It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How do you arrive at what you KNOW?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis



Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?



Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.


A syllogism can be valid and the conclusion false.

If A
and B
then C

as in:


All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.



Are all mammals, in your experience, dogs?

Formal logic is only a small part of 'how we know'.


I can't remember the rule off hand, but I do know that you can't play with syntax in syllogisms, or something to that effect. As with terriers and dogs, since they are the same thing. If you do, then like you said, the conclusion is invalid, even if the premisses are valid.

It should read this way:

All terriers are dogs.
All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, All terriers are mammals.


But it isn't, is it? Your point please?


I don't know, I'm stumped. But I know that your syllogism is incorrect, and doesn't follow the rules. I have to go back to my logic book and see what the rules are for syllogisms.
edit on 24-9-2016 by Starbuck799 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis



Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?



Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.


A syllogism can be valid and the conclusion false.

If A
and B
then C

as in:


All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.



Are all mammals, in your experience, dogs?

Formal logic is only a small part of 'how we know'.


I can't remember the rule off hand, but I do know that you can't play with syntax in syllogisms, or something to that effect. As with terriers and dogs, since they are the same thing. If you do, then like you said, the conclusion is invalid, even if the premisses are valid.

It should read this way:

All terriers are dogs.
All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, All terriers are mammals.


But it isn't, is it? Your point please?


I don't know, I'm stumped. But I know that your syllogism is incorrect, and doesn't follow the rules. I have to go back to my logic book and see what the rules are for syllogisms.


My point is that a syllogism (of which there are many types) may be valid (in the correct form) with it's premises being true (as in the example I used) and still reach an invalid or untrue conclusion.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd




Just how do I (you) know what you know. How do I (you) come to your beliefs?


Haven't arrived yet and I hate waiting. That ship has sailed and my rainbow is over due.




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
How I arrived?

Uh...? Mom told me!



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Starbuck799

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
* evidence
* reason
* logic
* analysis



Excellent - How do you acquire your evidence? How do you decide what is valid evidence?



Valid evidence:

Look up and study something called syllogisms. It is also part of the study of philosophy, logic is also part of the study of philosophy. Just about all the topics you are discussing here are included in the study of philosophy. You should take a course or read a bunch of philosophy books.


A syllogism can be valid and the conclusion false.

If A
and B
then C

as in:

All terriers are dogs.
All terriers are mammals.
Therefore, All mammals are dogs.


Are all mammals, in your experience, dogs?

Formal logic is only a small part of 'how we know'.


Fallacy:
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.

Okay so, I believe that you are breaking Rule 1 or Rule 2 here, (see the link below.)
faculty.bsc.edu...

Also, if you really want to study Logic, here is just about the best book to do that with:
www.amazon.com...=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

edit on 25-9-2016 by Starbuck799 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I see three methods used to generate knowledge: experiential, informative, and intuitive.

Experiential is that which we experience directly. In my youth, I liked to throw things up and catch them when they came back down (my favorite was a partially-inflated bicycle inner tube). I experienced the fact that things fall toward the ground. We all experience things every day and those things add to our knowledge base. The truth (define truth as that which is always correct under all circumstances) must by definition include all those things we experience in the context we experience them.

Informative is all that which we are told and believe. To continue with the example above, the inner tube fell toward the ground because the mass of the inner tube interacted with the mass of the planet and pulled them together. I was taught that in school, and my experience agreed with it. I therefore took it to be factual. But I also learned that the effect only occurred because of the mass of the planet. The same effect would not occur in space. The context under which I experienced gravity was limited.

Intuitive may not be the best descriptor, but by it I mean those things we reason out inside our minds. Given the experiences I have had with gravity and the teachings I have received on the subject, I can infer what I believe would happen in different circumstances. I might develop a hypothesis of what would happen if I were to approach a black hole, for instance.

Over time, certain tenets (which can be described as individual truths: those things that we feel must be correct in all circumstances you support our beliefs) are formed. I base my world views on these tenets, things like
  • All people have worth
  • All people are both good and evil, in varying degrees
  • The world is round
    That sort of thing... and in my mind, these tenets can never be broken without shattering my entire philosophy.

    One could think of knowledge as a building. Tenets are the foundation that support all knowledge and belief. They are hardened mergers of experience, information, and intuition that are so tightly bound together as to be unshakable. As one ages, more experience, information, and intuition mean more hardened tenets. Atop those tenets are the framework of experience. Surrounding that experience are the walls, the floors, the ceilings, made of information. Then the intuition forms the facade of the building. The glue that ties all this together are the morals... which I define as philosophical beliefs in how things should be, not necessarily how they are.

    I am constantly trying to improve my knowledge base. I do this in all three areas. I contemplate things I experience and are informed of, primarily by considering what I already see as individual truth. If it seems consistent, I tend to accept it. If it seems inconsistent, I then have to look deeper: am I seeing the correct context, is there a motive for the source to promote lies, is the source properly taking context into account, are my intuitions incomplete or incorrect, is part of my information incomplete or incorrect, did I interpret experiences in an incomplete or incorrect context? I may try to broaden my information by researching or taking a class or I may do personal experiments to try and resolve the discrepancy.

    If I can verify my knowledge base, then it follows the information I have been given is incorrect. If I cannot verify my knowledge base, I have to look deeper.

    A good political example is healthcare. My experience tells me healthcare was not a concern in my youth, and that it is too expensive, makes many mistakes, and is too impersonal relative to my youthful experiences. My information tells me that the science is far from complete, that legalities are too complex and expensive, and that there is collusion between medical and pharmaceutical companies. My intuition tells me that there is likely political and financial corruption behind the problems.

