Philosophy & Science mixer

Matt @Hansel Truly a beautiful analysis of this painting: //
Pete well, I have given it some deep thought; consulted a friend; bounced some ideas around and concluded that: 1) everything has an opposite; a conflict. 2) WISDOM is the purposeful use of knowledge. 3) STUPIDITY is the misguided use (or lack of use) of knowledge. Therefore, you cannot have (know, recognize) WISDOM without also experiencing STUPIDITY... conflict. 1
Pete @Adam my two cents worth, wisdom and conflict are like apples and existentialism; two different concepts; not even the same book let alone chapter and verse... IMHO
Pete oh boy! first message I see is "kill yourself"... tough crowd, eh? 1
Taylor No such thing as objective morality exists and this is a problem. The golden rule should be applied considering most animals (such as ourselves) abide by this.
Eric @Nick Hmmm... to know something requires belief, truth and that your belief has come by justifiable means. Conflict is a tricky word to use there.
Nick Yeah I think wisdom can exist without conflict. Like you can know something without necessarily having conflict about it
Adam Hello there, I would very much like some input on this question: Can wisdom exist without conflict? (The definition of wisdom of course can vary, but each apply. Conflict can be as extreme as two armies battling or mundane as deciding whether or not one wants vanilla ice cream or chocolate... or both)
Hansel The next topic should be on a subject that we could all enjoy, a in-depth look at the very essence of philosophy it's self and it's place in the world and how it differs from science .
Hansel I would like to honor socrates his dedication to his quest for knowledge is a testament to lengths mankind would strive for knowledge and the truth .
Hansel As a side note I'd like to honor public intellectual on a regular bases . Not sure if I'll be able to have this done quarterly or monthly or even daily . For now I like to honor Neil Degrasse Tyson , he's astrophysics with discussions I always deeply enjoy .you can find him and the Heiden planetarium and some of his commentary on star talk a pod cast he host , as well as on the rebutted television series cosmos .
Hansel 1
Hansel Understanding is the accessibility of that information .
Hansel This is by enlarge Is my definition of knowledge ,the only changes I would include is : the distinction from knowledge and understanding . Mainly do to the fact that you could have knowledge of something but not understand it , and vice versa you can understand things with out knowledge of what it is you understand . A good example would be an a scientific equation . Most of us in the general public we would say we understand that we are looking at a mathematical notation but not be able to read it .this stands as an example of an knowledge with out understanding .but what about the other way around ? What about understanding with out knowledge ? Well suppose a police officer where to evacuate a building full of people .No one in the building has any clue to why this is happening , but they would understand what was being conducted was official business .So in this sense knowledge role is divided into parts and as for is example knowledge is the information acquired over time .
Hansel Well I should start by saying that If theirs any Disagreement I don't believe it will come from our definitions of what knowledge is but the justification for that knowledge .with that said a quick google search of knowledge is defined as : knowl·edge ˈnäləj/ noun 1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. "a thirst for knowledge" synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More 2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. "the program had been developed without his knowledge" synonyms: awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; formalcognizance "he slipped away without my knowledge"
Chris @Hansel Either way.
Hansel Well that's awesome ,should we stay on the topic of knowledge and it's meaning or should we switch to a new topic that might be more of a beneficial to the over all conversation ?
Chris @Hansel Reason and observation, I suppose. I welcome a challenge.
Hansel And to Chris I didn't mean to come off condescending and I'm not trying to embarrass you or challenge what it is that what you believe as reasonable .my apologies if I been rude in any way . The only provoking I desire is that of minds and good conversation .
Hansel I just wanted to form a bases in understanding the nature of knowledge and how Chris understood it for clarity sake . If where operating under two different definition of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge .i would imagine we could eliminate a lot of conflict and confusion by doing so . But I'm open to hear what your working definition of knowledge is and what things you consider to have knowledge about .
Joseph @Hansel Jumping in the middle of this conversation. Outside of cogito, the only possibility I see for knowledge is from an all-knowing source or God if you go in for that. But even then it's subject to doubt because of our subjective view. If He tells us, how do we know we understood? And how do we know He is really omniscient? And what good is that knowledge, since one is not usually able to prove that God has told them something? That said, I do have knowledge about a very few things. I know that it can't be proven, and the only difference it makes is in my life choices.
Hansel Hello
Hansel If you don't mind I like to press this point . Where would you say knowledge comes from ?
Chris @Hansel For the most part I think only analytic statements can be known with certainty. But I think the cogito is synthetic, but is the only thing we can know with 100% certainty.
Hansel What's your theory of knowledge ? Do you hold anything to be certain , or do you even believe knowledge is even possible ,or even real ?
Hansel I would consider it causal necessary as all and any assumptions made have extra baggage presupposition that are smuggle in when making claims based on an a understanding of the world and your view about them ( "world view") .I can't claim to know something about the world while simultaneously rejecting all the knowledge I have of it it's logically inconsistent .
