Cosmos redux

[vw72]

Knowledge -- a fact -- is true because it can stand alone, irrespective of individual discovery or experience. In this universe and in the realm of classical mechanics, 2 + 2 = 4 always. One does not need to experience holding two objects, adding two more objects, and counting the sum of four for this fact to become true.

By your definition, knowledge of god -- the fact that god exists -- can not be true or known until an individual experiences such; furthermore, this knowledge cannot be transferred or made to stand alone. I submit that you are abusing the definition of knowledge in this case.

I live in the natural, physical world. Anything that requires me to suspend natural, physical laws to know that thing is not worthy of my time or effort.

Knowledge and knowing are not the same thing. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

The only two ways to come to knowledge is either to experience something. Having something handed down to you by others isn't true knowldege. It is acceptance. But there is a significant difference. Knowledge, based on experience, is valid. Knowldege as acceptance is only valid as the strength of the argument put behind it. In the first part of the last century, Bohr's theory of the atom was prevalent. It held and was taught well into the mid and early latter half of the century. We don't teach it any more, other than in historical context. It was supplanted with this new theory called Quantum Mechanics, that better explained what was being observed (experienced).

Knowledge is not the same as knowing. Knowledge is the accumulation of data and integrating it. Knowing, on the otherhand is more than the accumulation and integration of data, it is the experience of the phenomena itself (whether directly or through experimentation and calculation).

With regards to God, one can have knowledge of God's existence, the same way one has knowledge of everything else, it is passed down to us by those who have had actual experience. Most people, cannot know God, but they can have knowledge of him. That is why it is called faith or a belief. To know God, or know of God's existence requires direct experience. To have knowledge about God only requires have the information passed down to us by those who have had that experience.

In the biblical story of Jesus meeting the woman at the well, the townspeople at first believe on her word (her experience is passed down to others) but ultimately come to believe when they, themselves encounter Jesus and now have experienced him. At first, they had acceptance or belief at the end they have knowledge.

You do live in a natural, physical world, and you do not have to suspend natural, physical laws to know anything. However, you do need to experience the natural physical world to know something, anything about it. On the other hand, if your pursuit is for knowledge, then you only need to study the writings and teachings of those before you. That isn't the same as knowing it for yourself, but accepting it on the testimony of others.

The problem with knowledge, being base on the testimony of others, is that it changes. Growing up, there were 9 planets, today, my children are taught there are only 8. Now whether Pluto is a planet or not isn't the point. I have to accept that Pluto exists, because I have never scene it. I don't know that it is there, but I rely on the testimony of others that it is. On the otherhand, I do know the sun is there, I have seen it, I have felt its warmth, I have experienced it. That doesn't cheapen knowledge, it only highlights the difference between knowledge and knowing.

[charles052]

Knowledge -- a fact -- is true because it can stand alone, irrespective of individual discovery or experience. In this universe and in the realm of classical mechanics, 2 + 2 = 4 always. One does not need to experience holding two objects, adding two more objects, and counting the sum of four for this fact to become true.

By your definition, knowledge of god -- the fact that god exists -- can not be true or known until an individual experiences such; furthermore, this knowledge cannot be transferred or made to stand alone. I submit that you are abusing the definition of knowledge in this case.

I live in the natural, physical world. Anything that requires me to suspend natural, physical laws to know that thing is not worthy of my time or effort.

I think you're being extremely literal with the word "Knowledge", narrowing it's definition far too much. If what you said is true, there'd be no point in reading books because we did not "experience" the knowledge within them... then again, that'd be me being far too literal with your definition. In other words, perhaps you need to loosen up just a wee bit.

I mean really?..... Why is it everytime someone brings up religion, the usual suspects come in here and post rather rudely towards others? (and yes, you are being rude. Debating the fricking definition of "knowledge"! Oh, give me a break!!!!) What is it about Christianity or theology in general that gets people's blood boiling? Seems like such a waste of time. For instance, I likely could have had my computer halfway upgraded to 14.04 by now while writing this post.

