I think I've gone and muddled my head again ... so bear with me:

When it comes to what we know what is it that we as people can know as indisputable  fact thinking about this hurt my head, so I'll pose it to the community:

the Science vs. Religion thread has spawned many an argument and debate, a lot of the time it comes back to the way science works - nothing is an indisputable fact, it is that fact that has driven science forwards ... so without more waffle onwards to the headache...

things I know the Earth is round, I am held in place by gravity, we orbit "the sun" and great white sharks exist ...

4 really really basic facts. I don't think anyone would argue about these "facts" now ... however thinking about just these 4 simple things, if someone asked me "are those indisputable facts" you can't say yes, the scientist in me would need proof ... and thus we have the conundrum ... how do we know what we know ...

Proof, in science terms this is the information that backs up a theory, however in this thread it is to become the information that a human being needs to know that something is a fact (crucial difference there)

Proof comes in 2 forms, direct observation and second hand knowledge.

For something to be an "undisputable fact" to a human they would need to have direct observation of that fact. For me I have never circumnavigated the globe, or seen the earth from space, so how do I know that the Earth is round?

simple, I have been told the earth is round ... However here's the conundrum, someone told me the earth is round and then I was shown pictures and "proof" that the earth was round, but without direct observation, how can I really know that the Earth is round.

This got me thinking about things that I know, as a direct observation ... the startling thing is how little of my knowledge comes from direct observation. I would say less than 1% of what I "know" is what I have directly observed as happening ...

To counter this I try to read "reputable" sources, however I would think that my "reputable passed on knowledge" is around only 25% of what I know ...

All in all I would only be comfortable arguing the toss about stuff I know on only a quarter of everything I know...

So how about you lot, how much do you know through direct observation? how much of your knowledge is simply told to you?

To answer my own thread title, "what do we know?" I would actually say personally, very little about anything...

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

As long as you are going down this "there be monsters and ultimate maddness" type questions, how do you know:

What your birthday is or how old you really are?

Who are really your biological parents?

That the earth is more a of a ball, or orb (actaully I think the current statement is more egg or pear-like)?

Hopefully as part of your education, the dissertation of "facts" is coupled with exemplary experiments that will allow you to see the progress of aquired knowledge that potentially could be tested in your own observations. Otherwise, there are somethings best not looked at too closely and accepted so that you you'll be motivated to actually get up in the morning and at least have a cup of coffee or tea. For the most part, you don't know what you don't know?

---

King of the Typos - Exchequer of Swirl

The Bag:

Balverines eating Milo... I like it!

ah, but that wasn't the point, the point was what do YOU know by the criteria of a direct observation

I know what a year is because I have observed 18 years. so I know that I am at least 18 however what I don't know is the 5 or 6 years before I can remember things properly.

earth = egg, it gets stretched by gravities. But I can't see that personally. Have you?

Otherwise, there are somethings best not looked at too closely and accepted so that you you'll be motivated to actually get up in the morning and at least have a cup of coffee or tea.

that's the thing though isn't it, we would rather forget that we don't know a lot more than we all like to think we did, of course this is why things like the scientific method sprung up, so that we had reputable sources that we could trust to be right and therefore all our brains wouldn't explode because we can't fathom how little of our knowledge is first hand ...

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

The problem with education - at least as far as the Sciences go - is that it operates much like a long con - they give you small facts, let you do a few experiments to prove that those facts can be demonstrated (at least at face value) beyond doubt, then after gaining your trust they hit you with giant "facts" that you do not have the capability to prove or disprove and ask you to accept them as facts. Which you do, because they've earned your trust by letting you blow up pottasium or electroplate your housekeys. It's all bunkum.

---

I dispute the notion that a direct observation of something is sufficient proof of anything. There exists no means by which you can logically tell the difference between a hallucination and a real observation. Your senses are quite capable of deception. Neither can you use second hand knowledge to decipher between a hallucination or reality because there is nothing stopping everyone else in supposed "existence" from being an hallucination. I reject Empiricism as being the result of an elaborate deception and conclude that the only thing I do know, with absolute certainty and from pure reason, is absolutely nothing more than that something exists and, perhaps, also thinks.

