technomage
April 20th 2005, 02:18 PM
Hello my friends, you made it. Be at peace, and be welcome by the fire. The cider is well mulled, and this time we have a fruit plate for snacks...what's that? "Give me s'mores, or give me death?" Well, you're no Patrick Henry, but if you want virtual s'mores, you've got 'em. :smile:
"Virtual" s'mores around a "virtual" campfire. Yes, it's a quaint conceit, but it illustrates a point: the Internet is a tremendous way to transmit data--including numbers, words, information, pictures, graphs, charts...or whatever--but it does little to transmit Knowledge, and even less to transmit Truth. Oh, I can tell you what I have learned, or what I believe. I can show you my experiences, or describe my vision. I can even make an analysis of facts, or a statement of Faith; but none of these will either inform or enlighten you, unless you take that data and experience it yourself, in some form or another. So we can have an amusing mention of "virtual" s'mores, but if you have never had one, do you know what they taste like?
Of course not, unless you've tasted one. And that brings me to my first point: knowledge has limits. But before we start discussing what the limits of knowledge are, perhaps we'd better define our terms.
What is Knowledge?
For to see Mad Tom of Bedlam
Ten thousand miles I've traveled
Mad Maudlin goes on dirty toes
For to save her shoes from gravel.
Chorus:
Still I sing bonnie boys, bonnie mad boys,
Bedlam boys are bonnie.
For they all go bare, and they live by the air,
And they want no drink nor money.
We probably all agree that it is possible to know certain things. Where we get into trouble is assuming that we all accept the same sources of knowledge as having equal value--or that what you call "knowledge," I refer to by the same term.
Perhaps we'd better start by getting some common definitions going. Here are some words, and the corresponding definitions, as I use them. These definitions may not match your own understanding, or what is in your dictionary: that doesn't mean that your definitions are wrong. Dictionaries tend to include all of the meanings for a word, and you're left with a word that's rather like a sledgehammer--it hits a large target. Because of the nature of what I am writing about, I have to use these words with a great deal more precision than is usual for English (which is frequently a very sloppy language), so I'm trying to make these definitions very narrow and specific. This list gives you a convenient "translation table" for the terms as I use them.
Definitions, Part 1:
Fact: a discernable, objective, and quantifiable piece of information about the Universe, a person, or whatever.
Discernable: Able to be observed by human senses, or by human-made instrumentation.
Objective: Able to be discerned by all humans who possess the appropriate senses.
Quantifiable: able to be measured: light is quantifiable by how bright it is, and by what frequencies are present.
Knowledge:
A person's aggregation of facts that they possess.
Theoretically, the sum total of facts discovered by humanity.
Science: A method of inquiry that deals with discovering, discerning, and quantifying information about the physical universe. Science deals solely with fact.
Scientific method: The Scientific method is the methodology of inquiry in science, involving several steps.
A person notices an occurrence, or sees an event, or wonders "What if...." This is the idea: it's not formally part of the scientific method, but this is where everything starts.
The person thinks about this idea and develops a falsifiable hypothesis. This is a general statement about his idea that can be tested and disproved--not "tested and proved," and the distinction is very important, but we'll get to it in Chapter 3.
The person tries to prove himself wrong. He uses every test he can think of--or that anyone he can get interested in his idea can think of--to try to disprove the hypothesis. If the tests succeed in disproving his idea, he discards his hypothesis and goes back to step one: if not, he has a theory. Briefly stated, A theory is a hypothesis with proof behind it.
He publishes his idea, and the scientific community as a whole tests the idea. If an idea cannot be disproved, and other scientists develop other theories on it, it may be established as a scientific law.
OK, from this first part, you can see what I mean by "narrowing" the definitions. The dictionary definition of the word "fact" does not care if the statement being evaluated is quantifiable or objective, but for our purposes both aspects are important.
One other thing about the word "fact"--what is considered a fact today may be disproved tomorrow. Facts are not permanent--they are only facts as long as they are not contradicted by new data.
Sounds fairly reasonable so far? Any problems? OK, let's go to part two of the definitions:
Definitions, Part 2:
Opinion: A subjective statement that deals with a person's own preferences, prejudices, likes, and dislikes.
Belief: A profoundly important subjective statement that deals with some segment of a person's world-view.
Faith:
(n) The aggregate total of a person's individual beliefs;
(n) The possession of a belief, or of many beliefs. ("So-and-so has faith in the validity of Capitalism." and "So-and-so has faith in the power of the Goddess" both reflect definition B of Faith.)
(n) A method of inquiry or investigation into areas that are already believed ("deepening" one's faith), or into issues not already covered by one's beliefs ("broadening" one's faith). Faith deals solely with belief.
