. . . as a result of which, once there is an issue, complex questions and limitations of the philosophy of knowledge — Epistemology — emerge. Where, in particular, no scientific theory can be even morally certain. (Yes, as Newtonian Dynamics illustrates, they can be highly empirically reliable in a given gamut of circumstances . . . but as Newtonian Dynamics [vs. Modern Physics] also illustrates, so can models and frameworks known to be strictly inaccurate to reality. Empirical reliability is something we can know to responsible certainty.)
So, it is important for us to understand the subtleties and limitations of knowledge and of knowledge claims.
As we have discussed previously, on balance, a good definition of knowledge (beyond merely one’s strong sense of certitude) . . . and particularly informed by Scientific, forensic and historical cases . . . is that:
knowledge is warranted, credibly true [and so, reliable] belief.
For, first, if we do not actually accept, we cannot know. If we [collectively] do not have a good and responsible reason to hold credibly true and reliable, we cannot know. Of course, having good warrant does not mean, consensus or even consensus of experts. If we do not have good reason in particular to hold claimed knowledge reliable and an accurate description of relevant entities and states of affairs of reality, we cannot know. Where, as Aristotle noted, truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. But, given responsible usage as noted, what we claim to know is subject to being found to have limitations, errors and so needing to be corrected.
Knowledge is not empty dogmatism, even as we must acknowledge that there are certain limited points of knowledge that are self-evident or otherwise undeniably certain beyond correction. Then, too, post Godel, we must ever be aware of that which may be true but is beyond the reach of any given set of first principles or may be beyond our ken as finite, fallible thinkers.
To illustrate, consider a now fairly common denial of objective knowledge, that is of warrant sufficient that we are responsible to accept a warranted claim as known.
It turns out that the assertion or inference or implication or conclusion, there is no objective truth — in general, for morality, for any particular identifiable domain of thought, etc. — is actually precisely what it tries to deny: a claimed, warranted, credible truth. So it is self referential, incoherent and self defeating. The minimal first truth for any given identifiable domain of thought is, that objective knowable truth exists regarding that domain. It may be hard to unearth and validate but it is there. Nihilism or cynicism about knowledge and truth, fail. So do radical skepticism/global hyperskepticism or selective hyperskepticism, or radical relativism or subjectivism or emotivism, or attempts to dismiss knowledge claims as meaningless, etc. No, the narrator looking on at the blind men groping at an elephant implies objective knowledge on his own part. The abuse of this parable fails, too.
Let’s add, that it is an error of our age, to grant skepticism seniority over knowledge. Often, rooted in the futile quest for utter, indisputable certainty, which by its very nature cannot succeed. Skepticism is not an intellectual virtue, though it has become the inferior substitute for one, prudence. Prudence, being the cardinal virtue of being habitually governed by responsible, rational, care-taking reasonable consideration on matters. Thus, it becomes the steersman/sailing master, the kubernetes of the virtues. A wellspring of wisdom.
These general results then set a context for onward understanding of and discussion regarding topics of scientific or general interest where there are disputes and the like.
Including of course on the main focus of this forum, Intelligent Design. That domain of scientific study that addresses the question, are there reliable, observable signs that strongly indicate design as key cause? To which, the well warranted (but hotly disputed) answer is, yes. For simple example we know the difference between complex text in English and randomly typed gibberish — ryja5ikjwrgdsueqgm,tuwtagmduktuk, or repetitive patterns sdsdsdsdsdsd.
So, knowledge is not simple and therefore no domain that is claimed to be knowledge can be simple. END
L&FP 58: Knowledge (including scientific knowledge) is not a simple concept
F/N: For those who would deny objectivity to knowledge, let me build on this from the OP:
That is,
Knowledge is possible, actual, and in key parts, limited.
KF
F/N: A — perhaps, the — central issue in science is not a part of science at all: knowledge, the very meaning of Scientia. It is a question of core philosophy, epistemology. And yes, this entails the secondary nature of particular sciences in the old fashioned sense of domains of carefully established, coherently worked out and summarised knowledge. A sense, that lurks in the error of scientism, which pivots on confining well warranted knowledge to especially the natural sciences and close allies such as Mathematics, driven by a typically naive notion, “THE Scientific Method.” KF
F/N: Dallas Willard, is sobering:
KF
Our knowledge works according to our own worldview and worldview is chosen according of our inner state. We chose freely our inner state(as basic catalysts: arrogance/hate or humility/love) so we can’t blame external agents for our own choice. Our conscience(i/morality) shapes the form of our knowledge .
LCD, you surface the seven — self evident! — first duties of responsible reason, which run in a definite order: to truth, to right reason, to prudence [thus, warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too, to fairness and justice. KF
Therefore morality is higher in hierarchy than knowledge and we can’t extract the morality from knowledge .
LCD, I suggest, perhaps it is even more mysterious. Take a diamond that has been beautifully faceted. Each facet draws on all the others and contributes to all the others, giving the gem its unique fire. Each is a microcosm of the whole, leads to and draws on the all. Or, did you know there is a kind of hologram, that if you break off just a piece you can see the whole 3 d image, just, not as detailed? I think this is like that, the facet-microcosm-holographic principle. Intrinsically, inextricably intertwined wholeness. KF
“Let’s add, that it is an error of our age, to grant skepticism seniority over knowledge.”
Poorly written. In the present time, Marxists, Atheists and Anarchists have taken over social media to spread wrong messages. Period.
LCD at 5,
Not logical. Are you immune to all outside influences? Who or what influences you?
LCD at 7,
Again, not logical. Morality is spread by words, by imparting knowledge. We learn how to behave properly through instruction.
😆 To spread the butter on bread you have to have the butter first ,right ?
Relatd, Marxism, its derivatives, anarchism etc all build on skepticism being held senior to knowledge. Marx for instance started from speaking of how the criticism of religion is the beginning of criticism, and with Fuerbach — you are what you eat [literally], for example — the criticism of religion is complete. This c 1845. The rest is sickening history, not yet finished. Notice, Marx’s trump card was that his variety of Socialism was SCIENTIFIC. As in, he postulated a whole scheme of evolution of culture via hegelian, class struggle based dialectic and successive orders of society proceeding by thesis-antithesis, synthesis ending in the golden age of Communism. Which of course never arrived. In context, having set up crooked yardsticks in place of straight, of course they wish to freely spread crooked messages and suppress any reference to there being a plumb line that is naturally upright and straight. Then, they will eventually fall out over which of the infinitely many possible brands of crookedness is to prevail, with who in domination. And of course, who will be Emmanuel Goldstein, subject of the two minute daily hate. Typically, expressed through confession by projection to the despised other: they are the haters and would be tyrants. Go look in a mirror, and here is a plumb line. KF
F/N: I think Dallas Willard put his finger on the pivotal issue for a power-obsessed, agenda driven era that is dismissive of objectivity:
What happens when warrant and wider prudence, thus truth, are not on the side of your preferred agenda and power game?
The answer in the age of radical revolution echoes Pilate’s notorious, What is truth. Even as, he was knowingly about to do grave injustice.
KF
Today we have other satanists that run the show. They are allowed to do harm because people departed from God and suffering it’s the only road back home.
F/N: Some issues on scientific knowledge claims:
https://www.colinmcginn.net/scientific-knowledge/
This is some of the consideration behind my comment that no scientific theory can attain to moral certainty, as opposed to its empirical reliability.
KF
F/N: Feyerabend on the anarchist’s theses in his reconstructed exchange with Lakatos, For and against Method, p. 113 on:
Something to loosen us up.
KF