Taking a less purely rationalist approach I reject the notion that any one theorem is proved by a single direct observation. To even begin to draw a conclusion like the "Earth orbits the sun" you have to assume the correctness of half a dozen other physical theories. Supposed you try to do it by looking through a telescope. There, with your very first action, you're already make the huge assumption that your knowledge of the laws of optics is absolutely correct, even in the mysteries of space! You're already presuming that your knowledge of geometry is correct or that Euclidean geometry even applies to the interstellar medium. If you try to cicumnavigate the globe your test assumes that every bit of information or science you require to tell if you are actually going round a sphere and not just doubling back on yourself on a plate is correct. You claim something is an undisputed fact by assuming every prerequisite for it to be so as "undisputed fact"!

You may attempt to find some sort of set of axioms of facts, by which to derive all other facts. There's is no way that can be done in science, not when every theory makes postulates that exist for no more reason than because the results of following such postulates leads to conclusions that fit known data.

---

The Original Crazy Reactionary

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with second hand information for practical purposes. If the question is specifically what I know through direct observation then the answer is that I don't really know. I suppose if I had the time and desire to, I could write down absolutely everything I have learned and know, even dividing each fact into sub facts and categorising them nice and neat. I could then go through the list and tick off each 'fact' that I have directly observed and then work out the percentage, but what is that really?

If you start going down this 'I need to directly observe something to know it' route then we probably don't know anything at all, because everything we know is ultimately based on assumptions that we cannot escape.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

I know it is really cheeky to do so but someone had to throw this one here:

"I know that I know nothing" - or according to Wikipedia "I know as a non knowing"

But, now seriously, I think old Socrates hit the sweet spot right there.

I think in the end all notion of knowing is subjective and what you know to be truth will very much depend on your definition of truth (or rather the definition of absolute or indisputable truth).

Arguably one could say that if person A believes information B is truth, then in person's A world that is true.

Also, if we exclude second hand information we need to be consistent and also exclude any observation made by man made tools, cause they only 'read' what they were built to 'read' (sort of) so its readings are already biased.

In the end Del is right and it all comes down to semantics

---

Descartes argued that the only thing we can truly be sure of is that we, as ourselves, exist.

Everything else is just what we perceive.

---

I only wrote this because I hate you.

LethargicMotivator:

Descartes argued that the only thing we can truly be sure of is that we, as ourselves, exist. Everything else is just what we perceive.

I love when someone manages to bring my point across (or the same one I wanted to bring across) with less words

---

But do we perceive that we exist? What is special about our own existence that makes it the only thing that we can objectively fully know to be true? (stealing from sci fi here, isn't it possible we're genetic copies of the real us who exist in a different universe with 'true' memories lasting only hours? )

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
Hence, I know I exist

---

satansmunchkin:

hey man, just wanted to let you know going to dinner with your wife and plan on boning her until she screams, you'll then get the sloppy seconds

It is possible ... but even if we are copies we exist as copies.

We are aware of our existence ... however that does not mean that we are aware of what type of existence it is

Edit:

ExpiredRascals:

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
Hence, I know I exist

"I think therefore I am" by any chance? My latin is a bit rusty (or non-existent)

---

goncalobms:

ExpiredRascals:

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
Hence, I know I exist

"I think therefore I am" by any chance? My latin is a bit rusty (or non-existent)

actually, I went for the full quote (roughly translated): I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am

stupid pied piper teachers only using the portion that fits their needs... 

---

satansmunchkin:

hey man, just wanted to let you know going to dinner with your wife and plan on boning her until she screams, you'll then get the sloppy seconds

Ok ... cool

Never really got the full quote before

---

@Del - It wasn't really working it out, it was more just thinking about the stuff we take for granted and realising that the rational debates that we see on the forums, and a lot of the counter arguments for those rational debates (especially in the Science vs. Religion thread) tend to focus on the very fact that we can't know much at all if anything, as a consequence it is shown to be completely pointless as a fact ...

Science would tell me that Evolution happens, therefore I would know that evolution happens, but religion would say "ah, but have you seen evolution happening" and so I would have to submit that no, personally I have not seen it happen ...

so going down the crazy extension of this proposed rationalisation against modern science I found myself to be completely devoid of knowledge ...