Here, possibly, is where the argument starts, because the way I have these words defined, opinion is a "sub-set" of belief. Both are subjective statements, and the only difference between the two is relative importance. Don't believe it? Imagine talking to one of your co-workers who happens to be a fan of a particular baseball team. Whether it happens to be the Atlanta Braves, the Houston Astros, or the Chicago Cubs, you probably know someone who would rather watch their favorite team than eat when they were hungry. Would you care to define the line between "opinion" and "belief" in that case?
It's important to understand that, though we make a distinction here between things that we know (knowledge, fact, and science), and things that we believe (opinion, belief, and faith), this distinction rapidly disappears when your dealing with people and the way that they think. As people, we normally don't bother separating knowledge and belief when we're dealing with the world around us. Indeed, we often attach emotional meaning to both our knowledge and our beliefs.
We'll discuss the difference between knowledge and belief, and how they affect understanding, in a later section. Let's get back to the definitions--hold on tight, 'cause now we're going to the tough ones:
Definitions, Part 3:
Worldview: The combination of a person's culture, education, and learned values that affect a person's evaluation of the world around him. Worldview can affect a person's choices, actions, ethical decisions, beliefs, and even their interpretation of facts.
Reason: the ability to understand, evaluate, and extrapolate from known facts, within that individual's worldview. Because it is seemingly impossible to completely separate a person's worldview from their ability to reason, Reason is NOT an objective process.
Truth: A statement is true if it reflects or accurately models reality in some manner. To be true by this definition, a particular statement (statement A) must fulfill all of the following statements:
Statement A cannot contradict a known fact (though it may not necessarily reflect a fact); if it does, either the known fact, or Statement A, is wrong;
Statement A may, or may not, be objectively verifiable;
Statement A may, or may not, be understandable by human beings.
In other words, Statement A can be true, and yet not be known or understood by any human being.
By this definition, all facts are true:
A true fact does not contradict other true facts;
Facts are objectively verifiable;
Facts are understandable by human beings.
However, not all truths are factual--by the definition above, a statement may be true even if it is not discernable or objective.
Think about that last statement for a moment. Whatever religion you follow (if you follow one at all), you have certain beliefs concerning the nature of Deity. Whatever your beliefs--whether you believe in Jesus Christ, or the Wiccan God and Goddess, or even if you believe that there is no God--if your statement of belief accurately models the reality of the Divine, then your beliefs are true. The problem comes in with the fact that your beliefs cannot be objectively verified: the Gods will not step on a scale to be measured, and we have no objective basis that will convince all people of the same beliefs--yours or any one else's. If your beliefs accurately model the reality of God, then your beliefs are true, but because of the lack of objective verification, your beliefs (by the above definitions) cannot be considered facts.
Whew! OK, if you made it all the way through that, congratulate yourself. Take a break for a few minutes, and then come back to the fire and we'll continue.
"Virtual" s'mores around a "virtual" campfire. Yes, it's a quaint conceit, but it illustrates a point: the Internet is a tremendous way to transmit data--including numbers, words, information, pictures, graphs, charts...or whatever--but it does little to transmit Knowledge, and even less to transmit Truth. Oh, I can tell you what I have learned, or what I believe. I can show you my experiences, or describe my vision. I can even make an analysis of facts, or a statement of Faith; but none of these will either inform or enlighten you, unless you take that data and experience it yourself, in some form or another. So we can have an amusing mention of "virtual" s'mores, but if you have never had one, do you know what they taste like?
Of course not, unless you've tasted one. And that brings me to my first point: knowledge has limits. But before we start discussing what the limits of knowledge are, perhaps we'd better define our terms.
What is Knowledge?
For to see Mad Tom of Bedlam
Ten thousand miles I've traveled
Mad Maudlin goes on dirty toes
For to save her shoes from gravel.
Chorus:
Still I sing bonnie boys, bonnie mad boys,
Bedlam boys are bonnie.
For they all go bare, and they live by the air,
And they want no drink nor money.
We probably all agree that it is possible to know certain things. Where we get into trouble is assuming that we all accept the same sources of knowledge as having equal value--or that what you call "knowledge," I refer to by the same term.
Perhaps we'd better start by getting some common definitions going. Here are some words, and the corresponding definitions, as I use them. These definitions may not match your own understanding, or what is in your dictionary: that doesn't mean that your definitions are wrong. Dictionaries tend to include all of the meanings for a word, and you're left with a word that's rather like a sledgehammer--it hits a large target. Because of the nature of what I am writing about, I have to use these words with a great deal more precision than is usual for English (which is frequently a very sloppy language), so I'm trying to make these definitions very narrow and specific. This list gives you a convenient "translation table" for the terms as I use them.
Definitions, Part 1:
Fact: a discernable, objective, and quantifiable piece of information about the Universe, a person, or whatever.
Discernable: Able to be observed by human senses, or by human-made instrumentation.
Objective: Able to be discerned by all humans who possess the appropriate senses.
Quantifiable: able to be measured: light is quantifiable by how bright it is, and by what frequencies are present.
Knowledge:
A person's aggregation of facts that they possess.
Theoretically, the sum total of facts discovered by humanity.
