This seems to boil down to the same topic as https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14597/what-can-i-know-with-100-certainty

Having spent days... months... years... in a state of delusion or deep misinformation about all sorts of things -- all of which seemed perfectly clear and sensible at the time -- it seems that most people are, at times, incapable of distinguishing shit from shinola [a fine brand of smelly brown shoe polish].

Over time, IF we are persistent and studious, we can reduce the amount of delusion and misinformation on which we were operating, say 10 years ago. In other words, rear-view vision is better than forward-facing vision.

The delusion de jour is that I am less deluded in my old age than I was in youth or middle age. One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. Not nearly as much. Age and the ever-closer proximity of death eliminates many of the issues that concerned us in the past. Numerous options are closed now, and over which one might have dithered in the past.

Certainly related, but not the same.

What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct? — Benj96

You are asking: "what is true?"

My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. — Benj96

What one knows is what has been. What another knows one might learn if one pays attention quietly to what they are saying without rehearsing what one knows over, to compare. Your question arises when there is a conflict. One thinks one knows and then discovers that one was wrong, and there is no conflict if one is ready to learn. Only if one tries to hold on to one's knowing does the conflict arise. So one learns that a conflicted mind is the infallible sign.

One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. — BC

This!

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.

The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.

So sometimes things are ahead and sometimes they are behind;
Sometimes breathing is hard, sometimes it comes easily;
Sometimes there is strength and sometimes weakness;
Sometimes one is up and sometimes down.

Therefore the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency. — Tao Te Ching

Given that we acknowledge that we sometimes make mistakes in conversation, we must in some way - I won't attempt here to say just how - be able to identify in reflection when we are mistaken. It then seems that by being careful enough in conversation and pausing to reflect on what has been discussed, we should similarly be able to identify whether we have gone astray in the present as we have done in the past. If we aren't able to decide whether we are somehow misguided in our present conversation by reflecting on our prior mistakes, we might want to pause and ask "what am I actually arguing for, based on what premises, and how could they turn out to be false?"

What one knows is what has been. What another knows one might learn if one pays attention quietly to what they are saying without rehearsing what one knows over, to compare. Your question arises when there is a conflict. One thinks one knows and then discovers that one was wrong, and there is no conflict if one is ready to learn. Only if one tries to hold on to one's knowing does the conflict arise. So one learns that a conflicted mind is the infallible sign. — unenlightened

This reply seems insightful to me: if you approach conversation topics by trying to learn instead of trying to hold on to and state what you already take to know, you cannot be mistaken as there are no stupid questions (at least to some extent).

One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. Not nearly as much. — BC

:up:



I recommend becoming expert at something that involves working with the way things are in reality, where reality will let you know if you are bullshitting yourself about what you know.

In doing so, one can develop recognition of what it is to have expertise, and distinctions between what it is to have expertise and to not have expertise.

My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. — Benj96

I have a pretty firm grasp on some subjects, it's insecure on others and there are some that I have not been able to grasp at all (and some in which I have no interest). I have collected reliable information on some subjects, sketchy on others and and there are some subjects on which my information is fragmentary at best. I know which is which, so I'm confident discussing the ones I'm sure of; the ones I'm not sure of, I check sources before making a statement; the ones in which I'm completely at sea, I steer clear of.

In the past year or two, I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate: I forget names, the correct terminology and quantities. (I also forget peas cooking on the stove and have destroyed several pots, but that's another matter.)

In idle chat, it matters much less whether one's information is strictly accurate, as long as it's plausible and inoffensive. I do make a reasonable effort to avoid calling other people morons, even if I know their opinion is ill-informed.

As for delusions, I've been fortunate enough not to be subjected to intensive indoctrination and it's some help to be an immigrant, so that one can compare very different points of view without necessarily embracing either. If I still have illusions about things like the perfectibility of systems, institutions or humankind, they're fading fast.

I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate — Vera Mont

One Art
Elizabeth Bishop 1911 – 1979

The art of losing isn’t hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.

Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

Then practice losing farther, losing faster:
places, and names, and where it was you meant
to travel. None of these will bring disaster.

I lost my mother’s watch. And look! my last, or
next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster,
some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasn’t a disaster.

—Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident
the art of losing’s not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.

Thanks. She didn't get to do it very long, did she? I've been at this a little while longer, and the fear of losing our minds or each other is very much a looming disaster in old age.

You are asking: "what is true?" — Banno

Not only what is true, but is truth a spectrum or just binary (true or false), are some things more true than others, how do we compare in any meaningful way subjective and objevtive truths, how long are things true for or are things in the past present and future true regardless of whether they endure or not, or whether they have happened or not, or whether we know of them or not, how do we qualify what is true - what ought proof be? Are there unknowable truths? If so what use are they to us? Who knows more or the most of what is true and who knows the least.

It's a broad rumination about truth in general. But yes I am asking "what is true". As well as its auxiliary questions.

Do you believe most people generally trend towards wisdom/ lack of delusion with age and experience? Or is this you referring to your specific case.