Let's get this over with: I'm a Christian and you're not going to convince me that I'm wasting my time believing in a God, nor do I believe we're a detriment to science in any way shape or form. I'm sure you share the same sentiment about your science and what you consider to be "facts" and "knowledge". That said, now let us return to life and start enjoying it to the fullest of our abilities.

[richb]

Hmmm I did not know I was a usual suspect.

The counter position is that the religious are so sensitive about their belief that they do not want to discuss other possibilities. I do not try to convince anyone to not believe in God .But I do hold the right to present my beliefs. Why that is an attack on religion, I fail to see.

This forum allows discussion on all topics, within standards of propriety, so cutting off discussion of something as fundamental as the origins and reasons for our very existence is not compatible with that.

[charles052]

Hmmm I did not know I was a usual suspect.

The counter position is that the religious are so sensitive about their belief that they do not want to discuss other possibilities. I do not try to convince anyone to not believe in God .But I do hold the right to present my beliefs. Why that is an attack on religion, I fail to see.

This forum allows discussion on all topics, within standards of propriety, so cutting off discussion of something as fundamental as the origins and reasons for our very existence is not compatible with that.

Yes, many religious people are extremely sensitive and many are simply content with their belief and do not want to debate the issue. I find that when I question the science that is the foundation of an atheist's... er ... lack of belief, they get rather sensitive and hostile just as the most fundamentalist religious nutjob would. It's a two way street.

[kubicle]

The only two ways to come to knowledge is either to experience something. Having something handed down to you by others isn't true knowldege. It is acceptance. But there is a significant difference. Knowledge, based on experience, is valid.

So you keep saying, but so far have provided no philosophical or logical arguments to support your opinion. It surely is easier to believe things you have experienced yourself, but that is not a requirement for knowledge being valid. Knowledge is valid if you can use it to accurately explain, describe, predict and/or interact with the world around you regardless of how you gained that knowledge (whether through personal experience or discovery...or whether you read it in a book).

What you are essentially claiming is that the knowledge that I was born is somehow less valid (because I have no recollection of the experience) than the warmth of the sun I feel on my skin. Yes, I cannot be 100% certain I was born, but it is also true that I cannot be 100% certain the warmth comes from the sun.

I cannot recall I was born, but I've seen babies born and grow older and I remember growing older...and I can deduce I was born. Same way with the sun, I can feel something I call "warmth" and it seems to coincide with the fact that I can feel something that I call "seeing a yellow disk on the sky"...so I'm deducing the first feeling is caused by the thing I "see"...It's possible to reach these deductive conclusions without anyone telling me I was born...or that the sun warms me (I'm not saying no one has told me that I was born or that the sun warms me, but it's possible to deduce both without it).

Both deductions allow me to explain the world around me, but I have no personal experience of the former...are you saying that the "knowledge" of the fact that I was born is less valid, or have I misunderstood you?

[kubicle]

(and yes, you are being rude. Debating the fricking definition of "knowledge"! Oh, give me a break!!!!)

Just because you disagree with (or dislike) what someone is saying does not make it rude. If you feel that a topic is a waste of time, there is no need to participate.

But some of us like a good debate every now and then, and the other people on these forums don't tell you what you can or can't post (provided that posts follow forum rules), it's not unreasonable to expect the same courtesy in return (that does not mean you're not entitled to your opinion).

I'm a Christian and you're not going to convince me that I'm wasting my time believing in a God

I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that is not my intention. (I'm also fairly sure I have not posted anything that can reasonably be interpreted as such)

[Qqmike]

You know, when you get right down to it, having a religion, a belief, in a god or in a messiah, or a mystic, whatever, is strictly, 100% a matter of faith.


Thus far, to my knowledge to determine otherwise, there is no -- zero -- historical or scientific evidence to uphold anything about any religion. As an example, Christianity has been studied. The only thing we know is that Christ did exist as a human. That much is certain. Everything else is hearsay, conjecture, myth, story-telling, metaphor. Any Jesuit priest (intellectual of the Catholic Church) will tell you the same. (At the time of Christ, Christ was not unique in being a preacher, a faith healer, and so on--there were hundreds of such people throughout the Holy Land. He was unique in the sense of claiming to be one with the Trinity of the deity.) Faith: That's it, nothing more, nothing less. And you Christian friends among us here are certainly welcome and you certainly have the right and freedom to hold that faith; and I respect that, along with kubicle and others here. But issues of historical fact, science, anthropology, and so on, are an entirely different issue--not issues of personal 'faith.'