Science: A method of inquiry that deals with discovering, discerning, and quantifying information about the physical universe. Science deals solely with fact.
Scientific method: The Scientific method is the methodology of inquiry in science, involving several steps.
A person notices an occurrence, or sees an event, or wonders "What if...." This is the idea: it's not formally part of the scientific method, but this is where everything starts.
The person thinks about this idea and develops a falsifiable hypothesis. This is a general statement about his idea that can be tested and disproved--not "tested and proved," and the distinction is very important, but we'll get to it in Chapter 3.
The person tries to prove himself wrong. He uses every test he can think of--or that anyone he can get interested in his idea can think of--to try to disprove the hypothesis. If the tests succeed in disproving his idea, he discards his hypothesis and goes back to step one: if not, he has a theory. Briefly stated, A theory is a hypothesis with proof behind it.
He publishes his idea, and the scientific community as a whole tests the idea. If an idea cannot be disproved, and other scientists develop other theories on it, it may be established as a scientific law.
OK, from this first part, you can see what I mean by "narrowing" the definitions. The dictionary definition of the word "fact" does not care if the statement being evaluated is quantifiable or objective, but for our purposes both aspects are important.
One other thing about the word "fact"--what is considered a fact today may be disproved tomorrow. Facts are not permanent--they are only facts as long as they are not contradicted by new data.
Sounds fairly reasonable so far? Any problems? OK, let's go to part two of the definitions:
Definitions, Part 2:
Opinion: A subjective statement that deals with a person's own preferences, prejudices, likes, and dislikes.
Belief: A profoundly important subjective statement that deals with some segment of a person's world-view.
Faith:
(n) The aggregate total of a person's individual beliefs;
(n) The possession of a belief, or of many beliefs. ("So-and-so has faith in the validity of Capitalism." and "So-and-so has faith in the power of the Goddess" both reflect definition B of Faith.)
(n) A method of inquiry or investigation into areas that are already believed ("deepening" one's faith), or into issues not already covered by one's beliefs ("broadening" one's faith). Faith deals solely with belief.
Here, possibly, is where the argument starts, because the way I have these words defined, opinion is a "sub-set" of belief. Both are subjective statements, and the only difference between the two is relative importance. Don't believe it? Imagine talking to one of your co-workers who happens to be a fan of a particular baseball team. Whether it happens to be the Atlanta Braves, the Houston Astros, or the Chicago Cubs, you probably know someone who would rather watch their favorite team than eat when they were hungry. Would you care to define the line between "opinion" and "belief" in that case?
It's important to understand that, though we make a distinction here between things that we know (knowledge, fact, and science), and things that we believe (opinion, belief, and faith), this distinction rapidly disappears when your dealing with people and the way that they think. As people, we normally don't bother separating knowledge and belief when we're dealing with the world around us. Indeed, we often attach emotional meaning to both our knowledge and our beliefs.
We'll discuss the difference between knowledge and belief, and how they affect understanding, in a later section. Let's get back to the definitions--hold on tight, 'cause now we're going to the tough ones:
Definitions, Part 3:
Worldview: The combination of a person's culture, education, and learned values that affect a person's evaluation of the world around him. Worldview can affect a person's choices, actions, ethical decisions, beliefs, and even their interpretation of facts.
Reason: the ability to understand, evaluate, and extrapolate from known facts, within that individual's worldview. Because it is seemingly impossible to completely separate a person's worldview from their ability to reason, Reason is NOT an objective process.
Truth: A statement is true if it reflects or accurately models reality in some manner. To be true by this definition, a particular statement (statement A) must fulfill all of the following statements:
Statement A cannot contradict a known fact (though it may not necessarily reflect a fact); if it does, either the known fact, or Statement A, is wrong;
Statement A may, or may not, be objectively verifiable;
Statement A may, or may not, be understandable by human beings.
In other words, Statement A can be true, and yet not be known or understood by any human being.
By this definition, all facts are true:
A true fact does not contradict other true facts;
Facts are objectively verifiable;
Facts are understandable by human beings.
However, not all truths are factual--by the definition above, a statement may be true even if it is not discernable or objective.
Think about that last statement for a moment. Whatever religion you follow (if you follow one at all), you have certain beliefs concerning the nature of Deity. Whatever your beliefs--whether you believe in Jesus Christ, or the Wiccan God and Goddess, or even if you believe that there is no God--if your statement of belief accurately models the reality of the Divine, then your beliefs are true. The problem comes in with the fact that your beliefs cannot be objectively verified: the Gods will not step on a scale to be measured, and we have no objective basis that will convince all people of the same beliefs--yours or any one else's. If your beliefs accurately model the reality of God, then your beliefs are true, but because of the lack of objective verification, your beliefs (by the above definitions) cannot be considered facts.
Whew! OK, if you made it all the way through that, congratulate yourself. Take a break for a few minutes, and then come back to the fire and we'll continue.