly, but until then I'd say it's OK for you to
claim knowledge of God. Most importantly, we understand what you mean.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not arguing with you. :no:

Oh, I didn't think you were - I was just following with the conclusion in case other's didn't put it together.

 

[MSizer]

Right - hence, the criteria of something being able to be verified by others to be considered knowledge, is incorrect.

That seems to make logical consistency, but I have a hard time swallowing it. Let me ponder and see whether I can figure out whether there's a fallacy there, or whether I have to submit to it. I'm working on it. (I'm afraid I think I'll have to submit)

 

[Storm]

Can I only "sort of" object? I don't think that you can have knowledge of something which is unknowable.

You can't. Tautologies are always true. But how do you know it's unknowable?

ETA: "Knowledge" should not be conflated with "proof."

But I recognize that you could have some faculty which I lack, one which gives you access to knowledge of the supernatural. If I ever know it all, I'll come back & lecture mercilessly, but until then I'd say it's OK for you to claim knowledge of God. Most importantly, we understand what you mean.

1) I have no such faculty. Or, more accurately, you don't lack it. You just haven't utilized it.

2) My theology rejects the supernatural as surely as atheism does. I just believe the laws of nature are wider and weirder than the typical atheist.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't. Tautologies are always true. But how do you know it's unknowable?

I was being hypothetical, but I do speculate that it's unknowable.

1) I have no such faculty. Or, more accurately, you don't lack it. You just haven't utilized it.

I'm pretty inadequate, & might be less capable than you think.

2) My theology rejects the supernatural as surely as atheism does. I just believe the laws of nature are wider and weirder than the typical atheist.

The natural world seems pretty weird to me too...in an elegant way.
On top of that, I think it's far bigger & stranger than I'll ever know.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That seems to make logical consistency, but I have a hard time swallowing it. Let me ponder and see whether I can figure out whether there's a fallacy there, or whether I have to submit to it. I'm working on it. (I'm afraid I think I'll have to submit)

Although, even considering this, even though dropping the toothpaste is knowledge to me, it cannot, technically, be knowledge for anyone else. Of course, if I tell someone I dropped the toothpaste this morning, I'm not making an extraordinary claim, so unless there is some reason to think I was mistaken or lying about it, another person can reasonably claim to also know that I dropped the toothpaste this morning. However, when it comes to extraordinary claims, objective verfication is a more necessary requirement for another person to know my claim is correct.

 

[Storm]

Although, even considering this, even though dropping the toothpaste is knowledge to me, it cannot, technically, be knowledge for anyone else. Of course, if I tell someone I dropped the toothpaste this morning, I'm not making an extraordinary claim, so unless there is some reason to think I was mistaken or lying about it, another person can reasonably claim to also know that I dropped the toothpaste this morning. However, when it comes to extraordinary claims, objective verfication is a more necessary requirement for another person to know my claim is correct.

Agreed, but let's not get sidetracked.

 

[MSizer]

Although, even considering this, even though dropping the toothpaste is knowledge to me, it cannot, technically, be knowledge for anyone else. Of course, if I tell someone I dropped the toothpaste this morning, I'm not making an extraordinary claim, so unless there is some reason to think I was mistaken or lying about it, another person can reasonably claim to also know that I dropped the toothpaste this morning. However, when it comes to extraordinary claims, objective verfication is a more necessary requirement for another person to know my claim is correct.

Right, and there seems to be a significant factor here, which is that a forensic investigation would likely support your claim that a tube of toothpaste had likely been dropped there. We have no way of verifying a claim that (not to pick on you storm, just as an example) natural laws are greater than most atheists think.

 

[Storm]

Right, and there seems to be a significant factor here, which is that a forensic investigation would likely support your claim that a tube of toothpaste had likely been dropped there. We have no way of verifying a claim that (not to pick on you storm, just as an example) natural laws are greater than most atheists think.

Yes, but let's stay on topic. Knowledge and proof are not the same thing, in my estimation.

 

[Katzpur]

I decided awhile back to go with a third way of espressing it: I am convinced that there is a God. That seems to work in most situations.

 

[Thief]

This started out as Knowledge versus Belief.

Has a winner been declared?
Is knowledge a trump card?for it's experience and repeated experimentation?
Or does Belief hold ground when nothing can be sure?

 

[Magic Man]

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

If you're referring to Sunstone's argument, I don't think that was it.

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

They're not interchangeable to me. A trance state implies something completely different than a mystical experience to me.

 

[Magic Man]

Right - hence, the criteria of something being able to be verified by others to be considered knowledge, is incorrect.

Not in the sense we're talking about it, though. For one, someone else could have seen you drop it. If you had a video camera going, it would have recorded the event, or if your wife was watching, she would be able to verify it. It's the same concept as science. We only take something as fact or a piece of knowledge in science if it's able to be verified by others.

 

[Magic Man]

Although, even considering this, even though dropping the toothpaste is knowledge to me, it cannot, technically, be knowledge for anyone else. Of course, if I tell someone I dropped the toothpaste this morning, I'm not making an extraordinary claim, so unless there is some reason to think I was mistaken or lying about it, another person can reasonably claim to also know that I dropped the toothpaste this morning. However, when it comes to extraordinary claims, objective verfication is a more necessary requirement for another person to know my claim is correct.

Yes, exactly.