[vw72]

Again, if you look at ships on the horizon, they don't just vanish, you see the hulls disappear before the masts, because the roundedness of the earth hides the hull first...every sailor knew this (after the invention of the telescope)...that's also why there were crow's nests on the ships...so the look out could see farther...there is nothing blocking the line of sight on the sea...except the curvature of the earth. (you can picture the guy in the crow's nest shouting "Sail, ohoy" for dramatic effect)...this is not something "only a few scientists knew"

That would be an example of experience. So yes, a sailor a person on on shore would have seen/experienced the ship disappearing due to the curvature of the earth. While that does not say the earth is in fact round, it is an excellent example of how experience works. His cousin, who lives inland, would have to rely on his word for it, until he could experience it himslef. As such, he can only accept or believe in the curvature, based on the reliable testomony of his cousin.

The important distinction is reliable testomony. A number of people have testified that they have been abducted by aliens, but to date, that testimony isn't reliable and most people do not accept it.

That is a ridiculous claim. And not by the least supported by philosophy. I can believe that unicorns exist and you (or anyone else) cannot prove me wrong. Science, however, makes testable consistently accurate predictions (that could be proven wrong). If the predictions are accurate, the scientific theory is accepted, if not the theory is deemed wrong...even those that do not have the equipment to test a every particular prediction, can test science in their everyday lives..."hey, my cellphone works...maybe there is something to this science thing". Religions (or any non-scientific belief systems like astrology) either make no predictions, make predictions that cannot be tested ("if you live piously, you'll go to paradise after you die"), or make predictions that aren't consistently accurate ("when the moon is in the Gemini, you'll meet an interesting person"). A non-scientific belief system that consistently makes accurate, testable predictions, ceases to be non-scientific and is accepted as science. If, continuing with my unicorn example, I were to say that I believe unicorns exist and can be found grazing on the rings of saturn, but they do not reflect light on the visible spectrum (that is a prediction that can be tested...and proven right or wrong). And if anyone pointing their infra-red telescopes into saturn can see unicorns hopping about, my belief in the existence becomes a scientifically accepted fact (much to the dismay of the guy next door that was utterly convinced there were blue lemmings there).

You miss my point. I am not putting down science, on the contrary, just the opposite. What I am saying is that what most people think they know, whether about science or anything else, they don't really know and instead accept or believe, because somebody (or multiple somebodies) gave them credible testimony to it. Most likely this testimony came in the appearance of a school system. BTW, the purpose of science is neither to prove or disprove anything. The purpose of science is to describe the world/univers around us. To do that involves the scientific method, which starts with a hypothesis and then tries to prove it. For most things these proofs are incomplete, but stand until a better proof comes along furthering the hypothesis or discrediting it.

Back when the common thought was that the stars and planets revolved around the earth, there were mathematical calculations that were relied on to show this. The math was correct, even if the hypothesis was not. That model stood until other calculations disproved it. The purpose of those other calculations were never to disprove the old model, but instead to better describe the reality.

Yet it is true. You keep insisting that seeing (or experiencing) first-hand is the only way to "know" something, and this is philosophically and logically not valid. When you say "seeing is believing", you: 1. have already accepted as a premise that your senses can give you accurate knowledge of the world outside your own mind. 2. Can't logically deduce that your senses are the *only* way you can gain knowledge of the world outside your own mind.

Philisophically, you can only know what you have experienced. Experience does not mean having to see it or touch it or smell it or taste it. That is applicable for some things (I know sugar is sweet because I have tasted it, I don't know if crap is sweet or not, because I haven't tasted it, I can assume, though, that it is not ). For many things, "seeing" it involves working a calculation. In geometry class, we all had to do various proofs. Those proofs are a valid way of experience the phenomena being studied. An engineer knows a bridge will stand because she has done the mathematical proof to show it. The rest of us, don't know this and instead believe it everytime we drive over it.

