After that the article goes off on multiple tangents that seem not to touch on the central issue.Aristotle argued that “not all knowledge is demonstrative” (i.e., not all knowledge is based on an argument from other things known), and that some knowledge must be “independent of demonstration” (Posterior Analytics, I.3). — Ali Hasan and Richard Fumerton
Truth is not correspondence to reality. Why? First, because our knowledge is not exhaustive, but leaves an untold amount behind. It is only a diminished projection of what we encounter. — Dfpolis
To be true, our judgements must be adequate to the context under consideration. Remembering that what we know is not exhaustive and based on an abstractive process, that our judgement will be adequate if what we ignored in our abstractions is irrelevant to our present endeavor. — Dfpolis
But why must it be exhaustive? — Srap Tasmaner
If a state-of-affairs includes aspects A, B, C, D, E, and F, and we only describe it as having A, B, and D -- is that not true? — Srap Tasmaner
It would be false if we claimed it only had aspects A, B, and D, but we needn't claim that. — Srap Tasmaner
What we want is correspondence between what we claim is there and what is there. — Srap Tasmaner
You can reasonably say "correspondence" should be a bijection, not an injection, but that's just semantics — Srap Tasmaner
"To say of what is that it is" while avoiding saying "of what is not that it is", and so on. — Srap Tasmaner
Truth is a species of goodness, that appropriate to judgements and the propositions expressing them. — Dfpolis
if we think a table is solid, and later find that it has an atomic substructure structure, we will conclude that our initial knowledge was as nothing in it corresponds to atoms. — Dfpolis
Knowing that the table is also made mostly of space, and has a certain atomic structure, does not mean that we are wrong about the table's being solid. — Banno
Truth is a species of goodness, that appropriate to judgements and the propositions expressing them. — Dfpolis
Is this Aristotle? — Srap Tasmaner
Knowing that the table is also made mostly of space, and has a certain atomic structure, does not mean that we are wrong about the table's being solid. — Banno
I noticed a preponderance of physical examples. — Banno
I know, for example, that the bishop remains on its original colour, the one that starts on my left will remain on the red squares for the whole of the game. That's not a truth that is known by making observations of the way things are and then describing them, but a truth that is in a way constitutive of playing Chess; were it otherwise, we would be playing a different game. — Banno
Further, all knowing is a subject-object relation. There is no knowing without a knowing subject and a known object. — Dfpolis
In direct contradiction of the French philosopher Descartes' supposition that all animals are only elaborate machines or mechanisms. Rosen stated: "I argue that the only resolution to such problems [of the subject-object boundary and what constitutes objectivity] is in the recognition that closed loops of causation are 'objective'; i.e. legitimate objects of scientific scrutiny. These are explicitly forbidden in any machine or mechanism."
Truth is not correspondence to reality. Why? First, because our knowledge is not exhaustive, but leaves an untold amount behind. It is only a diminished projection of what we encounter. Second, because we do not and cannot know reality as it is, but only as it relates to us. — Dfpolis
Indeed, here it is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260342309_AS_Eddington_Opening...Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, who reflected on the table of common sense vs. the table of science. — Dfpolis
But what if we use this "psychological" fact as the stepping stone to the larger metaphysical picture? — apokrisis
So your argument is that the "truth of reality" seems problematic as we appear caught between a subjective and objective viewpoint. It is we who construct the abstract concepts by which we understand the physical world. So all becomes modelling and the thing-in-itself never truly grasped. — apokrisis
. Objectivity must be forsaken and subjectivity accepted? — apokrisis
It is still going to be an exercise in abstraction. But now the goal is to generalise the very idea of a modelling relation. — apokrisis
That becomes pragmatism writ large. — apokrisis
Truth is not correspondence to reality. Why? First, because our knowledge is not exhaustive, but leaves an untold amount behind. It is only a diminished projection of what we encounter. Second, because we do not and cannot know reality as it is, but only as it relates to us. — Dfpolis
This already claims to know beyond what it says cannot be known. — JerseyFlight
Seems to me this criteria of exactitude that you seem to leverage is unproductive. — JerseyFlight
I know mountains, grass, stones, words, successful surgeries are performed on the basis of empirical knowledge. I reject the kind of skepticism (and I have good suspicion of where you got it) that says knowledge must entail exhaustive comprehension. — JerseyFlight
Now isn't there something a bit mad about the assertion that there are two tables? — Banno
do we agree that, the bishop remaining on the same colour for the duration fo the game is a foundational truth, rather than a truth known by experience? — Banno
I want to hear more about belief and knowledge. You gloss "believing that such-and-such" as being committed to the truth of such-and-such. Does that come in degrees? — Srap Tasmaner
Do you treat "knowledge" as a primitive, not to be glossed or explained? — Srap Tasmaner
I was not aware there was such a thing as divine knowledge? — JerseyFlight
I do not wish to go off on that tangent in this thread. Here, one can take it as an ideal standard for human cognition I am rejecting. — Dfpolis
Wait a second. This is not fair, it is intellectually dishonest. You were the one who introduced "divine knowledge." — JerseyFlight
If you wish to discuss theism or omniscience — Dfpolis
Am I in the neighborhood of your approach? — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.