How true all that is old friend. There is some German work (Ludwig, Snell) that dissolves some of the alleged discontinuity in science as built on misconception - it's hard stuff but returns some rationality to the field. The key thing is doing - and discovering the nitpicking can end (even if to start again over problems with the core).
For me there is always a moral question cut out of these 'dissections' - if I can make a work process more efficient jobs are lost - and this should considered in any solutions, not ignored under some idea the public sector cavalry will arrive with more. Is there not a moral problem in that knowledge gives competitive advantage to those who can organise it? Etc. On Nov 4, 5:22 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > "...the problem of the criterion - the paradox of > what comes first - k more.nowing what or knowing how ?" > > The problem is more of a consequence of shite academics, this > insistence at reducing everything at the very start to words on a page > on the table in a study room... that took philosophy from the richness > we discover in Spinoza, Descartes, Kant and, even, Sartre, to its run > into the arid sands of logical positivism and Wittgenstein > meaninglessness. > > If we have ever conducted any healthy, fruitful inquiry... we should > know that the what and how go together, though in bursts or quantums. > Quite as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... the criterion must > arise within ourself upon understanding of what and how, as it comes. > > On Nov 4, 2:13 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gabby's is quite a fair summary of the Stanford piece. The Greeks > > were broadly without science, particularly modern brain science that > > shifts us away from the rational in decision-making to a fair degree. > > In the current economic disaster we have loads of people telling us > > they know what to do and extraordinarily boring news coverage of their > > farcical deliberations. At stake around the world is that democracy > > we have only had in promises - one of peace and reasonable > > equality.Most in history that has been claimed as fact or knowledge > > has turned out to be myth,fable or reliant on grand narratives > > (various gods and ethics) and manipulated by dominant groups of one > > kind or another. Gabby has always been quick to point this out with > > one sting or another. Vam's put forward a kind of sane standard that > > still leaves us with the problem of the criterion - the paradox of > > what comes first - knowing what or knowing how? - and thus how > > reliable are our methodologies. > > My own frustrations with philosophy led me to science - but the > > frustrations with science's clerks can be more intense - and both > > areas lack something literature can give and that religion promises. > > On the odd occasion one could find people prepared to pull each > > other's ideas apart the spirit was often brilliant and very unlikely > > to lead to 'Molly's withdrawal'. The spirit of such dialogue gives > > one a sense of security - at lower levels criticism really just > > produces 'backfire' - the situation in which false smearing of the > > other arises and evidence of the contrary opinion leads to a hardening > > of incorrect belief. There is substantial psychological and > > sociological consideration of this. > > It seems to me that one of our first considerations on knowledge needs > > to be the extent to which its influence is legitimate and I doubt much > > of it is. I don't do 'god solutions' though I'd go a long way with > > RP's 'structured human responsibility' from another thread. What I > > want to know more about is how knowledge is generally denied human > > beings. I've taken on teaching some really thick kids once a week and > > may need a brain surgery manual to get anything through. One or two > > of them have gathered they get something unconditional from me - some > > of the others can't grasp the Dylan lyrics I play on 'farming the > > mind'. The are resistant to school and their teachers have noticed > > classes easier to teach with them out of them. Yet away from the > > specifics of their problems, education seems to have done little for > > all of us in our ability to control the small,powerful group who rule. > > I suspect knowledge is much more implicated with dark power than > > enlightenment. And I suspect teaching has little to do with producing > > resourceful humans who can't hack he highly constrained curriculum. > > The Meno question is an irrelevance for me because it has already > > excluded the real difficulties, a key error in problem definition. > > > I was lucky enough to spend some days with African Bushmen years ago > > and their knowledge was very different from mine - but distinctly one > > I'd have needed to learn to survive their environment. Pity I've lost > > touch - I have a feeling they could teach my class more effectively > > than me. > > On Nov 3, 5:22 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sure... I was aware of that in your context ! Thinking about knowing > > > is not knowing enough. It is the being with the knowing that is > > > knowing indeed. > > > > On Nov 3, 3:19 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > More and more, I find myself preferring a quiet mind, beyond the > > > > thinking about knowing. > > > > > On Nov 3, 3:54 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I do see why "you" should considering the Knowledge vs Belief as a > > > > > teaser. It is valid question and has a defined answer. > > > > > > Knowledge is preferable than Belief... because - > > > > > > 1) It is found on known FACTS, usually many more than those specific > > > > > to a central matter < way to Larissa >, triggering familiarity with > > > > > surrounding terrain too ! So, if there was a cloudburst or a landslide > > > > > on the way of belief, knowledge will perhaps offer an alternate way or > > > > > the nearest shelter. > > > > > > 2) It comes in a package including the knowledge of secondary or > > > > > adjunct facts, paths and PROCESSES, tertiary and sub - processes... > > > > > which makes our awareness of any matter, thing, being, person, event > > > > > or phenomena more complete, detailed and certain. > > > > > > 3) It always leads to MORE KNOWLEDGE... more accurate, more extensive, > > > > > things new, more deep... > > > > > > So, why is it considered a teaser... to those of us ? > > > > > > On Nov 3, 1:38 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The question why knowledge is distinctively valuable has an > > > > > > important > > > > > > historical precedent in Plato's Meno in which Socrates raises the > > > > > > question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. > > > > > > Initially, we might appeal to the fact that knowledge appears to be > > > > > > of > > > > > > more practical use than true belief in order to mark this difference > > > > > > in value, but, as Socrates notes, this claim is far from obvious on > > > > > > closer inspection. After all, a true belief about the correct way to > > > > > > Larissa is surely of just as much practical use as knowledge of the > > > > > > way to Larissa—both will get us to our destination. Given that we > > > > > > clearly do value knowledge more than mere true belief, the fact that > > > > > > there is no obvious explanation of why this should be so creates a > > > > > > problem. We will call the issue of why knowledge is more valuable > > > > > > than > > > > > > mere true belief, the Meno problem. > > > > > > > You can get the rest here > > > > > > -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/ > > > > > > > I somehow doubt I will be causing much mouse clicking in posting the > > > > > > link! I did some work on knowledge justification and value whilst > > > > > > bored out of my tree, recovering from a serious injury. I was > > > > > > discovering most of academic study is 'witterpiss for wuckfits' at > > > > > > the > > > > > > time. There's a big snag in the Meno problem in that it restricts > > > > > > us > > > > > > to argument not much informed by science. We could sit down all day > > > > > > trying to define knowledge, which might be nice under the Greek sun > > > > > > with some Rakis, local beer and imported coffee. No one has defined > > > > > > knowledge - rather as we don't have a precise decimal for pi. There > > > > > > are, of course, many definitions. > > > > > > > There are lots of teasers like this in philosophy. My take on this > > > > > > is : > > > > > > 1.there are some things I believe true and have tested > > > > > > scientifically > > > > > > or in mathematical proof - these I trust as knowledge > > > > > > 2. there are some things I think true and can't do the above with. > > > > > > 3. etc. etc. on what I consider reliable or barking. > > > > > > > we worry too much about this kind of stuff and not enough about the > > > > > > issues of the condition of ignorance.