. I know which is which — Vera Mont

Well there's the crux of the situation. How do you know that for absolute verbatim truth.

Ive often been convinced I knew which was which to later be sorely corrected. Isn't everything we hold as beliefs attributed some sort of self appointed veracity (otherwise we wouldn't believe them) despite what others or reality for that matter might suggest upon "testing the metal".

I think to know exactly where ones knowledge ends and their ignorance or delusion begins - suggests omniscient qualities of total awareness.

Surely ignorance begins somewhere within "that which you believe to be true and known" which is in fact, incorrect. That which one is adamant they know to be true, but which is not.

Well there's the crux of the situation. How do you know that for absolute verbatim truth — Benj96

Absolute verbatim and exact? Nobody knows that except the omniscient fictitious being. When I'm not sure enough, I check. Most of my life, I have done well enough with a close approximation of what works: have never fallen off a roof or been booed off a stage or poisoned my family with a dinner or caused any grievous harm to patients through misapplication of lab protocol.
It's a bit late to start questioning everything I count on from day to day.

That's fair.

I only ask because as far as I've considered: scientific method has its limitations, philosophy is all too often bogged down by semantics and a viscious cycle of "what do you mean exactly by....", spirituality is at best vague and religions cannot shirk many of their arbitrary and dogmatic principles.

So it seems looking for something fundamental, trustworthy and true either exists and requires factoring in all of these pillars of society or...fundamental truths aren't accessible to us, or ....and probably the most unencouraging of them all...absolute truths don't exist..

Whatever the case may be the limits of trust in the experience and knowledge of others, as with the self, only go so far. The rest is in the realm of the unknown, the uncertain.

I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate
— Vera Mont — BC

Ah, don't feel bad. Humans have been doing that forever. Road signs. Language. Landmarks.

Do you believe most people generally trend towards wisdom/ lack of delusion with age and experience? Or is this you referring to your specific case. — Benj96

I believe people are more alike than they are different. We are all subjected to competing influences as children -- on into adulthood -- that become determining factors as we age. Times and circumstances change for individuals and different influences come to the foreground. An individual may push towards greater wisdom (aka, a wider, more perceptive perspective) or one's delusions may become exaggerated.

We hold ourselves individually responsible for what happens to us (it's in our cultural DNA). To some extent, we are responsible. But one of the benefits of the wider perspective is recognizing where we were, and were not, the prime movers in our life history, and that's just the way it is.

So no, there's nothing special about my specific case. I am grateful things didn't turn out as badly as they might have.

I only ask because as far as I've considered: scientific method has its limitations, — Benj96

But at least the people who use it know not only that it has limitations, but where those limits currently are: that's where the leading edge of research is. When they domesticated laser technology, they learned enough about it to restore the sight of 28 million people in the world. That couldn't happen if the ophthalmic surgeons second-guessed their knowledge every day.
In order to do anything, we have to trust our knowledge of something.

Philosophy is largely speculative and prescriptive. Nobody's life life depends on a philosopher being right in his theories. As for religion, it deals in certainty (assurance, reassurance, moral ascendancy, trust, faith) without knowledge.

Whatever the case may be the limits of trust in the experience and knowledge of others, as with the self, only go so far. — Benj96

If goes far enough to allow individuals, enterprises, cities and nations to function. Maybe not perfectly, but without some degree of confidence in what we're doing, we would be utterly paralyzed.

The rest is in the realm of the unknown, the uncertain. — Benj96

And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't.

In the past year or two — Vera Mont

The pandemic did a number on the brain of all of us.

But yes I am asking "what is true". — Benj96

So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case?

Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96

Both – in sum, context-sensitive, consistent and coherent, contradiction/fallacy-free, fact-based (as much as possible) and parsimonious discursive practices. Indefeasibility, however, is not required (though certainty – lack of evident grounds to either doubt or disbelieve relevant assumptions and statements (Witty) – greatly helps to preserve a discussion from devolving into a circle-jerk of empty rhetoric). YMMV.

So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case? — Banno

That's an interesting question. However such a universal algorithm, method or truth principal for all counts would have to transcend the hard problem, for a start. Unifying both objevtive scientific truths and personal/ subjective/ experiential or private ones.

Not only that, it would have to be so depersonalised that I wonder if human perception, cognition or language is simply too flawed, imprecise or biased to ever fully appreciate it without immediately corrupting it upon interpretation.

I think it is likely that some universal primordial rule or phenomenon does exist that gave rise to every phenomenon in existence. But because its so "undifferentiated" for lack of a better word, that qualifying it is probably inherently impossible.

How does one qualify the universal quality? How does one define that which defines everything? In any meaningful or practical way.

As you have probably realised by now this seemingly parallels with the Eastern philosophy/ spirituality of Daoism/Taoism. An unspoken or unspeakable truth that runs through nature.

Should it indeed exist, the greatest question would be how close can we come to knowing it. Is simple acknowledging we cannot know it the greatest definition one can achieve? Reminds me of Socrates "I know that I know nothing".

