Would talking more about what we don't know be more useful than talking about what we supposedly do?

[dust1n]

Hello. Sometime in our experience on Earth, we seem to be penetrated with all sorts of experiences like our bodies were nothing but permeable sheaths wrapped around a brain stem, and in such, we form general conclusions about the world, individually. As individuals, we have such general conclusions, and we're likely not to question them too much. Wouldn't it be better if we spent more time exploring what we don't know and why we don't know it. Wouldn't a response that addresses the skepticism necessary to properly invalidate bits of information that are blatantly not capable of being known be more effective? Isn't that why Socrates was so cool? Because of his paradoxical wisdom? Addressing how ideas and opinions are formulated, on a personal level? Would it be worth the individual cost to achieve a more thorough understanding of our understanding?

Thanks.

EDIT: And then some mod should change, in the title, "then" to "than." Thanks.

 

[4consideration]

Done.

 

[Sunstone]

Wouldn't it be better if we spent more time exploring what we don't know and why we don't know it.

Agreed. But isn't that what other people are so useful for? To alert us to things we might not know. And especially to those things we don't know well enough to even recognize that we don't know much about them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't know.

 

[dust1n]

Done.

Lol.. I thought it was a joke at first... like "done" was an answer to the question, which would imply that you know everything; which I found funny. I'm not sure what to call an unintentional joke. Or maybe it was intentional.

 

[dust1n]

I don't know.

This is sort of the advantage of the method, because it leaves more questions, namely, how does one going about knowing them; a little experimentation.

 

[dust1n]

Agreed. But isn't that what other people are so useful for? To alert us to things we might not know. And especially to those things we don't know well enough to even recognize that we don't know much about them.

Yea, but if one's aim is be alerted to all the things one doesn't know, then relying on the occurrences of social interaction to yield something fruitful is going to be rather retroactive; opposed to the library, or an authority, though preferably more then one, or maybe this vast thing of knowledge called the internet.

 

[4consideration]

Lol.. I thought it was a joke at first... like "done" was an answer to the question, which would imply that you know everything; which I found funny. I'm not sure what to call an unintentional joke. Or maybe it was intentional.

I wish I could claim the joke, but I can't. I just meant that I edited the thread title, as you requested.

I don't know what to call an unintentional joke either (let's make up a name for it,) but at least we're connecting on the topic of this thread now. Maybe that's how all great thoughts/ideas come into being -- just not knowing what else to do.

edit: I went back and read it and laughed. I want to claim credit for it now. Is it too late?

 

[Sunstone]

Yea, but if one's aim is be alerted to all the things one doesn't know, then relying on the occurrences of social interaction to yield something fruitful is going to be rather retroactive; opposed to the library, or an authority, though preferably more then one, or maybe this vast thing of knowledge called the internet.

Are you quite certain you would not discover that people had written the books at the library you went to, or that the authority you discover is actually a human? Or what about the internet? Suppose, purely for a moment, that it's people who post information on it.

I'm merely teasing you, Dust1n. I think you might have misunderstood me. But that's probably because I didn't make my meaning clear.

 

[dust1n]

I wish I could claim the joke, but I can't. I just meant that I edited the thread title, as you requested.

I don't know what to call an unintentional joke either (let's make up a name for it,) but at least we're connecting on the topic of this thread now. Maybe that's how all great thoughts/ideas come into being -- just not knowing what else to do.

edit: I went back and read it and laughed. I want to claim credit for it now. Is it too late?

Well, iocari is Latin "to joke" and accident is an old French world, and the Latin is accidentem.

So, naturally, I propose...

Ioccident!

And yes, you may claim it! =D

 

[dust1n]

Are you quite certain you would not discover that people had written the books at the library you went to, or that the authority you discover is actually a human? Or what about the internet? Suppose, purely for a moment, that it's people who post information on it.

I'm merely teasing you, Dust1n. I think you might have misunderstood me. But that's probably because I didn't make my meaning clear.