As for excepting premises, that is a given and it permeates everything, even math and science. Again using geometry, we cannot prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, that is a premise or assumption and from that, in Euclids world, everything else is built. However, there is also non-Euclidean geometry that is based on other assumptions and useful for other purposes that contradict Euclid. In physics, we need to rely on imaginary numbers to describe many phenomena. The world would frown on using those concepts, say in the financial statements of a corporation.

In short, every field has it's own set of premises that are "given." Philosophy recognizes this and accepts those basic premises because by definition, they are unprovable. That doesn't mean they are correct, again pointing out the math working that described the motion of the stars, sun and planets revolving around the earth. However, these basic premises are held, until shown to be faulty, normally by tracing backwards from an observed (experienced, whether acutal or mathematical) phenomena that is known, since it was experienced, that contradicts its predecessors. Each previous layers is peeled back to find the cause of the error because experience always wins.

The idea that senses aren't reliable does not come from "scientists" (scientist rely on their senses quite heavily), but from philosophers, most famous of them being Descartes (you know, the "Cogito ergo sum" -guy).

We rely on science (and take scientifically tested facts as facts) for practical reasons, because it works, not because we could logically be 100% sure it's accurate. Science is a tool.

There is a difference between Descartes' questioning of senses and denying experience. Descrates didn't question experience, he questioned how the experience was interpreted.

As for relying on science and taking scientifically tested facts as facts, I agree 100%, but that doesn't change the fact that we are accepting or belieiving them instead of knowing them. Even the language you used acknowledges that "taking scientifically tested facts". If we new the facts were fact, we wouldn't have to take them or accept them.

There seems to be a sense, on this forum, that acknowledging that we believe much of what we think we know, instead of actually knowing it somehow lessens science. On the contrary, it pushes science and scientific inquiry even further.

Take evolution, a scientific fact, because it has been proposed and articulated (passed down) by many, so that the credible testimony is weighty enough that is considered a fact. However, there are currently 32 valid hypothesis about evolution that are incompatible with each other, so that while evolution is a fact, we don't actually understand the mechanism. Since we don't "know" how evolution works, although we have some pretty good competiting ideas, more research is occuring, furthering the science.

Or take the Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics. Two theories with so much evidence and testimony that they are both considered to be fact. The Big Bang and the expanding universe model so describes the known universe, that it is no longer questioned and there is a lot of math to base that on. The same can be said for QM in dealing with the interaction of sub atomic particles and how they interact with each other.

The problem is that the Big Bang and QM are mutually exclusive, because if QM were in play at the instant the of the Big Bang, we wouldn't have an expanding universe and the fact that we do, means that QM couldn't have existed. This leaves us with a paradox of the laws of physics changing and if they are mutable, then they aren't laws at all. (Newton's theory of gravity has the same problem, it fails on the quantum level). The problem for cosmologists is that if there were different laws of physics at the moment the universe came into existence and then they changed to what we have today, what caused that change? Nobody is saying the Big Bang is wrong and nobody is saying that QM is wrong, but for those who know (through experience, ie the doing the math), much more research is being done to determine what really happened. For those of us who haven't the experience, in this case done the math, we can only accept or believe what those who have tell us.

So yes, we rely on science, but that doesn't mean we actually know the science, only that we accept or believe it. If I fly in a plane, I don't have to know the physics involved to rely on that physics, I simply accept that the engineers that designed all the systems knew what they were doing. If I didn't, I wouldn't get on the plane and neither would anybody else.

Here is a real life story. When the polio vacine was first developed, my mother worked on it. She knew, along with Dr. Saulk, that it worked. However, school systems were very hesitant to innoculate students with it because they didn't "know" it and weren't accepting their word for it. Basically, they didn't understand how it worked and wouldn't believe in it. To show there were no harmful side effects my brothers and sisters and I received the first vacines in a large East Coast school district and the following year, after demonstrating that we didn't come down with polio from it, they accepted our testimony (not a verbal testimony, but that we didn't get sick), and believed it was safe and started mass innoculations.

