Of course you will use and manage your knowledge, all the stuff you have accumulated over the years. You could avoid it by falling into a deep coma.

Of course you will use and manage your knowledge, all the stuff you have accumulated over the years. You could avoid it by falling into a deep coma. — Bitter Crank

But not according to any method, so certainly not to the fairy tale propagated here. I'm not bound to any method. I don't mind that someone wants to gather knowledge methodologically sound, why should I? We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality.

To make this your bedrock of knowledge is turning knowledge into a slave. I'm more interested in the knowledge itself. Who cares how you arrive on it? The ignorant, maybe...

"Of course you will use your knowledge." If I don't wanna use it I don't use it. I like knowledge for what it is. Knowledge. Falling in coma will indeed avoid me from experiencing that.

To make this your bedrock of knowledge is turning knowledge into a slave. I'm more interested in the knowledge itself. Who cares how you arrive on it? The ignorant, maybe...

"Of course you will use your knowledge." If I don't wanna use it I don't use it. I like knowledge for what it is. Knowledge. Falling in coma will indeed avoid me from experiencing that. — Cornwell1

I love the absurdity of arguing against fairy tales and ignorance by telling fairy tales and embracing ignorance. Brilliant!

love the absurdity of arguing against fairy tales and ignorance by telling fairy tales and embracing ignorance. — pfirefry

You should learn to read. I write:

"I'm more interested in the knowledge itself."

Doesn't sound like embracing ignorance.

Then I write:

"We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality."

By which I mean the method sold here. A fairy tale. Who tells fairy tales? Not me.

And you should learn to read between the lines :joke:

I got no beef with you. For someone who is interested in the knowledge, it surprises me that you actively disregard the knowledge of others (by calling it "fairy tales"), instead of absorbing it but not using it.

But not according to any method, so certainly not to the fairy tale propagated here. I'm not bound to any method. I don't mind that someone wants to gather knowledge methodologically sound, why should I? We all fall prey to temporarily periods of escapism from reality.

To make this your bedrock of knowledge is turning knowledge into a slave. I'm more interested in the knowledge itself. Who cares how you arrive on it? The ignorant, maybe... — Cornwell1

You certainly are welcome to keep posting here, but I suggest you start your own thread. That's a serious suggestion. You'll get more people to engage with your ideas.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

But not according to any method — Cornwell1

by which, just guessing, you mean "somebody else's system". You, your brain, your mind have a unique system of knowing things -- we all do -- and it works for you. If it didn't work for you you would either have changed, or you would have major problems. You don't seem to have major problems.

"Of course you will use your knowledge." If I don't wanna use it I don't use it. — Cornwell1

Your knowledge includes things like an intuitive grasp of gravity. Infants exhibit this grasp. It's a piece of knowledge. You use it all the time. You know that ice is slippery, You can slide on it, sled on it, slip on it, skate on it, or chill a gin & tonic. You know that a hot stove burns. Therefore, you do no touch it. All very basic.

You have more complex information too. If you don't fill your car's gas tank, you will run out of fuel on the freeway somewhere inconvenient and will be attacked by a vicious gang of flashy lycra-wearing cannibal cyclists. You don't want that, so you fill your tank.

Yes. And there is no single methodology involved in any of the kinds of knowledge you mentioned. And certainly not one that's spelled out.

It doesn't need to be spelled out. Your innate methodology was put together way before you started thinking about not wanting to deal with systems of knowledge.

Your innate methodology — Bitter Crank

My "innate methodology"? Are you serious?

It doesn't need to be spelled out — Bitter Crank

No, it doesn't. It doesn't need to be conscious either. But we all are conforming to "a methodology". Like we all are, consciously or not, obeying to the laws of God...

My point is, adhering to a spelled out methodology constraints the furthering of knowledge.

I would agree that, if the spelled-out methodology was incompatible or in conflict with someone's innate method, it would constrain the accumulation of knowledge. An extreme example of this is psychoanalysis: The methods of classical psychoanalysis (Freud), as well as its peculiar concepts, constrained knowledge gathering a lot. I'm not sure the analyst was able to generate real knowledge at all, never mind the person being 'analyzed'.

"THEY" at least thought they were. But then, their income depended on believing it.

the laws of God — Cornwell1

They are above my pay grade.

the laws of God
— Cornwell1

They are above my pay grade. — Bitter Crank

I wonder which version of the laws of god you're thinking of. Some versions are definitely in your paygrade, B.C. But would anyone wish to engage with such a sad tale?

someone's innate method — Bitter Crank

How do you know there is an innate methodology?

I have copied and pasted comments below that I just entered on the thread 'What constitutes a philosopher' because I think it's relevant here too but from a slightly different perspective. I think it speaks to the debate here about the relevance of emotion/instinct/intuition etc to decision-making through thought.

Artificial Intelligence is still very much in it's infancy. Most computer systems only produce INFORMATION as an output to a screen, a printer or through speakers etc. They therefore mostly process raw data, not information.
Systems like the Mars rover etc are often described as having some sort of 'decision making' ability, in that they have a lot of sensors to provide feedback. Even the most powerful computers we have, can only simulate human decision-making. Their 'decisions' are solely based on logic operations involving base concepts such as (IF, AND, OR, NOT, etc) combinations where the bit 1 represents the state 'true' and the bit 0 represents false.
Raw data like 25 has no meaning so is not information. 25 apples or Person age:25 is information.
Data+contextual label = information. This removes examples like Orange 25 which is data until contextualised by perhaps 'My entry code is Orange 25,' then it becomes information.

Demonstrating understanding of an item of information is what I would call knowledge.
Current electronic expert systems contain a component called a 'Knowledge base.'
You can enter your medical symptoms and the system will 'pattern match' with its knowledge base to diagnose your problem and then it will display advice for treatment, that it finds stored in a data file or record structure, matched to the name of an ailment. Such systems are in my opinion not 'intelligent.'

To demonstrate intelligence, a computer must be able to 'demonstrate ability beyond the parameters of its programming.'
If a computer system/robot does ever demonstrate such an ability, would it then be able to truly think?
No emotion would be involved in such a system. Perhaps like Commander Data on Star Trek, was he/it capable of thinking like a human? Could he/it philosophise for example
What is the absolute minimum an electronic system would have to be capable of to demonstrate the human thought process?

You certainly are welcome to keep posting here — T Clark

No, he is not. This is a returning banned poster.

I wasn't being defensive, I was being dismissive. — T Clark

Then you weren't accurate when telling me that you had already addressed the question I asked. Being dishonest and dismissive is the result of you feeling defensive.

this thread is not about behavior, it's about knowledge. How we know things. — T Clark

Yet this is what you wrote in your OP:

As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. — T Clark

What is decision making and human action if not behaviors? What is use if not a type of behavior? It appears that this thread is just the behavior of moving goalposts.

Then you weren't accurate when telling me that you had already addressed the question I asked. — Harry Hindu

I don't remember writing that I had already addressed your question. Please remind me.

I don't remember writing that I had already addressed your question. Please remind me. — T Clark

I think you've missed the point of my part in this discussion. How much of this thread have you read? — T Clark

I asked you to remind me of your part of the discussion that answered my question you couldn't do so.

Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful? — Harry Hindu

The pragmatical approach to knowledge doesn't see things as true or false. In order to provide an example of a falsehood, it is necessary to make a judgement about trueness. This would defeat the point the OP.

In other words, consider the following alternative conversation:

A: God doesn't exist. We need to focus on what's good for humans.
B: Seems to me that for something to be good for humans it needs to be blessed by God. Have you provided an example where something not blessed by God was useful?

To answer B's question, A needs to presuppose that God exists, which would go against A's convictions.

Conceptual models are not true or false, they are accurate or inaccurate. — T Clark

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true".

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true" — Harry Hindu

The only distinction I can think of is in measurement. 'I can measure some things.'
That statement is true and is accurate but.
A measurement can never be true, it can only ever have a level of accuracy.
I think this is probably just the same as asking is there an objective truth or is every truth subjective? and I think there have been many threads on that.
I like all the fun paradox's in this area.

