You'd get your **** kicked by my undergrads in a couple of minutes.
Your rage is suggestive of feelings of inadequacy. Don't worry, most on this board pity you, and don't judge.
This is not rage, dumbass. That's just me: an ****, yes, but a whole **** load smarter than you, so I don't feel too bad.
And you've certainly been more entertaining than me, albeit inadvertently. Here's one of your comic gems ...
"Reality is ever changing, and our understanding of reality (i.e., knowledge) must change with it."
Woooooo!
Oh, and another piece of comic genius ...
"identifying/understanding/analyzing reality" ... Say, have you figured out what all those slashes mean yet? And what the difference is between explanation and understanding?
... might be time to go read some of those authors I mentioned.
<"Reality is ever changing, and our understanding of reality (i.e., knowledge) must change with it."
Which ancient Greek philosopher stated "you never step in the same river twice"? In other words, reality is always changing, and our knowledge of it must change with it.
the difference is between explanation and understanding?
Your question, if not gibberish, is farcical. To understand is to take in information, and to explain is to dispense information.
apex said:Which ancient Greek philosopher stated "you never step in the same river twice"?
Is this a quiz, or do you seriously not know? I'll give you a hint: name starts with "H", home city with "E" ...
Still, the reference to Heraclitus doesn't vindicate your new age platitude. Of course knowledge and understanding are variable; of course circumstances change. But you still have no clear idea what the hell you mean by "knowledge" and "understanding".
To understand is to take in information, and to explain is to dispense information.
Ah, so simply taking in information suffices for understanding, and spitting it out for explanation? My computer is doing that over the network right now; does it understand when it takes in data, and explain when it sends it out?
Here, let's substitute your definitions into a sentence that captures how we commonly use these terms ...
"I read her confession and understand her motives, but her subsequent choices make no sense; I cannot explain them."
... this becomes, on your definitions ...
"I read her confession and take in information about her motives, but her subsequent choices make no sense; I cannot dispense information about them."
... would you say meaning is preserved here?
And you still haven't explained your definition of knowledge as "identifying/understanding/analyzing reality" -- what do these slashes mean?
There is no point to this discussion, except you think you're demonstrating your cleverness.
Firstly, your computer does not take in information. Information is input into it.
Secondly, the following is awkward and there is poor word choice, but it is logical and makes sense:
"I read her confession and take in information about her motives, but her subsequent choices make no sense; I cannot dispense information about them."
Again, what do you hope to accomplish here?
If you want to refine things further, we can write that to understand is to comprehend, and to explain is to share that comprehension.
your computer does not take in information. Information is input into it.
Explain the distinction: there are countless automated processes on machines across the internet that are sending information, "inputting" it into my computer, which is processing it, then spitting out data to those same automated processes on countless other devices around the internet. What's the distinction here?
the following is awkward and there is poor word choice, but it is logical and makes sense: "I read her confession and take in information about her motives, but her subsequent choices make no sense; I cannot dispense information about them."
I didn't ask if you thought it was "logical" and "made sense". Clearly it is a well-formed sentence in the English language, and clearly it means something. Rather, what I asked was whether you thought meaning was preserved across the two versions. Clearly it isn't, which suggests your definitions are missing something crucial to the concepts as we typically use them when talking about making sense of the world around us.
apex said:
If you want to refine things further, we can write that to understand is to comprehend, and to explain is to share that comprehension.
What do you mean by "comprehend"? And why the fixation on sharing as definitive of explanation? When we explain something, we are clearly doing more than sharing information. After all, if I explain some causal relationship to my satisfaction, in the privacy of my lab, then that's still an explanation, whether or not I share my work.
there are countless automated processes on machines across the internet that are sending information, "inputting" it into my computer, which is processing it, then spitting out data to those same automated processes on countless other devices around the internet. What's the distinction here?
Humans initiate the process, right?
what I asked was whether you thought meaning was preserved across the two versions. Clearly it isn't
It is not as clear as you suggest.
apex said:
Humans initiate the process, right?
which? there are a bunch of processes. Somewhere down the line a human wrote the software - is that what you mean? My computer clearly takes in information in any meaningful sense of that phrase. Stop being nebulous and say what you mean: is your point that understanding is some distinctively human process? Fine, then explain that idea, rather than trying to limit your definition simply to the taking in of information.
apex said:
It is not as clear as you suggest.
yes it is, at the very least because your version of the sentence is simply wrong:
"I read her confession and take in information about her motives, but her subsequent choices make no sense; I cannot dispense information about them."
... but clearly you can "dispense information" about her choices: you can describe them. What you cannot do is explain them in terms of your understanding of her stated motives. Thus meaning is not conserved across these versions, and your definitions are deficient.
... and are you ever going to explain your "definition" of knowledge as "identifying/understanding/analyzing reality"? What do those slashes mean? Do we only have knowledge when we've identified, understood, and analyzed some part of reality? Or will one of these be sufficient for knowledge? If so, which is the sine qua non of knowledge?
