oops, that wasn't supposed to be in there. No, that was not my intent, thanks gabby. :)
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Exercising the reader's intuition does not lead to more power > but describes an accelerated decomposition process - is that what you are > saying? > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM, 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. >> >> Knowledge is power, right? >> >> I object to some attempts to create an atomic image of knowledge, it >> is a handy word we have to represent a multidimensional landscape, not >> at all a map though inspection can turn up markers to gain >> orientation, direction. I found most of that article an endurance >> exercise, maybe I was tired last night or my right-brain cringing, it >> seemed to take a very long time for the discussion to even scrape the >> surface of my first intuitive inclinations (Craig's >> historical-adaptation perspective, pluralism). Caveat the strictures >> of educational institutions, whatever they were, it read more as an >> assignment than my liking. >> >> Outside of the processes for learning and teaching, acquisition, >> refinement and transmission of human comprehension I am not sure there >> is so much an independent value to knowledge other than we have >> developed a rightly firm orientation. To me it is a powerful >> adaptation to our environment, an environment that rewards >> comprehension with success, it seems a slight advancement over the >> process of gene survival albeit highly accelerated. It exists in the >> domain of meta I think, as good faith representations (Baudrillards >> first order simulacra) of observed phenomena. There is no fundamental >> unit, no perfection, but stringent natural processes built on the >> tools and faculties >> >> Knowledge is not a lucky cup of coffee, neither is a lucky cup of >> coffee as valuable as a malfunctional coffee maker. Without reference >> these entities simply do not exist, what point would there be to >> immaculately produce an entity devoid of reference to any antecedent >> causes, purpose, or function and then place values on it presto-magic! >> The result is what I think the logical positivist would call 'lacking >> in cognitive content', by eliminating reality and dealing entirely in >> symbols we are in the domain of third order simulacra, without meaning >> (and what is that knowledge), vacuous, unverifiable. >> >> Just my irritability speaking- that doesn't mean that the desire to >> comprehend these things is without value, I just think it is mostly an >> exercise presented in a way that is difficult to derive meaning from >> and left mostly to the reader's intuition. >> >> > >> > 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. >> >> >> is a story of accelerated decomposition > >
