Foundations of Knowledge

Prof and I were chin-deep in discussion regarding the foundations of logic in the "Scientists, God and Logic" thread...so I thought I'd get into a different yet related subject Prof wanted to discuss...and that is the foundations of knowledge in general.What is knowledge? Well, dictionary.com has these definitions:1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
The first observation that I'll make is that knowledge has no necessary correspondence with objective reality whatsoever. What we're discussing here is really a process to attain knowledge, which is "cognition". I will give five processes of cognition:1. Being told .
2. Being imagined
3. Being derived
4. Being induced
5. Being observedSo, I will use these as an exhaustive set cognition processes. Given this, we want TRUE KNOWLEDGE!!! We want the facts!!! Why have false knowledge?So...with our knowledge, we need a process of determining veracity - a means of correspondence between pieces of knowledge. The verification of knowledge is where scientific knowledge and religious knowledge may part company.1. Internal consistency.
2. Scientific scrutiny. (scientific method)
3. Positive reinforcement with outside sources and events.I think with this structure, we can analyze the states of religious knowledge and belief systems, versus a strictly scientific or empirical belief system.

For instance, some religionists will learn of God through "being told" (which includes reading), and find internal consistency and positive reinforcement through family life and the joy of belief. The bible will be checked as an outside source to make sure one's knowledge is correct knowledge, and so the belief system stabilizes.

Straight line, boys and girls...don't all fight to respond at once.I think this thread, with a little care and insight, could yield some interesting fruit. For instance: levels of certainty.If one comes to knowledge, we have nothing more than the most raw form of cognition. If, beyond that, one states that this idea is reflective of reality, then a process of investigation must occur.o Unverified. They are merely assumed.o The most primative is the intuition - does it feel right? Many people leave it at that. Feels so right, can't be wrong. This form of verification is extremely dangerous but, sadly, is often the only level of verification with some. o Another level would be internal consistency, as the above construction suggests. Does the idea step on other ideas already believed to be true? Logic is a tool.e.g. God cannot sin.but...God is omniscient! He can do anything! (internal consistency test failure). Something's got to give if one wants to pass the test of internal consistency.o Another level is consistency from outside sources. e.g. "I believe the definition of "slog" is to beat something with a hammer." OK...then how 'bout looking it up in the dictionary? (reference to outside source).slog: To walk or progress with a slow heavy pace; The outside consistency test failed, so alterations must be made to achieve correct knowledge. The bible is another such outside source used to verify knowledge.o Scientific knowledge. If one's beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific knowledge, one faces a formidable foe. Knowledge verified through use of the scientific method is dangerous body of knowledge to ignore. Science has proven itself to be the most reliable, most unassuming means of verifying knowledge veracity claims ever conceived by mankind...and by a longshot. Nothing's even close.Where do your beliefs lie?

ttt until later. I don't have time right now, but this looks like the makings of a good thread.

Why not post this on PhilosophyGround. It seems to be that kind of topic more.


btw,
1. Internal consistency and 3. Positive reinforcement with outside sources and events are my most important criterias for religious knowledge.

Look forward to your comments, Ausgepicht.

FudoMyoo,

We can't even agree on where I put my threads??? ;)

prof and I were discussing related issues on Scientists, God and Logic. If I put it on the PhilosophyGround, he may have missed it.

It could go there though...heck, apprarently I should have put it there. May have received more attention.

The reason I see the construction as incredibly relevent to theological matters is that it analyzes why a scientist may experience nothing but frustration with Christianity, whereas to a religionist, everything's just fine. It's in the verification process of correct knowledge.

Identifying the sources of knowledge is important in order to identify misinterpretations, logical errors, biases and other problems endemic to each category.

e.g. Being Told. The "Proof by Intimidation" logical error is rampant in this one. Why do I believe it? An authority figure told me so! He can't be wrong, can he? This book can't have an error, can it? How do I know it doesn't have an error? Someone told me so! Also, it says so right on page 13 (begging the question).

"We can't even agree on where I put my threads??? ;) "

LOL, actually I think we have been agreeing on quite alot lately, donĀ“t you?