| | Q: Is knowledge is hierarchcal?
A: Some knowledge is hierarchical, and it depends on what you are using to divide and sort your knowledge by. Example: sort and group by confidence. Sort and group by frequency of use. Sort and group by when you learned it. Knowledge is more like a graph. What are the relationships between your ideas? Graphs and trees and linked lists and arrays, oh my! Some ideas require that you first learn other ideas first before you can understand them: Hierarchy of Knowledge.
Q: Is all knowledge either philosophical or scientific?
A: A knowledge base is the set of ideas/information that you think with/perform operations on over a span of time. Some ideas are learned arbitrarily (faith), some through induction & deduction, some through science.
Q: I am thinking about Rand's saying philosophy is the soil, sciences the trees... I am having troubles integrating every day issues in any kind of way into my consciousness. Example: I recently discovered the game Poker. Is the knowledge of the rules of Poker part of any science or philosophy or what, if not?
A: I'd say that you learned the rules of Poker through the learning method called science. Ayn Rand's philosophy would help you answer the questions "How much should I play Poker?" and "What should I try to accomplish while playing poker?"
Q: Another example: Is the mental grasp of a certain building like my school part of metaphysics or do i misunderstand that? Another example: The computer that is standing in front of me is grasped by my brain as "my computer" but what are the wider circumstances of that thought? Where does my mind remember the mental image of my computer, my room etc. Metaphysics? Maybe I simply misunderstand metaphysics. Does is say existence exists and everything that exists has a certain Identity? I am in between the idea that metaphysics only contains the law of identity and the axiom of existence (I don't think that consciousness belongs in the arena of metaphysics) and the idea that everything that exists belongs in the arena of metaphysics which only states the existents existence and identity...Metaphysics contains man's widest abstractions and I thought a particular object like "my computer", poker-rules or a building in front of me would not belong in there. I don't reach the state of being able to say upright that my knowledge represents reality.
A: OK, I think what you are discovering here is that the ideas/information that your brain stores/recalls/perceives/operates on is not the exact same thing as the things that are external of your body. Your brain stores states that you sense and compute by changing the +/- magnitude of inputs to neurons and changing the stability of the magnitude and changing which neurons are connected to which.
Q: Do you agree that it is possible for knowledge to be objective and still be wrong?
A: To me, objective means learned through the scientific method, and yes, I think ideas that are inconsistent with Reality can be added to your knowledge base by making mistakes anywhere in the method.
Q: But in the past history showed that whole blocks of knowledge have been torn down just because a new discovery showed under wider circumstances or from a different perspective some old premises were wrong. I see that everything does have or appears to have a certain identity but I wonder if it is possible that one day in subatomic particles or stuff other laws will be discovered that one hasn't yet identified and which aren't yet observable with our senses or our methods of research (e.g. technical possibilities). My "knowledge" about reality would then be wrong or at least incomplete.
A: Yep.
Q: I after all conclude that one cannot claim absolute certainty for ones knowledge, do you agree? Well, should one speak of knowledge then? For me knowledge is still contrasted with faith and associated with absolute correctness. Is that view incorrect and should I adopt a view of knowledge more associated with logical certainty... "as long as" claims...e.g. as long as nobody has proven a new law that makes the law of identity invalid I have all reasons to believe in its truth and should call it knowledge...?
A: There are a few things you can be absolutely certain of, like something currently exists, you are currently perceiving, 'A' is itself. Then there are tons of things that you can have enough confidence in that you would be highly confident that if you were to predict the results of your actions based on an idea, that your predictions would be consistent with your observations of the results of your actions. I don't say that the ideas in my knowledge base are 100% consistent with Reality. I say that I continually work to increase the consistency of my ideas with Reality, and also increase their utility. You could learn the decimal digits of π or √(2) and you could be very certain that your knowledge is true. But how useful is it?
|
|