Oh, I see... then "yes" is my new answer. But it also requires an individuals own determination to think in such a manner, or else it doesn't matter how great whatever information is, it will have to compete with a previously held assumptions that might already be concrete.

 

[4consideration]

Well, iocari is Latin "to joke" and accident is an old French world, and the Latin is accidentem.

So, naturally, I propose...

Ioccident!

And yes, you may claim it! =D

Nice. Nice. I'm liking it...

I'll see your loccident, and raise you a lol-cident. (Accidental lol.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As with most things, I find an integrated approach is usually the most useful and complete.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

If you were to divide what we don't know about reality by what we do know about reality, then you would get a very large number possibly infinity. (Paraphrasing Edward Teller)


The quintessential questions of rationality are: "What do you know?" & "How do you know it?" The amount of metaphysical weight something is given should be dependent upon how confidant you can be in the evidence you have supporting what you know. If we are to focus on what we do not know, then you end up with no areas of competence as we know so very little in the grand scheme of things.

We can and should take into account what we do not know, when trying to formulate strategies for gaining further knowledge, and we should not discount what we do not know when formulating our final conclusions after observing whatever nature has shown us, but this does not seem to translate well into a focus since humans naturally gravitate towards positions of least tension. If it is "common knowledge" that "X is true," then you basically have to rub everyone's noses in the evidence that "X might be false" before they will even pause to consider that X might not be true, and the reverse situation is just as true (common knowledge of X being false).

Moreover, epistemologically speaking, we have precious little we can be certain of being true as it is. Everyone here has probably heard the aphorism (or something to that effect): Wisdom is knowing that I know nothing. It certainly profits people a great deal to recognize the value of uncertainty; a great many people are so afraid of uncertainty that the notion that the world will end "on schedule" is less frightening to them than an uncertain world full of seemingly random pitfalls. With that in mind I do not think it would profit society much to try and introduce a focus on what we do not know as an honest approach would scare the majority of people away or would be mis-taught or ill-taught so as to avoid that very thing.

MTF

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is the core principle of philosophy and reasoning. It is the mind of a skeptic, deist, intellectual and achiever.

The issue is that when we fathom what we do not know we try using what we do know to bridge the gap which is not exactly honest. Because if already acquired knowledge is withheld then it should naturally lead to the unknown. NASA and its exploration of space is one such example.

But when we rationalize the unknown such as in cosmology we are capable of bridging gaps through reverse reasoning skills.

Essentially this is just philosophical algebra at play

 

[Orias]

How do we talk about what we don't know?

 

[dust1n]

Nice. Nice. I'm liking it...

I'll see your loccident, and raise you a lol-cident. (Accidental lol.)

A ioccident might make cause a lolcident.

 

[dust1n]

As with most things, I find an integrated approach is usually the most useful and complete.

Tell me more of this integrated approach!

 

[dust1n]

How do we talk about what we don't know?

By acknowledging internally what we don't know, and preventing ourselves from speaking assuredly about things we don't know.

It's easy to identify something I don't know, for me, of course. I can look around my room right now and begin identifying immediate things I don't know, which is just a spring board for more things I don't know. By identifying exactly what it is I don't know about something, I can now begin to address it.

 

[dust1n]

If you were to divide what we don't know about reality by what we do know about reality, then you would get a very large number possibly infinity. (Paraphrasing Edward Teller)


The quintessential questions of rationality are: "What do you know?" & "How do you know it?" The amount of metaphysical weight something is given should be dependent upon how confidant you can be in the evidence you have supporting what you know. If we are to focus on what we do not know, then you end up with no areas of competence as we know so very little in the grand scheme of things.

I guess I wasn't intending to elevate what we don't know to a focus, but keeping it in the background, to prevent ourselves from misleading ourselves.

But asking what it is we don't know, we easily arrive to the important questions, which is how do we go about knowing any given statement.