The Problem of Knowledge

[Leif]

November 27, 2005

How do we know something is true? Assuming sensory perception allows us to know a things state of being, this itself is not enough as we can never know something's existence as our senses are limited, if not by mere practical utilization [our eyes cease to function at measurably smaller divisions of a sensed image, i.e. we can not identify individual atoms nor particles] then by limited coverage of matter within given space then sensory knowledge obviously has its limits.

To suppose, as sensory perception would indicate, that the universe is a totality in which a change in one location would create changes in all other locations, then theoretically observing one sensation would immediately indicate not only the true being of one thing, but of all other things in that everything is inseparably connected by reaction. Thus, by seeing a wind blow through a tree, one could deduce not only the existence of a wind, but also the tree, as they are complementary, and thus the soil in which the tree rests, and thus the water in the soil, and thus the entire planet and universe from one arbitrarily defined reaction of matter. Now, while this is theoretically possible, who would dare say that any man knows the entire universe?

One may not know one truth without knowing all truths, as each truth is relative to the whole truth.
Thus, to know one truth is to know all truths.

Is it possible to know a thing, without knowing its complementary things? We would have no conception of wind if not for its reaction with surrounding matter. Thus, to truly know a thing without any lacking information, one must know all things. Any knowledge except all-knowledge remains ambiguous and thus false knowledge. Identifying a tree as separate from soil is only separate in that we define them as such. As universal action and reaction are continuous between any two "pieces" of matter, all things are truly nothing less than a totality which can not be known nor defined as containing separate pieces. Thus, to claim to have "one truth", ex. "the sun releases light", automatically reveals all other truths, in that definitions necessary for that statement would reveal the nature of the universe itself. The sun would have to be defined by its specific place and motion within the universe, which is impossible without the relative position of all other things within the universe, thus leading to a full knowledge of the universe.

Man, being limited in faculties of perception, may not know all knowledge.
Thus, man's inability to know all knowledge, the totality of truths, invalidates his knowledge of any one truth.

We return to a previous question, "Who would say that any man knows all knowledge?" How can an arbitrarily separated entity such as "man," with limited matter and space, and thus limited faculties of perception, know infinite "truths?" Man can not! The truth, any truth, all truth, can never be known by man!

What is man's knowledge, if he knows nothing? Knowledge is faith. All truth is a truth to men solely because they believe it to be. Why is scientific research considered to represent truth, when so often it contradicts itself, and is forced to abandon one truth for another? Science is truth because many men have unshakable faith that it is true. The common perception of science is that it is merely "knowledge." Thus, anything that appears to be false is considered not "science" as its very definition excludes anything false and becomes tautological. Descartes admits that knowledge is merely something which is based upon faith.

[I]"I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains some reason which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on a reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason."

To say that man can concieve of no truth does not mean that truth does not exist, merely that it is outside of his realm of perception. The problem of this thought is that, if we do not know truth, how do we know this statement to be true? How do we know that we do not know truth, if nothing is knowable?

[Leif]

I don't know if this is the appropriate forum. I don't really understand what this forum is for, actually, but it sounded like a good place to stick this thread. :p

[Faustian Dreams]

I generally stay away from epistemological arguments--either because my comprehension of them could benefit from clarification, or because I simply dread them for their lack of functional application to the "real world"--but I believe that such questions are nonetheless interesting to discuss, since they provide us with valuable insight into the thought processes of others.

First off, I would like to point out that this series of sentences consists of faulty applications of logic; "illogic," if you will (:rolleyes: ):
November 27, 2005
To suppose, as sensory perception would indicate, that the universe is a totality in which a change in one location would create changes in all other locations, then theoretically observing one sensation would immediately indicate not only the true being of one thing, but of all other things in that everything is inseparably connected by reaction. Thus, by seeing a wind blow through a tree, one could deduce not only the existence of a wind, but also the tree, as they are complementary, and thus the soil in which the tree rests, and thus the water in the soil, and thus the entire planet and universe from one arbitrarily defined reaction of matter. Now, while this is theoretically possible, who would dare say that any man knows the entire universe?

One may not know one truth without knowing all truths, as each truth is relative to the whole truth.
Thus, to know one truth is to know all truths.

Is it possible to know a thing, without knowing its complementary things? We would have no conception of wind if not for its reaction with surrounding matter. Thus, to truly know a thing without any lacking information, one must know all things. Any knowledge except all-knowledge remains ambiguous and thus false knowledge. Identifying a tree as separate from soil is only separate in that we define them as such. As universal action and reaction are continuous between any two "pieces" of matter, all things are truly nothing less than a totality which can not be known nor defined as containing separate pieces. Thus, to claim to have "one truth", ex. "the sun releases light", automatically reveals all other truths, in that definitions necessary for that statement would reveal the nature of the universe itself. The sun would have to be defined by its specific place and motion within the universe, which is impossible without the relative position of all other things within the universe, thus leading to a full knowledge of the universe.

Man, being limited in faculties of perception, may not know all knowledge.
Thus, man's inability to know all knowledge, the totality of truths, invalidates his knowledge of any one truth.


The issue here is that the author regards an ontological totality of a system, in this case the Universe, holistically. This in itself may not pose as a threat to his argument, but it does when he attempts to convince the reader that the universe cannot be reduced to smaller systems. Newtonian physics relies on this principle almost entirely, and as one can observe, the laws of physics dealt with on a scale where they may be pragmatically applied incur no loss or significant error when computing equations.

Thus, once we are able to divide the Universe into subsystems that function more or less independently, the Universe as a whole may be disregarded in one's dealings with such an aforementioned system.

Similarly, unless one is a materialist outright (;) ), we must regard the scope of the individual's own understanding, because as there are limits to our understanding, as the author states, we can assume we are working with a "closed" system when considering the scope of one's knowledge. Thus, things are either known, understood, and integrated into a person's representation of the world within their mind or it simply does not exist---at least, from their perspective. I may try and conceive of a body of work which discusses the development of democracy, and how arguably more stable and efficient political entities gave way into Westernization or modernity, whatever you wish to call it, but if I cannot find it or if I lack any means of finding it, it truly does not exist. That is, not until it is written, or if it does already exist, I am led to acknowledging it through some means, whether through a thorough search on a search engine, or through insight from another human being who already possesses this knowledge.

This is not an argument for solipsism, as there is no rationalization for such a primitive ideology, but rather an argument against the notion that "truth" is without our grasp, even if we regard things materialistically. When one considers the mental processes, the existence of truth is further bolstered.

Still, I am sure the question will always remain: "What is truth?" That I have shown it exists, does anyone care to continue this dialogue?

[daisy]

true good post my sensories are failing
i am glad for a short time i am able to go tell everyone they might be white albinos underneath their pigmentations because now that my french indian and european irish blue eye pigmentations have faded away i am a white albino that is possibly going blind at age 44
brown eyes is good for albinos. blue eye pigmentation does not last long enough

[Leif]

This thread needs to be moved to Philosophy.

The issue here is that the author regards an ontological totality of a system, in this case the Universe, holistically. This in itself may not pose as a threat to his argument, but it does when he attempts to convince the reader that the universe cannot be reduced to smaller systems. Newtonian physics relies on this principle almost entirely, and as one can observe, the laws of physics dealt with on a scale where they may be pragmatically applied incur no loss or significant error when computing equations.

It has been said that Newtonian "mechanics" fails to explain certain phenomena in very small quantities or at very high speeds. If I knew more about physics I would be happy to discuss that. :p