"The only true fact is there are no true facts!".... yeah.....that's a true fact....that there are no true facts!
Fun stuff!

The only distinction I can think of is in measurement. 'I can measure some things.'
That statement is true and is accurate but.
A measurement can never be true, it can only ever have a level of accuracy.
I think this is probably just the same as asking is there an objective truth or is every truth subjective? and I think there have been many threads on that.
I like all the fun paradox's in this area.

"The only true fact is there are no true facts!".... yeah.....that's a true fact....that there are no true facts!
Fun stuff! — universeness

Making contradictions is playing with words, not stating facts. Is it objectively true that every truth is subjective? In describing the world you're describing a shared world - one in which I exist as well, so what you are defining is what I am part of and would be describing not just you but me too. So if every truth were subjective then keep your truth to yourself because it wouldn't be useful to me in any way.

If a measurement can have a level of accuracy then that is the same as saying a measurement has a level of truth, which I would agree with. There are degrees by which some concept or proposition can be accurate/true based on how well it represents what is the case or not.

Is it objectively true that every truth is subjective? — Harry Hindu

No its not because 'every truth is subjective' may not be true. Paradox is neither true or false.
To me, this just means that in propositional logic there are three states, true, false and paradox.
Nothing more exciting than that, at least for now.

playing with words, — Harry Hindu

Agreed, but it's something humans do regularly. The fact that such activity annoys some people, will not prevent it from happening.

In describing the world you're describing a shared world - one in which I exist as well, so what you are defining is what I am part of and would be describing not just you but me too. So if every truth were subjective then keep your truth to yourself because it wouldn't be useful to me in any way — Harry Hindu

Well if we all did that then conversation/debate would reduce. I don't think that would help.
The fact you might find something useless to you does not make it useful to all unless you are electing yourself a speaker for all in the same way you suggest I include you, due my deliberations.

If a measurement can have a level of accuracy then that is the same as saying a measurement has a level of truth, which I would agree with. There are degrees by which some concept or proposition can be accurate/true based on how well it represents what is the case or not — Harry Hindu

agreed. So you agree, Level of truth(accuracy) and TRUE can be different, in concept.

The pragmatical approach to knowledge doesn't see things as true or false. In order to provide an example of a falsehood, it is necessary to make a judgement about trueness. This would defeat the point the OP. — pfirefry

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true". — Harry Hindu

An example - I go to work on a property where surface soil has been contaminated by lead at above concentrations defined by regulations. A previous investigation collected and analyzed three samples from the effected area. I create a SCM showing the area where soil is contaminated based on that data. Looking at the distribution and the number of samples, I decide that I don't have enough data. I find historic maps and aerial photographs that show where lead was used on site. Based on that, I revise the SCM and decide that 10 additional samples should be collected. I collect and analyze the samples and then revise the SCM again.

In my judgement, the original SCM was not adequate to make the kind of decisions needed. Based on additional data, I revise it. The final SCM is more accurate than the original one. The original SCM wasn't false. The new one isn't true. One is more accurate than the other.

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right.
— baker

Is that a recommendation or a question? — Tom Storm

Like I said, I'm talking about the distinction between you-language and I-language.

You-language is an attempt to rule over others. Some people who use you-language try to ameliorate its patronizing and other-annihilating effect by proposing that there is no ultimate truth, or that "all is relative" and other such ethically and epistemically repugnant positions.

When, in contrast, they could use I-language and retain the sense that it is possible to know things and that there is truth.

You-language is an attempt to rule over others. Some people who use you-language try to ameliorate its patronizing and other-annihilating effect by proposing that there is no ultimate truth, or that "all is relative" and other such ethically and epistemically repugnant positions. — baker

Some people...? If you are calling me a patronising, bossy arsehole I ask you to refrain from this in future.

Why not demonstrate that there is ultimate truth?

Is it objectively true that every truth is subjective? — Harry Hindu

Yes. But everyone thinks their truth is objectively true.