Do we only have knowledge when we've identified, understood, and analyzed some part of reality? Or will one of these be sufficient for knowledge?
Yes to your second question.
apex said:
Yes to your second question.
So just to be clear here, it suffices to have knowledge of some part of reality that we either (i) identify that part of reality, or (ii) understand that part of reality (still don't how what that means, in your world, but anyway), or (iii) we analyze that part of reality?
So if we haven't identified (not sure what exactly this means, but sure, whatever) or understood something, but we analyze it (whatever that means), we have a valid knowledge claim? Doesn't that seem at all weird to you, that by your lights we can claim knowledge of something without knowing what it is, and without understanding it, but simply by proceeding with "analysis"? Or that we have secure knowledge simply by identifying something we neither analyse nor understand? I suppose the latter idea would make sense if you meant by "knowledge" something like "acquaintance" (I know gravity exists, but I don't understand it or analyse it), but clearly knowledge-as-mere-acquaintance doesn't exhaust what we mean by the term.
I suppose the latter idea would make sense if you meant by "knowledge" something like "acquaintance" (I know gravity exists, but I don't understand it or analyse it), but clearly knowledge-as-mere-acquaintance doesn't exhaust what we mean by the term.
Okay, so we are in agreement.
apex said:
Okay, so we are in agreement.
Agreement about what?? That you have **** definitions of stuff? Are you seriously going to say that "knowledge-by-mere-acquaintance" exhausts the meaning of "knowledge"? That it's of any use for describing scientific knowledge?
And what about all the other crazy **** you've said? Do you feel any compulsion to explain yourself, after all the stupid things you've said about me? Or are you happy being dumb, ignorant, and a hypocrite?
So far you've (more or less) answered one of my questions, in a way that seems utterly unsatisfying: you think knowledge is gained by identifying, understanding, or analysing a part of reality. You haven't explained what you mean by identification, understanding, or analysis in this context, but now I take you to be saying that mere acquaintance with a thing (certainly a sort of identification), not understanding or analysis, is sufficient to acquire knowledge. That seems pretty much a useless definition for science, although it explains why people can say they have knowledge of things they know nothing about, as when someone discussing a book or memo they haven't read, might nonetheless claim that they are "aware of its contents" ... knowledge of a sort, I suppose, but hardly inspiring ... perhaps this is why the definition appeals to you?
Are you seriously going to say that "knowledge-by-mere-acquaintance" exhausts the meaning of "knowledge"?
It meets the minimum of knowledge.
That it's of any use for describing scientific knowledge?
"Scientific" knowledge is different than simple knowledge. Ideally, scientific knowledge is knowledge about causal mechanisms, but in some fields (especially those that are nascent) we have to content ourselves with descriptive knowledge (information) as the basis of scientific understanding.
apex said:
It meets the minimum of knowledge.
it is a sort of knowledge claim.
Look, you defined knowledge as what you get when you either (i) identify, (ii) understand, or (iii) analyze, some part of reality.
Clearly the "knowledge" that results from (i) is not the same as what results from (ii) and (iii), and you haven't yet told us what you mean by "understand" and "analyse". I cannot see how you can flesh out these categories in a way that doesn't suggest that (iii) is a crucial part of how we gain (ii), in which case you didn't really mean what you said. What you meant was that knowledge about something we've identified emerges when we use some sort of analysis to gain understanding about it. But again, you haven't yet told us what sort of analysis you have in mind, nor what "understanding" means, which leads to the next question ...
Ideally, scientific knowledge is knowledge about causal mechanisms
... and how does one get that knowledge?
how does one get that knowledge?
In the case of political phenomena, by analyzing human cognition.
bump
Dr. Fukuyama, a political scientist, is concerned mostly with the cultural, not biological, aspects of human society. But he explicitly assumes that human social nature is universal and is built around certain evolved behaviors like favoring relatives, reciprocal altruism, creating and following rules, and a propensity for warfare.
Because of this shared human nature, with its biological foundation, “human politics is subject to certain recurring patterns of behavior across time and across cultures,” he writes. It is these worldwide patterns he seeks to describe in an analysis that stretches from prehistoric times to the French Revolution.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/science/08fukuyama.html
dnftt
We may think that what we believe and do is largely under our conscious control, and we may believe that we should try to increase this control by the conscious exercise of reasoning and will power, but Brooks says that this is all wrong. Nondeliberate emotion, perception and intuition are much more important in shaping our lives than reason and will. Knowledge of what makes us tick, Brooks argues, does not come primarily from introspection but must rely on systematic external observation, experiment and statistics.
"Brooks is right to insist that emotional ties, social interaction and the communal transmission of norms are essential in forming individuals for a decent life, and that habit, perception and instinct form a large part of the individual character. But there is moral and intellectual laziness in his sentimental devaluation of conscious reasoning, which is what we have to rely on when our emotions or our inherited norms give unclear or poorly grounded instructions."
Just, like I am sorry to write, there is an intellectual laziness in quant research.
This topic has been closed to new replies.