←back to thread

303 points FigurativeVoid | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.792s | source
Show context
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.41842315[source]
> true, because it doesn't make sense to "know" a falsehoood

That's a problem right there. Maybe that made sense to the Greeks, but it definitely doesn't make any sense in the 21st century. "Knowing" falsehoods is something we broadly acknowledge that we all do.

replies(5): >>41842396 #>>41842494 #>>41843126 #>>41845053 #>>41845173 #
naasking ◴[] No.41845053[source]
False propositions are not knowledge, only true propositions are knowledge. Therefore you cannot know something true that is actually false, you can only believe something true that is actually false. Precisely describing how one moves from belief to knowledge is exactly what epistemology is about.
replies(2): >>41845273 #>>41845348 #
1. throw310822 ◴[] No.41845348[source]
> False propositions are not knowledge, only true propositions are knowledge

From my point of view, "to know" is a subjective feeling, an assessment on the degree of faith we put on a statement. "Knowledge" instead is an abstract concept, a corpus of statements, similar to "science". People "know" false stuff all the time (for some definition of "true" and "false", which may also vary).

replies(1): >>41846738 #
2. trashtester ◴[] No.41846738[source]
Precisely, but I think the feeling of knowing may be defined differently for the person having the feeling and from the viewpoint of others.

A flat-earther may feel they "know" the earth is flat. I feel that i "know" that their feeling isn't "true" knowledge.

This is the simple case where we all (in this forum, or at least I hope so) agree. If we consider controversial beliefs, such as the existence of God, where Covid-19 originated or whether we have free will, people will often still feel they "know" the answer.

In other words, the experience of "knowinging" is not only personal, but also interpersonal, and often a source of conflicts. Which may be why people fight over the defintion.

In reality, there are very few things (if any) that can be "known" with absolute certainty. Anyone who has studied modern Physics would "know" that our intuition is a very poor guide to fundamental knowledge.

The scientific method may be better in some ways, but even that can be compromized. Also, it's not really useful for people outside the specific scientific field. For most people, scientific findings are only "known" second hard from seeing the scientists as authorities.

A bigger problem, though, is that a lot of people are misusing the label "scientific" to justify beliefs or propaganda that has only weak (if any) support from the use of hard science.

In the end, I don't think the word "knowledge" has any fundamental correspondence to something essential.

Instead, I see the ability to "know" something as a characteristic of the human brain. It's an ability that causes the brain to lock onto one belief and disregard all others. It appears to be tendency we all have, which means it's probably evolved by evolution due to providing some evolutionary advantage.

The types of "knowledge" that we feel we "know", to the extend that we learn them from others, seem to evolve in parallel to this as memes/memeplexes (using Dawkin's original use of "meme").

Such memes spread in part virously by pure replication. But if they convey advantages to the hosts they may spread more effectively.

For example, after Galilei/Newton, Physics provided several types of competitive advantage to those who saw it as "knowledge". Some economic, some military (like calculating artillery trajectories). This was especially the case in a politically and religously fragmented Europe.

The memeplex of "Science" seems to have grown out of that. Not so much because it produces absolute truths, but more because those who adopted a belief in science could reap benefits from it that allowed them to dominate their neighbours.

In other areas, religious/cultural beliefs (also seen as "knowledge" by te believers) seem to have granted similar power to the believers.

And it seems to me that this is starting to become the case again, especially in areas of the world where the government provides a welfare state to all that prevent scientific knowledge to grant a differential survival/reproductive advantage to those who still base their knowledge on Science.

If so, Western culture may be heading for another Dark Age....

replies(1): >>41847559 #
3. mistermann ◴[] No.41847559[source]
Many great points!

I thought this was interesting:

> Instead, I see the ability to "know" something as a characteristic of the human brain. It's an ability that causes the brain to lock onto one belief and disregard all others. It appears to be tendency we all have, which means it's probably evolved by evolution due to providing some evolutionary advantage.

It is substantially hardware (the brain) and software (the culturally conditioned mind).

Rewind 100 years and consider what most people "knew" that black people were. Now, consider what most people nowadays "know" black people are not. So, definitely an improvement in my opinion, but if we can ever get our heads straight about racial matters I think we'll be well on our way to the second enlightenment.