You have my apologies for having received so much help from you and for not returning it in equal measure; please understand that given my alternative commitments, I have a limited amount of time to dedicate to philosophy and have the need to focus almost all of it into my own work given its subject and scope. — TVCL
What I might ask - if your still willing - is to double-check the "chapters" of my argument as and when I complete them with the understanding that this may be over a period of some time. How does that sound to you? — TVCL
Goals are the journey's start, and as such, they are not a criteria for evaluating knowledge itself. If a contradiction happens within your goals, you have to decide to throw something out. But there is nothing within the goals that you've put forward at this time that clarifies which contradictions we should throw out. — Philosophim
As an example, lets say that I have it as my primary goal to prove the Earth is flat. Lets say I encounter a contradiction to this by having a lesser goal of "Going into space". So I do, and it "appears" that the Earth is curved. So I just say, "This is a contradiction to my main goal, so I'm just going to invalidate this lesser goal." — Philosophim
"Provisional knowledge". A good breakdown showing that knowledge is provisional. But I wouldn't classify a "provisional knowledge" and "final knowledge". — Philosophim
The unfalsifiability section just needs a second pass to clarify the idea you're positing. It seems like you're implying what is "unfalsifiable" is based on context. Like the unicorn, it is a belief that has been constructed with a context that we cannot apply. If we could somehow create a context in which it could be applied, it would no longer be falsifiable. — Philosophim
In the beginning, you note how you will explain how we can know definitions once the theory is explored. You don't follow up on this at the end. — Philosophim
I understand this is a draft, so won't be commenting on the order of things. — Philosophim
I cannot see where 'usefulness' enters the picture. A thing is useful only if we use it, such that usefulness is not a property of information or things. A hammer is not useful if we only have a screw. — FrancisRay
So there are some really good things with goals. I think they are a great way to start a search for knowledge. I just don't think they are a necessary precursor to knowledge, or work as an end. — Philosophim
So far, I can decide whatever goals I want. Which also means I can throw out whatever goals I find contradictory, so long as there is consistency in my set of information. — Philosophim
What this leaves us with is a web of beliefs that are are not contradictory if we throw out evidence we don't like that fits our end goal. — Philosophim
the argument that I am trying to make is not concerned with how any or all knowledge comes to be known, only that knowledge which is sought. — TVCL
because we cannot create a model for finding knowledge which is not sought — TVCL
because we cannot create a model for finding knowledge which is not sought
— TVCL
I had to read this a couple of times, and I want to make sure I understand what you're stating. If I understand correctly, you are stating knowledge is an active process. Because we have to consider things such as applicability and consistency, this requires our active faculties. This is versus taking beliefs without question or consideration. — Philosophim
I think however once knowledge is discovered, it is something one decides to integrate into future goals, but it is not a goal itself. Often times in pursuing our goals we are shown that they are impossible to reach. Either that, or we learn something we never event considered, and it opens up new possibilities for us. While the goals may change, the ever present undertaking of the process of knowledge remains with us. Do we decide to continue to apply it in every case? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And I think this is perhaps what you are trying to imply? — Philosophim
The question perhaps here is what is the justification for deciding to use the process of knowledge in some cases versus not others. — Philosophim
Yes, I think I understand this. Sounds good!"We cannot create a model for seeking knowledge which is not sought." — TVCL
But not only this, but to ensure that one's goals were also in accordance with reality to the best possible extent. — TVCL
what I am trying to establish is not just one model to be chosen from many, but the truth.
— TVCL
Do you agree with this? — TVCL
It's good to know that you have concluded that I have created a model that we have apparently ironed all of the kinks out of — TVCL
No, I don't agree it is the truth. What I can agree from your model, is that your model is something that can be known. — Philosophim
we can never claim that such knowledge is "the truth" with certainty, but that is "the truth" with rationality. — Philosophim
Now, for what it's worth, I do think that there is a thread within the model that makes it stable across time and context (which is related to logic) — TVCL
I agree with you on a personal and intuitive level. — Philosophim
Just as the model allows us to discover which means do or do not facilitate the attainment of particular goals, it allows us to discover which goals we can or cannot pursue as-such. After all, if one's belief that a given goal can be pursued cannot be put into action, that belief is not applicable and is therefore not knowledge. Therefore, if we are seeking knowledge the process of discovery will rule out those goals that cannot be pursued. — TVCL
Given the model, we should search for knowledge if we want to be better equipped to pursue our goals. — TVCL
A goal isn't really a belief. Its an objective someone wants to reach. — Philosophim
A goal does not start out with any idea that the goal can, or cannot be obtained. — Philosophim
But what if one knew - using the model - that a given goal could not be pursued? — TVCL
Are you sure? Let's think about that. Now, I agree with you that knowledge as-such is not a goal, but what of the idea of positing a goal to be pursued if one does not believe that the goal can be attained? We can either say that a goal is a belief or at least based upon a belief: the implicit belief that the goal can be pursued. Now, like any belief, the goal is a working hypothesis - one knows that they can pursue a goal in so far as it is non-contradictory and in so far as the can, in fact, pursue it. — TVCL
Admittedly, at this point the argument only goes as far as to argue that the model can reveal what sets of goals one should have in reference to their hierarchy of goals or even their primary goals. — TVCL
it does not yet give an argument for which primary goal we should have as opposed to another. The only thing that is worth adding to this is that the model will reveal that not all primary goals are possible because some simply cannot be pursued. — TVCL
But let me clarify what I mean by belief as well. A belief is an assertion that reality is a particular way. While in English we might say, "I believe I can reach my goal, we can also say, I don't believe I can reach my goal. The belief is not in the goal, but whether one can obtain, or not obtain one's goal. The outcome is what we can know, the motivation to seek that outcome is the goal. — Philosophim
What we can determine from pursuing goals is that particular outcomes are false. So let us say my goal was to walk 1,000 miles in a day. I attempt it, and fail. I know that on that day, with what I prepared and did, I did not meet my goal that day. But what if I try something else? Maybe train for a month, or drink water more frequently then I did last time. The result is true or false based on all the circumstances one made in pursuit of the goal on that particular attempt. It does not mean that if you try another way, you will not meet the goal. — Philosophim
The model that I've presented appears to have a direct connection to ethics because a concern for what we are tying to do in the world or for what decisions we are trying to make is woven directly into the logic of the model. — TVCL
Use of the model or the process of searching for knowledge reveals which sets of goals can be pursued and which cannot. — TVCL
If we have concluded that the knowledge is the best means of making decisions that do not contradict with reality, seeking knowledge when pursuing one's goals seems like a better choice then not. — Philosophim
And that leads to the big question again, "What goals should a person pursue in life?" That sounds like an entirely different topic from knowledge. — Philosophim
And perhaps this is because a goal is not a belief. It is a motivation. — Philosophim
This connection between logic and use can be summarised as follows: — TVCL
we judge truth by its “usefulness” or regard use as the “measure” of truth because we judge truth by the extent to which our understanding satisfies the parameters of our enquiry — TVCL
If logic is the sole measure of truth, it begs the questions because logic alone cannot justify why it should be adhered to. — TVCL
Therefore, both logic and a regard for use are necessary standards for seeking an understanding of the truth that makes sense. — TVCL
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.