Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!oliveb!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <58@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Jul-87 14:26:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.58
Posted: Sat Jul 11 14:26:17 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 16:52:57 EDT
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Distribution: world
Organization: Third Eye Software, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 150
Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty
Summary: Questions concerning the concept of absolute truth

In a personal mailing, Jonathan Buss (pyramid!ames!seismo!watmath!water!jfbuss)
makes some interesting contributions to this discussion which I think deserve
posting:

>We having been discussing the following concepts:
>
>1) Absolute truth; facts which are true (regardless of whether anyone
>   knows or believes them).
>
>2) True beliefs; things someone believes which happen to be absolutely
>   true.
>
>3) Beliefs; someone's understanding of the world.
>
>4) Personal knowledge; the facts which a person knows.
>
>We are asking
>
>A) Are these concepts different?
>
>B) What concepts are relevant to behaviour?
>
>C) Is the concept of absolute truth even meaningful?
>
>D) To what do the common usages of terms like "knowledge," "belief,"
>   and "truth" refer?
>
>To `A' the answer is emphatically yes -- in particular, absulute truth
>is not the same as personal belief or knowledge.  If I read you
>correctly, you agree with me here.  You argue that absolute truth is
>not useful for behaviour, but there is no inconsistency.  Purple
>cows are not useful, either; but the concept of purple cow is
>different from that of milk cow.
>
>We choose actions, of course, according to what we believe.  But we
>don't follow our beliefs *because* they are true.  Rather, we must do
>something, and our beliefs are the best guide we have.  I may decide to
>see a movie if I believe I will like it, but I am rarely in the
>situation of knowing I will like the movie.
>
>In fact, we may act (following our beliefs) even if our beliefs are
>logically inconsistent.  I hold opinions on the proper way to run
>society, because I believe that the methods are best.  But I do not
>believe that *all* of my opinions are correct.  Because the issues are
>quite complex, I find it more likely that I have a mistaken belief
>somewhere.  If I believed that a *particular* belief was incorrect, of
>course I would change it.  But which belief should I change, if I
>can't decide which is incorrect?  I decide not to change any, and thus
>operate with a logically inconsistent set of beliefs.  So I have a
>false belief.  And I know I have a false belief.
>
>In everyday use, knowing and believing are distinguished by the
>certainty of the knowledge or belief.  Actual -- completely tested and
>verified -- knowledge is rare (and may not exist).  But most people
>have no compunction about referring to a firm belief as knowledge.
>
>Western philosophies hold that knowledge is obtained by logical
>reasoning and observation.  Eastern philosophies often admit knowledge
>obtained by mystical insight.  But both admit the possibility of
>actions based on false beliefs.
>
My comments follow:

     The issue of knowing I have a false belief I have dealt with in an earlier
posting, so I won't get into that here.

     I agree that the concept of absolute truth is not the same as personal
knowledge, although a person may be under what I would conceive to be the
misapprehension that he has absolute knowledge.  As I see it, an absolute truth
would be either:

     1.  A state of affairs that exists absolutely, from the viewpoint of an
         "omniscient observer", or independent of any observation, or an
         idea that corresponds to such a state of affairs.

or

     2.  An idea that is assented to with absolute certainty by a person and
         which he is unwilling or unable ever to doubt or reconsider.

I'm not sure I can make sense of the first definition, because the concept of
something the exists absolutely, not as seen from a given point of view, is
difficult to wrap one's wits around.  One could not assign such an object any
particular position, momentum, dimensions, or duration, because all these are
related to the frame of reference of the observer.  A person moving in a
certain direction with respect to the object would see it (per relativity
theory) as longer (or shorter -- I'm not sure which) in that dimension than in
the others.  Depending on the viewpoint of the observer, it would exist before
another event, and from the viewpoint of another observer it could be after
the same event.  One would be unable, in other words, to give a precise
specification of the object -- its location in space/time, shape, and momentum
without specifying which viewpoint one was looking at it from.  The hope of
establishing precise objective truth about the universe is thus long gone.  As
far as *general* truths or laws about the universe are concerned, Bohm and
other physicists have showed (to my satisfaction, at least) that any rules or
"truths" so discovered are highly context-related, not absolute for all
contexts.  So in neither specific detailed description of the universe nor in
general delineation of natural law can one arrive at an absolute truth.  So
I'm not entirely sure that the concept of absolute truth is meaningful, i.e.,
I'm not sure it's a well-formed concept at all.

But even if it is meaningful, there is no way of determining whether one has
arrived at an absolute truth, so it seems a fairly valueless concept, as you
also mentioned.

My inclination is to hang onto the person-centered viewpoint and give a
subjective definition of absolute truth, by which we could say that absolute
truth is possible to a person.  This is definition number 2.  If (as you
suggest -- and English usage would tend to back you up) "knowledge" can be used
to mean a very strong belief or conviction, then absolute knowledge would
simply be *absolute conviction*, which is what I, for practical purposes, think
it is.

If we define absolute knowledge as definition #2, a further question is
relevant: is absolute knowledge a good thing?  The answer to this question is
by no means obvious to me.  In one way, it is desirable, because it would give
stability and predictability to a person's world not to have to keep
questioning and wondering.  Absolute knowledge means never having to change
your mind (might be a good new slogan ;-) ).

In another sense, absolute knowledge in sense #2 is surely the root of much of
the evil that exists in the world.  It is also called bigotry.  A person who
has knowledge in sense #2 generally believes he has knowledge in sense #1.  He
thus feels justified in trying to force his view of the world on others,
because, after all, it is "absolutely true".  He doesn't necessarily feel a
need to *demonstrate* the truth to others.  If he can coerce them into
acknolwedging it as truth, he will -- especially if he has priorly tried,
unsuccessfully, to demonstrate it to them.  I think most interpersonal
conflicts, as well as all religious or ideological wars (i.e. most wars), are
based on people with knowledge #2 claiming knowledge #1 and forcing it on
others.  Since one can never tell whether or not one has knowledge #1, any
claim to have it has this fault.

Therefore, I think we are better off deleting or ignoring concept #1
altogether and not adopting concept #2 either.

In other words, we'll be much better off if we deep-six the whole concept of
absolute truth or absolute knowledge and speak, rather, of interpersonal
commonality or concurrence of belief.  In reading Eric Raymond's recent
thoughtful posting, I think one could describe this as a "verificationalist"
criterion.
-- 
"From his own viewpoint, no one ever has false beliefs; he only *had* false
beliefs."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge