Hi Mario
Clearly your scientific knowledge is highly suspect. Gabe and I told you
what any school-child of a certain age could tell you about the temperature
of boiling water etc. This is why I emphasised the importance of getting
behind commonsense and the need to debunk it as good thinkers and scientists
have done historically. I was genuinly hoping for a good discussion with you
when I asked for examples of what you meant by "true knowledge." I was very
intrigued by such a term and more than politely asked you about it. Indeed I
was keen to learn something new. Unfortunately, all I got was a put-down.
This I can take only to a point and no more I'm afraid.
Let me now tell you what any, repeat, any scientist worth his salt, or has
been schooled in natural science disciplines will tell you. So please check
this info for yourself with absolutely any trained scientists you might
encounter. There must be the odd one you could meet for a chin-wag, even
around the American Rust Belt!
This is also meant for Jose Colaco on the little 'speck' to which you often
refer, and who has hidden behind a little heading he called "Cornel's non
knowledge" relating to my post to you on Goanet. Do show thyself Jose!
1. There is no such thing as "true knowledge." All knowledge is socially
constructed. Thus, numerals, geometric shapes etc are constructed as
heuristic devices to help us to cope with the natural world and generate
order out of chaos. A knowledge base is thus continually invented, made, or
constructed, and it constantly distances itself from taken-for-granted
knowledge, especially in Western medicine, but indeed in most disciplines.
This changes over time. Today in much of the world, 2+2 does add to four.
Yet, a concept like 2 does not exist in all cultures. Other, quite
dissimilar, concepts may be in use. Further, just because today we use
numerals like 0 and 1 (with certain properties) and are so dependent upon
them for computer work, this does not mean they do not have their
sell-by-date. In our own lifetimes, changing technology may require us to go
for totally different symbols and measures to the ones we know and use, just
as also in our own lifetimes, computer concepts and hardware like desktops
or laptops were meaningless to most.
Earlier societies did not use current scientific concepts. Instead they had
alternatives for day to day existence. Then, they might have believed they
had "true knowledge" just as you mistakenly do so today. What happened to
their "true knowledge" is that it got discarded on the way, quite normally,
just as your "true knowledge" is indeed becoming obsolete as we discuss this
issue.
2. I reiterate that, all knowledge is provisional. But there is just one
certainty which I chose not tell you about intentionally. I suppose I should
not have been surprised that you did not hit on the most obvious one!
Because of birth, there is only one certainty--death. However, we do not
know the manner in which it will strike all living creatures. To draw from
your examples, this might be in an aeroplane or falling off a high tower.
Incidentally, relating to your aeroplane illustration, has it not struck you
why passengers tend to be highly insured on a flight? You with your "true
knowledge" mantra indicate that they are safe but they know better-- that
there is no such thing as "true knowledge."
3. In sum we can acquire lots of knowledge around the world but can never be
certain about the truth or absoluteness of such knowledge. Triangles,
squares, rectangles, circles etc do not exist in nature. We have created
them conceptually and made huge advances like flying planes and getting to
the moon etc notwithstanding that there is definitely no such thing as "true
knowledge." Also, all facts, like inventions, are social constructs believe
it or not but I am not a relativist despite so many interesting ideas in
post-modernist thinking.
4. Far from me being comical as you say, you display utter ignorance I am
afraid. Some on Goanet have spent ages on the kind of things we are
discussing here-- on matters to do with the genesis, history, philosophy and
sociology of knowledge by way of an example. Dear Mario, you indicate that
you are not even on the first rung of the ladder on the nature of knowledge.
As for me, I want to learn and have good discussions with people who are
better informed than you appear to be and do want to go beyond commonsense.
As I do not wish to waste my time with someone of pretty limited knowledge
as displayed by you re "true knowledge" terminology, I have no intention of
spending more time on your "commonsense" which is not even terribly common
I'm afraid! Above all, you do not seem to be interested in honest debate and
discussion--but only in unnecessary wasteful put-downs.
Ever yours
Cornel
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list ([email protected])