. Maybe not perfectly, but without some degree of confidence in what we're doing, we would be utterly paralyzed. — Vera Mont

This is very true. In a way we need to trust something even if we have no concrete nor absolute evidence as to why.

And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't. — Vera Mont

I'm inclined to believe it's a moving target. I think knowledge and uncertainty are mutually dependent and you simply cannot remove one entirely without destroying the other.

Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason. My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct? Is there a universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96

This is basically the path to the slippery slope caused by the fear of skepticism, from Descartes.

“It is now some years since I detected how many were the false beliefs that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was everything I had since constructed on this basis; and from that time I was convinced that I must once for all seriously undertake to rid myself of all the opinions which I had formerly accepted, and commence to build anew from the foundation…” (First Meditation, p. 1)

The disappointment @Benj96 feels about our limitations leads to the same place as the surprise that Descartes experiences. It creates the question: “How does one know?” (“What is true?” as @Banno puts it.) Now the question is taken as: “What is the litmus test?”, but not examining this first step, as Wittgenstein says (PI 308), “commits us to a particular way of looking at the matter” which leads us to where Descartes ends up, which is: how can we be certain? (as @180 Proof says we aspire to, then admit is unattainable) Trapped in that picture, but without an answer, we resign ourselves to “confidence”, “approximations” (as philosophy puts it: “appearance”, “subjective”, “belief”).

I’m trying to point out that the reason for wanting an answer, is that we want to avoid our disappointment and surprise, to not just “know when that is the case [when we are being “rash… stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason]”, but to know it beforehand, before we speak, before we commit ourselves to error or immorality (or to even take us out of the picture altogether, substituting us with “depersonalized” knowledge, as @Benj96 suggests). This desire is how we slide from doubt to hoping knowledge will save us (from being wrong, from being human).

What we overlook is that: there are ways to fix our screw-ups, after the fact (apart from certain predictable knowledge). Our everyday remedies are why Wittgenstein is trying to get us to look at the bigger picture (PI 122)—the ordinary workings (“Grammar”) of each activity. Austin will point out that our unavoidable fallibility is why we have excuses, correction, apologies, etc.—why he focuses on how things fail rather than trying to find something perfect—which hinge more on accepting responsibility (as @BC points out), than knowledge. The continuing nature of discourse is the vehicle from our past errors to our redemption (the awareness @Max2 suggests that we may acknowledge, about ourself); not the solidity of any universal or circumstantial knowledge, logic, or reasoning.

So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case?
— Banno

That's an interesting question. — Benj96

I'd kind of hoped that by asking the question, the absurdity of the idea would become apparent. Could the same algorithm answer questions as diverse as how black holes function and if she loves you?

“commits us to a particular way of looking at the matter” which leads us to where Descartes ends up, — Antony Nickles

See the thread on Rings and Books for more on this.

...we want to avoid our disappointment and surprise — Antony Nickles

Excellent answer.

My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about.

What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct?

Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96

They, figuratively, castrate themselves among those who have yielded themselves up as an audience.

They attempt, however limited, to stretch out all possibilities through which they may fail or be found in error and through humble admittance acknowledge honestly what their true intentions are no matter how arrogant or self-centered. That they don't hide behind authoritative labels, arguments for tradition, or throw out terms indicating their presumptuous forcing of your opinion. Such as truth, objectivity, proven, obvious, rational, etc. They leave as few absolutes besides the most significant ones they wanted to get across but still proliferate their discussion with open endings.

To me its how honest they are of why they do what they do or at least they appear to be presenting that as much. Isn't acknowledging ones' faults seen as a strength?

I'd kind of hoped that by asking the question, the absurdity of the idea would become apparent — Banno

Well I gave you an answer based within absurdity did I not? Something that is unapproachable, unknowable.

So in essence "trial and error" + the "apology/ due humility -forgiveness" dichotomy is the human condition regarding the attainment of knowledge rather than the endeavour to find a first universal principal?

Also I'd like to take this time to commend you on your synesthesis of the various input of different interlocutors in the discussion. It's very refreshing to see a multitude of "in-discussion" references being made in a single post. Well done on that.

In the face of the truth of the human condition that it is possible for things to go wrong, come to a place we are lost—that our very lives might clash—we fixate that it is always a matter of “trial and error” (or appearance and reality; reason or feeling; objective or subjective) and create the fantasy of “first universal principles” to avoid our responsibility to look closer to see how we are ordinarily able to work things out, or work harder to become intelligible to each other, because we always can.

create the fantasy of “first universal principles” to avoid our responsibility to look closer to see how we are ordinarily able to work things out, or work harder to become intelligible to each other, because we always can. — Antony Nickles

I'm not convinced that the desire for a universal principal is simply the result of us wanting to shirk our responsibility or culpability.

Is it a fantasy either? Who really knows. For me that's like saying the desire to understand gravity is a way for us to avoid the responsibility of looking closer at why we pushed Joanne over and made her fall to the ground.