|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
The Veridicality of Conceptual Discernment Knowledge is often signified by "justified true belief." It is this author's opinion that another signification would better help those seeking truth and understanding--and the value which flows from them. In this short essay, I will explore some past thinking errors (about knowledge and certainty) and offer productive solutions to these errors. A KEY THINKING ERROR Let's start with a thinking error; one which has tended to boggle the otherwise value-producing capability of thinkers: the Fallacy of Infinite Precision. [author's note: to my knowledge, this is the first time a fallacy has been coined for this aspect of reality] The Fallacy of Infinite (acontextual) Precision--or, perhaps it should be called the Heisenberg Fallacy?--would state something (for example) like: ---------- We don't know "pi" (3.1415926 ... ), because it's a simple sign for a complex number, and we don't know this complex number in its entirety (down to the last digit). ---------- The fallacy above states that we have to know everything about something, before we can know anything about something. This is absurd--and there is a better way to go about things. The relevant, unanswered question here is: ---------- Can we differentiate (discern, distinguish) pi from its closest, known cousins, e.g. 22/7 (a simple sign for a number close to pi)? ---------- The answer is yes: ---------- Pi: 3.1415926 ... 22/7: ~ 3.1428571 ---------- In fact, you could pick any number and do this calculation, arriving at an effective distinction. So then, in the present context of knowledge, we can know what pi is; because we can distinguish it from all other known entities. PRODUCTIVE SIGNIFICATION - Is knowledge a belief? Integrating the view above renders a more productive signification of knowledge: BEING ABLE TO DISTINGUISH SOMETHING FROM ALL OTHER KNOWN ENTITIES (VERIDICAL CONCEPTUAL DISCERNMENT) IS WHAT "KNOWLEDGE" IS. A more familiar name for veridical conceptual discernment is--Yep, you guessed it!--contextually-absolute certainty. Knowledge cannot be false (internal contradiction), as can ill-formed beliefs. But this has only led thinkers--such as Hume, or Kant--to limit knowledge to that which is uninformative (Now why don't you meditate on the irony of that, for a minute or two!). As his thought was the clearer of the two, I will focus on a rebuttal to Hume. FROM THE PARTICULAR TO THE GENERAL Hume's main argument is that you cannot ever proceed from the particular to the general. A viciously-stultifying implication of this notion, is that laws (invariants) of nature cannot ever be discovered. Indeed, with a law serving as a standard reference, you COULD proceed from the particular to the general (and scientists successfully HAVE!). Here is a clear example (from Hurley's Logic textbook) of proceeding from the particular to the general--with contextually-absolute certainty; ie. with veridical conceptual discernment: One is a prime number. Three is a prime number. Five is a prime number. Seven is a prime number. ----------------------- Therefore, ALL odd numbers between zero and eight are prime numbers. Most definitely, material entities (e.g. Morning Star, Evening Star, Venus) could be substituted in for the numbers in this "particular-to-the-general" sorites; IF A LAW SUBSUMED THEM (Hume should be rolling over in his grave right about now!). EXPANDED A PRIORI ZONES What explains the clear, counter-intuitive--to Hume, at least--example above (of going from the particular to the general with contextually absolute certainty; or: veridical conceptual discernment), is an expanded a priori zone of a rational agent. Rational agents (e.g. humans) can discover the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of the conclusion, by merely examining particulars--while holding context. There was no pre-existing a priori rule that "ALL odd numbers between zero and eight are prime numbers" but this does not stop a rational agent--who can discover the aspects of reality by examining particulars against a refence standard. In the widest examples (axioms), the reference is the sum of all experiences. CONCLUSION It follows that we really know things; and that we can prove it! Veridical conceptual discernment is, perhaps, the most productive signification of what knowledge is, as it transcends the limitations of alternatives and offers a clear path for identifying knowledge--and for differentiating it from mere belief. -------------- Potential Question: Why not, in the interest of parsimony, name it: Veridical Discernment? Answer: Humans have 2 powers of awareness: perceptual and conceptual. Perceptual power only identifies THAT something exists, not WHAT something is. In its identified purpose (knowing THAT; not necessarily knowing WHAT), perception is veridical--but this purpose is too limited to explain a growing body of productive knowledge--such as that which the sciences display. Conceptual power is used for discovering WHAT exists, and explains our successful building of a body of knowledge by which we help guarantee those values--food production, shelter building, esteem building--that we need to survive as humans. -------------- Postscript: -------------- The main thesis of this article was that: Being able to distinguish something from all other known entities (veridical conceptual discernment) is what "knowledge" is. --------------
Discuss this Article (98 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