@the "I think therefore I am"  crowd, I never really liked that notion, it didn't seem to fit right to me ... makes it seem like inanimate objects are not real ... plus, how do you know you aren't simply a cell from a larger organism and that you are simply being forced to think of yourself as a human, where as in actual fact you are nothing more than a cell making up a larger organism ... you would still exist, but you are no more than a dream of your own doing ... so you think therefore you are, but you cannot be sure you are what you think you are

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

Descartes never included "Dubito", he simply said "Cogito Ergo Sum" (or in French Je pense donc je suis). Dubito was added at a later date by another individual. Though it is fair to say Descartes argument was based on doubt of everything, a field of philosophy called "Skepticism".

However Nietzsche disputed Descartes's view and argued it was "It thinks, therefore it exists", something I think Del touched upon and is the version I paraphrased above. The famous Danish philosopher, whose name escapes me at this moment - and then comes back to me as I type - Kierkgaarde also argued against the "I" but for different reasons and didn't produce anything as quotable as Nietzsche.

For the record, the other view point I included in my above post is that of Quine and "Confirmation Holism" which was designed to argue against Popper's Falsfiability.

@Satans, I believe you may be mistaken about what Descartes was trying to say. When he "I think, therefore I am" he didn't mean "I think, therefore I am human". He was simply saying that the fact that he could think necessitated that he also existed. Something that didn't exist could not be expected to think after all. He rejected everything, every fact and every notion and showed with a quite brilliant argument that the only thing you could logically be sure of was that if one thought, one existed. This isn't necessairy complex thoughts, the simple fact there was anything and you knew what it was meant quite logically, that you existed.

Ones own existence is the only thing you can prove through pure reasoning, with no consideration to empirical data. The same annot be said of anyone or anything else. The existence of everything else can be shown to be dubious with reference to the classic Dream Argument, the entire universe is my personal dream and there exists no logical method or test to distinguish between a dream and reality.

Edit So try and summarise in some sort of meaningful way, Descartes was saying "The only thing whose existence I can be sure of is my own, because I think, therefore I must exist." It is an entirely personal argument, Descartes couldonly be sure of Descartes existence. I can only be sure of my own existence and you can only be sure of your existence.  

---

The Original Crazy Reactionary

TheKaiser:

@Satans, I believe you may be mistaken about what Descartes was trying to say. When he "I think, therefore I am" he didn't mean "I think, therefore I am human". He was simply saying that the fact that he could think necessitated that he also existed. Something that didn't exist could not be expected to think after all. He rejected everything, every fact and every notion and showed with a quite brilliant argument that the only thing you could logically be sure of was that if one thought, one existed. This isn't necessairy complex thoughts, the simple fact there was anything and you knew what it was meant quite logically, that you existed.

Ones own existence is the only thing you can prove through pure reasoning, with no consideration to empirical data. The same annot be said of anyone or anything else. The existence of everything else can be shown to be dubious with reference to the classic Dream Argument, the entire universe is my personal dream and there exists no logical method or test to distinguish between a dream and reality.

I know what he's saying, but I disagree, I don't see why the ability to think and reason would logically prove that I exist ... It's a fundamental flaw in his argument. As a thinker I feel that he overlooked the fact that thoughts themselves may not necessitate existance ...

I'm being obtuse now and arguing against a commonly held conventional wisdom .. I'm also not very at philisophical arguments ...

---

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

You propose that something that does not exist can muse on whether or not it exists?

What conclusion do you think it will reach?

But surely you, as an atheist, would not entertain such a world view? You would agree with the statement "God does not exist" but then one could say "I concur, but He still thinks!". Or if one considers thinking a not particularly special action* then it may be argued that the argument can be applied to any action.
"Who tidied this room?"
"God!"
"But He doesn't exist!"
"Ah, but He still sweeps!"
Of course this approach I'm using isn't a logical or a valid argument, it's just scaremongering to frighten people with having to accept non-existent but still thinking fairies and such like.

However, I should credit you with being very deep. I believe more than a few philosophers have taken exception to the fact that Descartes seems to tacitly assume "that which has the property of thinking, exists" with no rigid justification. New and terrifying co-ordinate systems in maths have made me cling to Cartesian co-ordinates and, by association, Rene Descartes himself.