Most of what we consider knowledge, is simply the acceptance of the testimony of others. I believe an innoculation will work, not because I have reviewed all the trials, but because somebody else has and I am accepting their word for it. Likewise, if cosmologists say this or that about the universe, I can accept what they say, believe in it, too. Or, I can do all the research and verify the equations myself and then I would actually know what they say, instead of just believing in their testimony. For myself, and I imagine most people, I have better things to do with my time and I am quite content accepting/believing the facts as they are told to me.

[vw72]

You know, when you get right down to it, having a religion, a belief, in a god or in a messiah, or a mystic, whatever, is strictly, 100% a matter of faith.

That is correct, by definition, one can never truly know about a deity. Deity's are outside of nature, so everything we believe about them comes from inference. To actuallyl know, would take interaction with the Deity, much as Moses on the mountain. According to biblical accounts, he knew God existed because God appeared to him. The rest of the Isrealites, however, didn't have that experience and instead believed in his testimony. Each generation, thereafter, passed the story down, so that those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion accept it on the testimony that came before them.

Thus far, to my knowledge to determine otherwise, there is no -- zero -- historical or scientific evidence to uphold anything about any religion. As an example, Christianity has been studied. The only thing we know is that Christ did exist as a human. That much is certain. Everything else is hearsay, conjecture, myth, story-telling, metaphor. Any Jesuit priest (intellectual of the Catholic Church) will tell you the same. (At the time of Christ, Christ was not unique in being a preacher, a faith healer, and so on--there were hundreds of such people throughout the Holy Land. He was unique in the sense of claiming to be one with the Trinity of the deity.) Faith: That's it, nothing more, nothing less. And you Christian friends among us here are certainly welcome and you certainly have the right and freedom to hold that faith; and I respect that, along with kubicle and others here. But issues of historical fact, science, anthropology, and so on, are an entirely different issue--not issues of personal 'faith.'

The point in this discussion, though has not been what we know or don't know or what we believe or don't believe about God and/or religion. It is broader than that and has been what we know or don't know about everything. Simply put, to know something one must first experience it in some form, whether actual experience through the senses or working the math or formulas, so to speak). Anything less than that means we are relying on the word (testimony) of somebody else and that we don't know, but instead accept (or believe) what we are being told. This is true, whether the topic is science, politics, economics or even religion.

Part of the problem is the imprecise nature of the English language. One of the reasons so many philosophical and scientific research was written in Latin, was not because of the Catholic Church (although early on it was), but because it was a precise language. Being dead, it wasn't adapting to modern thought. Regardless of the generation in question, Latin always meant exactly the same thing. Today's modern languages adapt and words take on new meaning and nuances. At one point, not too long ago, a faggot was nothing more than a pile of sticks. Today, however, that is a derogatory remark. Language changes and with it so does meaning.

Because of this, it seems many on the forum take exception to refering to knowledge and science in terms of belief and testimony. It is alright to say one believes in Jesus because of the testimony of those who actually new him and passed that down to us. But it is not alright to say one believes in Gravity because of the testimony of Newton (and others) who actually solved the equations and passed it down to us. There seems to be resistance to the notion that to actually know something one must experience it. That's not a new thought, it's been around since Aristotle and Plato. But here again, I think language is the issue, we experience things in more ways than simply seeing or our other senses). We know (versus believe) that 3 x 10,000 = 30,000. We know that by experience (no, we didn't take 3 groups of 10 thousand apples and count them up, although that would work). We know this is true because in our education we learned that 3 x 10 = 30. We also learned the associative property of multiplication so that our problem is really 3 x 10 x 1,000 and if 3 x10 = 30, then 30 x 1000 = 30,000. Through doing all of those classroom and homework assignments, we actually had experienced these things, so it's not that we believe them, but we actually know them.

Getting mixed up between the difference of what we know and what we believe has real world consequences. It is exemplified in the whole climate change debate. It manifests it self with creationism vs evolution. It is shows up in political and social engineering. It basically impacts every aspect of modern living.

Maybe the subject of history is the best example. Anybody born today can study WWII. They can learn everything there is to learn about WWII, even be an expert on it, but through it all they can never know what it was really like. They can formulate a pretty good idea, but without really experiencing it, they can only rely on what those who did know WWII have passed down.