Hansel It's a rather obscure term could you define it ? What is phikosophy ?
Chris @Hansel Are you using the phikosophical definition of necessary?
Hansel It's only true if you never claim , assert ,propose anything then sure assumption aren't necessary . But if and when proposing anything then their absolutely necessary as far as I can tell . Their has to be conditions when a claim can be meet and a bases for you proposition to stand otherwise I can't see how we could have a conversation of any kind .unless your a nonfoundationalist we might agree on this point .
Chris @Hansel Isn't it part of the definition of an assumption that it's not necessary?
Hansel If it's possible to determine necessary assumptions everyone has to make when assuming anything then it stands to reason that this could serve as a bases for reasoning about the thing we are most curious about . Then determine failures in logical reasoning about the world . Like a belief that there's such a thing as a square circle .and compare that to a successful form of logical reasoning like 2+2 equal four .we could then Determine if it be systematized by studies the structure of successful logical reasoning and then avoid making argument that model failed logical reasoning .
Chris So you want to rank thoughts in terms of importance? How?
Hansel It's still rather early to tell if it will work , but essential what I want to create a system that's relevant to the subject of thoughts and how we order them . If it's possible then such a system would make coherency amongst philosopher an obtainable and ready measure , not only that but anyone would then be able to in principle determine order of necessary thoughts and unnecessary thought or presumptions . By comparing them to these orders of thoughts and rationality ,it should look like a more elaborate and extensive form of Occam's razor determining greater order of thought from lesser orders of thought and in time my hope is that this system could become all comprehensive , logical and rational to any logical endeavor . But only time will tell ..
Chris @Hansel Units of thought? Do tell!
Hansel Right now these question are of major concern to modern though , the do stand as the most notoriously difficult question in philosophy and do deserve more time meditating on them . Question such as how do we know we are not all brains in vats ? Can you really trust your senses ? and what is truth ? Would ratify our understanding completely if we could answer the question of authentic justification . Right now I'm working on quantifying units of thought to make that job more manageable , progress has been inconsistent .
Chris @Hansel I'm not sure what the minimum requirement is. I haven't gotten that far yet.
Hansel I feel the same way , although we might not have to approach the subject of justification by the most extreme examples it might be possible that is there a point where someone would could ever be justified ? Or what is the minimum requirement to reach justification ?
Chris @Hansel Also, are you using the Greek "noesis" for "understanding?"
Chris @Hansel That's the trouble. We can never be actually justified. Well, almost never. Maybe Socrates had the right idea. I can only see us ever being justified in a priori knowledge. I never found much use in metajustification. It just keeps getting more and more meta.
Hansel The justification comes from a being rationally justified in the understanding and the belief all the information is correct . I would agree that their is a deference between being actually justified and rationally justified . But I'm not sure if anyone can ever claim to be actually justified in any claim .unless we have a clear bases for how to go about determining the standard for actual justification .
Hansel In reverse order first . Would it be funny to claim to have knowledge as everything we sense ? Not in the way I describe it , for instance people have used it in that precise manner as an "acknowledgment " this again places knowledge in the general understanding category whether it's sufficient to be called knowledge remains in question .
Chris @Hansel I figured something like this would happen. If I remember correctly, problems like these exploit the ambiguity of the word "justified" and miss the point. Here, our belief is true, but we are not actually justified as all we really did was take a guess that a place that probably has sheep has sheep. So this is not truly a justification, I think only because we did not see the sheep. Side question: does this mean we have knowledge of everything we sense? That sounds funny, doesn't it?
Hansel An example of a gettier problem would be suppose a you believe you see a sheep in a field where your should is known for having them but it turn out what you saw was actually a dog , you conclude that "their is a sheep in the field !" By chance their is a sheep behind the dog .it would be true that their is a sheep in the field , so the statement would be true and justified as it is know for having sheep and you believe it . So it becomes . True justified belief .
Chris @Hansel Would you share a Gettier problem? It's been so long sense I've thought of any.
Hansel The general consensus for knowledge as you may know is justified true belief . Thank to Edmund Gettier we now have reasons to doubt this as a bases for knowledge . Because of this and other reason I don't consider knowledge in its absolute sense but how it is use for all intensive purposes .understanding is what can be apprehended by the mind in a general sense and knowledge is what is apprehended by the mind in a specified sense of the word . "I understand you" and " know what you mean" I'm not entirely sure that this cover a complete bases for what can be consider knowledge only time will tell if this is sufficient .
Chris @Hansel So first of all we are going to need a definition of knowledge. Do you have one?
Hansel We'll question that concern the theory of knowledge and how we come to know it?, what is knowledge? , can we have knowledge ? I find my self trying to resolve the conflicts that arise when thinking about the nature of inference and deductive arguments ,which are analytic in nature" how do you justify your reasoning "? Do you reason about it ? I find that these question amongst others are essential to get at coherent picture of thought and a good starting point for developing a theory of knowledge .
Chris @Hansel Dude, what in epistemology interets you?