*Yes I appreciate this is rubbish. Thinking is special in Descartes's view because it cannot be hallucinated. Even the act of hallucination implies some sort of thinking.

---

The Original Crazy Reactionary

What I really want to know is; why do we know? If we can know, of course.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

satansmunchkin:

how do you know you aren't simply a cell from a larger organism and that you are simply being forced to think of yourself as a human, where as in actual fact you are nothing more than a cell making up a larger organism ... you would still exist, but you are no more than a dream of your own doing ...

From a social point of view, you more or less are.

Bloody cells with their aspirations of individuality...

---

TheKaiser:

"Who tidied this room?"
"God!"
"But He doesn't exist!"
"Ah, but He still sweeps

That put a smile on my face. Wonderful.


As for Satan's original post, I see two parts to knowledge. One is basically a hierarchy of trust. I have an innate trust in most of my observations, so I take them as almost fully trusted knowledge. From there on I trust information sources that say things that correspond to what I already trust. The more things that correspond, the more I trust the source. I also trust sources that are trusted by other sources that I trust. The longer the path of trust between me and the source, the less I trust that source.

As an example of the latter, if I trust Alice, and Alice trusts Bob, then I also trust Bob – but less than Alice does, because I don't trust Alice absolutely.
As an example of the former, say Carol claims facts A to Z. If I trust A to Y to be true, then that makes me trust Carol, but less than I trust each of those facts. Since I trust Carol, then I also trust Z, but less than I trust Carol (because Carol probably doesn't trust Z absolutely).


The second part to knowledge is assumption. Philosophically, you might claim assumption can never be knowledge, and strictly I would agree. But there are kinds of assumptions that are safe to make. There are two kinds I can immediately think of:
- The assumption or its alternatives are irrelevant. In this case the best assumption is the simplest. An example is the existence of Russell's teapot. It has exactly no bearing on my life whether or not it exists, and thus I assume that it doesn't, since that is easier to explain and understand.

- The alternatives to the assumption imply that my choices are pointless. An example of this is the assumption that I will still be alive in a minute. If this is not true, then no choices I make matter. But I do want to make choices. Therefore I might as well assume I'll be alive, since it is the only conceivably convenient option.


As an aside, you can infer that the Earth is round from observing that something that just barely disappears around the horizon can be seen again if you place yourself higher above the ground. This directly shows that the Earth curves away from you.

TheKaiser:

Edit So try and summarise in some sort of meaningful way, Descartes was saying "The only thing whose existence I can be sure of is my own, because I think, therefore I must exist." It is an entirely personal argument, Descartes couldonly be sure of Descartes existence. I can only be sure of my own existence and you can only be sure of your existence.

Oddly, I feel quite guilty quoting and cutting your posts down to sizeable chunks.

This is what I'm trying to say, and quite probably failing to do so, that in my personal view, that because I can only know that I exist, everything else is simply unknown, for all I know I could be mentally ill, and although I definitely exist, everything else could be just delusion.

This is one of the reasons I'm currently single, how can you love someone if you don't even know if they're real?

---

I only wrote this because I hate you.

The thought has never bothered me. If having sex with nothing feels that then it's all win. In fact, I'm reliably informed that many people have sex with nothing, except really nothing, if you catch my drift and it doesn't feel as . As if having sex with nothing that probably isn't nothing is better, then that nothing must be marginally more something than it otherwise was.

So maybe we could say 'I feel, therefore she is'.

But I probably got sex and love mixed up again.

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

Oh we're men, the two are practically inseparable.

There's something really bothering me though, sorry to derail the thread, but out in my hall there's this music box, that when you touch it, it plays this really haunting tune, like most music boxes do, what's bothered me is that after I went to the bathroom and came back, I sat in my chair, and I heard it begin to play, just for a few seconds, and then stop.

mortar was defecated, etc.

---

I only wrote this because I hate you.

damn i wish we were able to rep people, because I would definitely rep kaiser for his posts in this thread

---

satansmunchkin:

hey man, just wanted to let you know going to dinner with your wife and plan on boning her until she screams, you'll then get the sloppy seconds