The same is true with the sciences, I can read every book and paper published by Stephen Hawking, I can be an expert on his life and on what he says about the universe, but unless I work through the math, particularly his equations, I can never know the universe, at least not like he does. Without the experience, I can only rely on what he tells me about the universe, his testimony, so to speak. That doesn't mean that what he puts forward isn't scientific fact (although much of it is still theory). It only means that I am accepting or believing those facts versus knowing those facts.

This is nothing new. It's been the way it has been since the first homo-sapiens passed on anything to the next generation. It has only been a problem, at least in the world of science, for the past 50 years and mainly because it is falsly assumed that admitting that much of what we think we know about science, we only believe, because learned experts have passed down this knowledge makes science sound like religion and modern sensibilities have many believing that if it can't be proven it can't exist. The problem with that error in thinking is that there is much that we accept as scientific fact that can't be proven, yet it does exists.

Science reveals the natural world, that is its sole purpose. Before the outer planets were "discovered" or proven, did they not exist? No, of course not. Science can only reveal what is already there in the universe. God and religion, on the otherhand are, by definition outside of the universe. As such, science can never prove or disprove God anymore than a fish in my aquarium can prove or disprove anything in the next room (assuming fish were smart enough to prove anything).

As I stated much earlier in the thread, science and religion do not need to be opposed to each other. They both are trying to say something about the world (universe). Science answers "How" things came into existence, while religion (as a specific genre of philosophy) attempts to answer "Why" they came into existence. Those two endeavours aren't at odds with each other, but actually compliment each other.

[kubicle]

I do not disagree with most of what you say...it's just this one thing that I disagree with (if I have ignored some parts of your posts, you can take that to mean I don't disagree with you):

"Philosophy says you can only know things you experience"

Philosophy also (yes, even that Descartes) says that there is no such thing as "pure" experience, all experiencing requires both interpretation and deduction. If you say that you can gain knowledge through experience then logically it must follow that you can gain knowledge through interpretation and deduction (as these are an integral part of experiencing). So either you can gain knowledge through other means than through experiencing, or you cannot gain knowledge through experiencing either, logically there is no middle ground here. I'm not saying knowledge is 100% certainty, I'm saying experiencing is not a decisive separator between valid and invalid knowledge, which is the only possible logical conclusions from the premises given. I'm not saying that these premises are necessarily correct, I'm saying you can't logically reach your conclusion (that valid knowledge can only be gained through experience) from the premises.

And yes, I have all along said knowledge is about accepting things because they work (I've not once said that knowledge is something we know with certainty). My point was that we also accept things we experience rather than know them (there is no distinction between accepting what we haven't experienced and knowing what we have experienced), as there is no way to know what parts (possibly every part) of your experience are actually interpretation or deduction.

[vw72]

I do not disagree with most of what you say...it's just this one thing that I disagree with (if I have ignored some parts of your posts, you can take that to mean I don't disagree with you):

"Philosophy says you can only know things you experience"

Philosophy also (yes, even that Descartes) says that there is no such thing as "pure" experience, all experiencing requires both interpretation and deduction. If you say that you can gain knowledge through experience then logically it must follow that you can gain knowledge through interpretation and deduction (as these are an integral part of experiencing). So either you can gain knowledge through other means than through experiencing, or you cannot gain knowledge through experiencing either, logically there is no middle ground here. I'm not saying knowledge is 100% certainty, I'm saying experiencing is not a decisive separator between valid and invalid knowledge, which is the only possible logical conclusions from the premises given. I'm not saying that these premises are necessarily correct, I'm saying you can't logically reach your conclusion (that valid knowledge can only be gained through experience) from the premises.

And yes, I have all along said knowledge is about accepting things because they work (I've not once said that knowledge is something we know with certainty). My point was that we also accept things we experience rather than know them (there is no distinction between accepting what we haven't experienced and knowing what we have experienced), as there is no way to know what parts (possibly every part) of your experience are actually interpretation or deduction.

What you are describing as interpretation and deduction are considered part of experience in modern philosophy. That is why in the discussion, I keep saying things like doing the math. Historically, though, experience dealt with only the senses, which is what Descartes rallied against.

