Most people have opinions on topics but how many people have knowledge? How would we recognize knowledge in the first place? What qualifies as knowledge? There are some things that I believe but how can I be certain that I’m not simply mistaken? I don’t want to open my mouth if I’m just going to pollute the world with misinformation. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s my duty or responsibility to know what I’m talking about when I decide to run my mouth. — Average

The brain accrues sensory data of the world in manner of complexity so sophisticated that we can't comprehend it. It sends that data through recurrent neural networks to be interpreted across multiple structures and systems within the brain all at once, and stored for retrieval. That data informs your behavior, and through that behavior you gain more and more of an understanding as those neural networks build coherent conceptual abstractions that are tested in the real world for objectivity via behavioral application in a never ending feedback loop. So, for example, you posted this message here on the philosophy forum, and I'll know that you have responded to me the moment I see that you have done so. And then, if we continue interacting, I'll build a better and better understanding of you and your positions as I accrue sensory data from interacting with you as a force in the world the produces said data, in a continual back and forth loop of interaction until we stop.

so basically empiricism?

so basically empiricism? — Average

Of course. Where else would I turn? Has any other system produced actionable knowledge?

why do you emphasize action? Are you implying that if knowledge isn’t “actionable” it isn’t knowledge?

why do you emphasize action? Are you implying that if knowledge isn’t “actionable” it isn’t knowledge? — Average

Well, if you really think about it, there's not anything that you ever do for your entire life that doesn't fall into the realm of action. You could be in a coma, and as long as you aren't brain-dead, your brain is processing info and completing whatever tasks it can to maintain homeostasis, which, is exactly what it was designed for. So, the question then becomes, what knowledge have I ever accrued that isn't applicable, or consistent to and with that? If the mere fact of thinking is not only action, but enough action even to consume enormous amounts of calories, when has anything I've thought about, let alone discovered to be true, not something actionable? I quite literally can't think of anything. Everything seems to fall in that category. What do you think about that?

I think it’s interesting to say the least but I suspect that you meant something like useful or valuable when you used the word actionable. The question then becomes how do you measure utility or value when it comes to knowledge?

Most people have opinions on topics but how many people have knowledge? How would we recognize knowledge in the first place? — Average

One way to know is experience -- a person talking has some or a lot of experience in it. If you got vaccinated, you know the side effects and how long they last. You could pass this information around. In fact, that's how the medical authorities know the side effects of a drug -- people experiencing it.

The question then becomes how do you measure utility or value when it comes to knowledge? — Average

Bingo. That's where stuff gets fun. That being because, such standards come from abstractions, which come from data accrued. Meaning, standards, measurements, and values are self-generated concepts that are abstracted from data as it builds, in regards to given domains of inquiry that we accrue it in. So, for example, I've played and composed music for a little over ten years now. It took me about three years to start being able to use my knowledge base to create songs of my own. Another two or so to create songs that sounded good, and then another two or three to create songs that sounded really good and that had substantive poetry over it for lyrics. All that time my standards grew in accordance with internally set desires for achievement, in commensurate fashion with data accrued. And as I built my data networks I made them happen and reached for more on a feedback loop. That's where those come from.

Now apply that whole process to what you know about the history of science, or philosophy across time. Kinda cool, eh?

That being because, such standards come from abstractions, which come from data accrued. — Garrett Travers

Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re using empiricism to verify the validity of empiricism. Doesn’t that seem circular?

One way to know is experience — L'éléphant

But how do you verify the validity of experience? Do you need another experience? If you use experience to verify the validity of experience then that seems a bit circular.

But how do you verify the validity of experience? Do you need another experience? If you use experience to verify the validity of experience then that seems a bit circular. — Average

By simply accompanying the person to the vaccine clinic and seeing the needle emptied in his upper arm.
Seriously? Watch a surgeon operate then. How's that for experience?

To be an epistemological skeptic is to invite the judgment you just killed yourself!. The things we have to do for Sophia, the femme fatale in this 2k+ year old tale about the search for wisdom.

By simply accompanying the person to the vaccine clinic and seeing the needle emptied in his upper arm.
Seriously? — L'éléphant

But how do you know that your experiences are reliable or that you are interpreting them correctly?

To be an epistemological skeptic is to invite the judgment you just killed yourself!. — Agent Smith

I’m not a skeptic.

But how do you know that your experiences are reliable or that you are interpreting them correctly? — Average

So if a surgeon told you about the surgery he just performed and which you just watched performed, you would still be skeptical of the account of the surgeon?

how do I know that the surgeon is real?

Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re using empiricism to verify the validity of empiricism. Doesn’t that seem circular? — Average

No, empiricism doesn't need validation, it is itself the validation process. Used when one needs only to employ it as a concept in a pursuit of a goal. Such a proposition is like saying, "it sounds like you're using telescopes to validate the use of telescopes." The answer is of course, that is contradictory. If the telescope needed to be validated by itself, it wouldn't be the telescope. Empiricism is used to measure accuracy of one's conceptual faculties. I make an abstraction, I put the abstraction into action and empiricism is what is used to analyze the results. So, in the telescope case, I would generate the abstraction "telescope," use my knowledge and craft skills to achieve the standard I set for what that concept means, then empirically analyze the results for achievement of those standards. Make sense?

And also remember when it comes to circularity, or question beggeing. Such does not apply to sound propositions, or valid propositions. Both are always tauological in nature. For example: A=A always true, always begging the question: sound. Same is true for human as a physical living entity in their capabilties. Circular only applies to our concepts, not our actual physical methods as living beings with an ever working brain that is collecting data ad infinitum.

If the telescope needed to be validated by itself, it wouldn't be the telescope. — Garrett Travers

How do you know that the telescope actually exists? What if it was just a mirage?

How do you know that the telescope actually exists? — Average

Because I conceptualized it, built it, and tested it for the standards I wished to build it with, namely telescope features.

What if it was just a mirage...... Easy, go touch it and use it.

Just real quick. The definition of "know": be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
The way I'd know if it were a mirage, would be exactly the way that the mirage as a proposition in my mind would arise: observing something that generates the concept of the possibility. You've asked the same question twice. Both imply the need for empirical observation after the initial question arises.

You've asked the same question twice. — Garrett Travers

I did that for the sake of clarity. I hope you’ll pardon me.

I did that for the sake of clarity. I hope you’ll pardon me. — Average

How will you know if I will, unless I do?

Because I conceptualized it, built it, and tested it for the standards I wished to build it with, namely telescope features. — Garrett Travers

But how do you know that all of this actually took place? What if you were hallucinating or dreaming and awoke to find yourself in a world where none of that ever took place?

lol I like you.

How will you know if I will, unless I do? — Garrett Travers

I hope you will even if I can’t verify what took place in your heart of hearts.

But how do you know that all of this actually took place? — Average

Because I observed it through multiple data streams across time.

What if you were hallucinating or dreaming and awoke to find yourself in a world where none of that ever took place? — Average

The moment you introduce a scenarion like this, you are taking the person out of the empirical realm, and then asking them how they knew something when hallucinating. How about this. I bet you everything you own, that you will wake up tomorrow, forfending any tragedy, and notice that this message was left to you by Garrett Travers the empricist, and there's no amount of hypothetical propositions you can posit that will change it. And I also guarantee that I will know as much too. That's because the data streams that have been informing my life for months, are exactly as my waking mind arranged them to be. Again to know is to : be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

Meaning, to not know, is for those things not to have happened, that's how you know you don't know. Just think about the things you don't know. They fall directly into that category. Stuff you don't know, because you've never accrued any data on it.

I hope you will even if I can’t verify what took place in your heart of hearts. — Average

Hope. Now, that's the true mirage. Which you know, intuitively.

to know is to : be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. — Garrett Travers

I could ask you how you know that this definition isn’t completely worthless but it seems tangential. I’d prefer to ask you what you mean by information or inquiry. But I suppose I’ll start with observation. What qualifies as an observation in your view? Do you use the word like others do? Meaning that it refers to something nebulous like someone’s opinion.

I could ask you how you know that this definition isn’t completely worthless but it seems tangential. — Average

Because it's actually just a symbolic term we've ascribed to the objective phenomenon of accruing data, and using that data to refine our behaviors. The word comes after the phenomena.

information — Average

Information: facts provided or learned about something or someone.
inquiry: an act of asking for information.

See the feedback loop here?

know: be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
Information: facts provided or learned about something or someone.
inquiry: an act of asking for information.

All on repeat forever.

What qualifies as an observation in your view? — Average

The observation is of itself so. It is qualified as a phenomenon, just as a tree is that exists, doesn't to be qualified, it's self-emergent. Empiricism is how I test the abstractions from those self-emergent data accruing phenomenon. To ask the question "how do you qualify it," is to have already answered it by knowing you asked the question. You couldn't ask a question unless the proposition had already been accepted as verified data of something you could do. Which is why you probably can't speak mandarin, and can't even attempt it. That's any language one can't speak.

Meaning that it refers to something nebulous like someone’s opinion. — Average

No. Words have meaning. Jus define them, and you have a reference frame to orient your thoughts.

Information: facts provided or learned about something or someone. — Garrett Travers

But how do you discern fact from fiction? If it’s with more “information” then I’m sorry but I just can’t see how that isn’t circular.

it's actually just a symbolic term we've ascribed to the objective phenomenon of accruing data — Garrett Travers

I’m not a nerd so don’t really know what data is. It sounds like a synonym for information and I’ve already outlined my thoughts on that in my previous response.