Historically, if you couldn't see, taste, touch, hear or feel it, it wasn't real. Because of his work and others, the process of deduction and the process of interpretation (as opposed to just deduction or interpretation), is considered experience and valid for knowing. If you noticed, that sentence is awkward. It would read better if I used knowledge instead of knowing, but they are not synonymous. Knowing sounds like a verb, and it is, because experience requires some action on the part of the person involved. That is why working (or re-working) the math is considered experience. But not all actions are experiential. Listening to a lecture or reading a journal, by itself does not equate to experience, or at least a complete experience.

It is through these incomplete experiences, though, that if we have enough of them, then we can deduce something and come to know something, even if imperfectly. Imprefect knowing means we know about a specific part, but not the whole. Much of science relies on this and it is why our understanding of the atom or physics continues to progress. It is generally accepted that as we work on knowing the parts we don't know, we gain a more complete knowing of the whole.

That is the generally accepted understanding. However, there is one wrinkle in it. A recent paper, maybe 30 years ago and I can't recall the author, states that we can't truly know anything. He relied on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Usually, the HUP is described as if we know how fast a particle is moving, we can't tell where it is and if we know where it is, we can't tell how fast it is moving. That is a gross oversimplification. What HUP really says is that, among other things, the more tightly we measure something, the less precision we have in the measurment.

This has led some modern day philosophers to state that since the more closely we scrutinize something the less we are able to scrutinize it and therefore the less likely we are to know it. A simple example would be we have all seen the sun rise and felt it's warmth on our face. We know it is there, we have experienced it. However, if we look closely, say how the sun works, then there is a whole additional layer that we must come to know, if we are to trully know the sun. And if we look more closely, we will see that there is an even more intricate layer, etc., etc., Basically, the finer we look, the more we see that there is to look at. This is similar to the "turtles all the way down" mentality with the unmoved mover in cosmology. Long story short, because of HUP, moder philosophers state that since there is always another layer or smaller piece to look at, we can never fully know that which we are looking at.

But, that is just a proposition at this time and not mainstream. It contains a serious paradox, something along the lines that if we can't ever know anything, because there is always an additional layer, then how do we know that HUP actually comes into play in the way it has been proposed? Maybe there is another layer or one below that or that, that counteracts HUP. (Believe, me I don't give the paradox it's due as volumes have been written on it and my understanding of it is limited at best). Hopefully the HUP proposition, won't ever be proven, because not only does it blow most of philosophy out of the water (we can't know everything about anything), but it also means that cosmology and theoretical physics are futile endeavors, a waste of time, because the core of what those fields purport to examine will never be knowable.

[kubicle]

What you are describing as interpretation and deduction are considered part of experience in modern philosophy. That is why in the discussion, I keep saying things like doing the math. Historically, though, experience dealt with only the senses, which is what Descartes rallied against.

If this is what you meant (that deduction [and interpretation] is a method to gain valid knowledge), then I didn't get that point (which makes much more sense) because you relied so heavily on sensory perception examples as "the only" way to experience (as in "I can know the sun is there because I can see it and feel it's warmth" and I can know "strawberries are sweet because I can taste it") and left out the deductive/interpretative parts in these examples.

What HUP really says is that, among other things, the more tightly we measure something, the less precision we have in the measurement.

This is one of my favourite subjects (and one that I'm quite familiar with)...so I'd happily continue with you on that, but I think that is another thread (one that I recall already exists right on these forums )

[MoonRise]

This is one of my favourite subjects (and one that I'm quite familiar with)...so I'd happily continue with you on that, but I think that is another thread (one that I recall already exists right on these forums )

I couldn't tell!

[vw72]

This is one of my favourite subjects (and one that I'm quite familiar with)...so I'd happily continue with you on that, but I think that is another thread (one that I recall already exists right on these forums )

Shouldn't that be "...I think that the probability where it is most likely to be at this moment is on another thread on these forums?"

[kubicle]

Shouldn't that be "...I think that the probability where it is most likely to be at this moment is on another thread on these forums?"

Indeed, that's probably where it is...the damn thing just refuses to stay in the box I made for it...keeps complaining it's too small.