    My morals want everyone to have easy access to the best medical care available and for professionals in the field to make an extremely lucrative income for their sacrifices made in obtaining their positions.

    So how do I form an opinion? I originally opposed socialized medicine, because my experiences in my youth were such that I believed the changes already made to the industry were the root causes of the problems. But as I learned about successes in other countries, I began to realize that my early experiences may have had a much different context than what I had noticed. Now I believe socialized healthcare for all is a noble goal that we should try to implement.

    Despite that, experience is showing me that the present system (ACA) does not work.

    Another example: I once believed that Global Warming was a concern, based upon information from scientists. But then, information was presented which was in direct conflict with previous information. As I examined the issue, my intuition told me that there was financial and political incentives for lying on the part of some scientists. As a result, I used my previous knowledge together with my intuition to try and determine truth. I now believe the carbon dioxide theory is a myth propagated for political reasons, and that there are climatic changes occurring from other sources.

    Point being, my opinions changed on both issues, but my tenets and experiences remained. The building not only stood, but was refined, strengthened, and expanded. My knowledge increased by self-reflection and self-examination.

    TheRedneck



  • posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:40 PM
    link   
    a reply to: FyreByrd

    How do you arrive at what you know? You don't. Every single step of logic that predicates peoples beliefs is ultimately based upon some original assumption being true. Even the assumptions we can prove, rely on some other assumption being true.

    As an example, I've been doing a bunch of math proofs lately and even the most basic case of 1+0 = 1 which can be mathematically proven relies on certain assumptions about the meanings of addition, one, and zero and those assumptions can be flawed. If something so basic relies on so many assumptions how can something more complex like the way the economy functions be based on any sort of fact? You can see this with 5 minutes of research too as you'll find many different philosophies of economics, all of which come up with different predictions stemming from any given scenario.

    Even science which is based on discovering the truth operates on the fundamental belief that everything currently known is wrong, either flat out wrong or incomplete (usually incomplete in the case of accepted theories).

    So in the end, my answer to your question is that people arrive at what they know through the emotional fulfillment faith in certain "grains of truth" give them. But what people know rarely reflects the truth of the world. It is highly probable that everything you know is wrong.



    posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:47 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: Starbuck799
    When I was younger, before I got a Uni degree in Computer Science, I remember not thinking that logically, more emotionally. As I grew older and programmed computers more, I learned to tone down the emotion, and ramp up the logic. I found that once I started to think more logically in my work, and gained experience in doing that, I brought it to my everyday life more and more. It was just a natural thing to happen, to me anyway. Once you become logical in your thinking, it just happens that you can no longer look at things without applying logic to just about every situation that you come across. I know it sounds cold, but it's not. Thinking logically has helped me in my life immensely. Like I said though, drives some folks nuts.


    Logic is just another system of beliefs though. Logic is not iron clad, being a computer programmer you're surely aware that you can write a computer function an a near infinite number of ways. These all result in different logic paths, and with some of them you'll get unwanted results. Logic states that if we kill all humans there will be no more war, but it also states that if people can move beyond a need for others resources that there would also be no war.

    Spock ruined the concept of logic, because logic itself is highly emotional and subject to the whims of those writing that logic.



    posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:36 PM
    link   
    a reply to: FyreByrd

    The only way to know anything is to be a really good listener. People who are unwilling to listen are the most ignorant.



    posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:46 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: Aazadan
    a reply to: FyreByrd

    How do you arrive at what you know? You don't. Every single step of logic that predicates peoples beliefs is ultimately based upon some original assumption being true. Even the assumptions we can prove, rely on some other assumption being true.

    As an example, I've been doing a bunch of math proofs lately and even the most basic case of 1+0 = 1 which can be mathematically proven relies on certain assumptions about the meanings of addition, one, and zero and those assumptions can be flawed. If something so basic relies on so many assumptions how can something more complex like the way the economy functions be based on any sort of fact? You can see this with 5 minutes of research too as you'll find many different philosophies of economics, all of which come up with different predictions stemming from any given scenario.

    Even science which is based on discovering the truth operates on the fundamental belief that everything currently known is wrong, either flat out wrong or incomplete (usually incomplete in the case of accepted theories).

    So in the end, my answer to your question is that people arrive at what they know through the emotional fulfillment faith in certain "grains of truth" give them. But what people know rarely reflects the truth of the world. It is highly probable that everything you know is wrong.


    Please excuse the tardy reply.

    I agree hardily with you. The assumptions we base our worldview on are in some cases 'cultural/scientific stipulations' and others are subconscious biases.

    My question is subjective not objective or universal. It's about critical thinking and how, you (each of you), decide on issues. Do you just 'know' what's right or wrong, good or bad, skillful or unskillful? Do you try to evaluate the consequences of an act or just 'act'. Does your 'process' include self-reflection or not. Do your beliefs change over time and what causes that change?

    Those kind of things.

    I've seen my thought processes and behavior change a lot over time. And most of what has changed is do to seeking out and questioning my assumptions/beliefs/prejudices.

    The inferences we make are based on basic (most often unconscious) beliefs that have been conditioned over the years by earlier inferences and outside influences so it's a circular reinforcing loop. Which without conscious effort would appear to lead to ever more limited decision making.

    I did a bit of research as I was confused about some of the responses and wanted to clarify what I was looking for,





    Inference:
    An inference is a step of the mind, an intellectual act by which one concludes that something is true in light of something else’s being true, or seeming to be true. If you come at me with a knife in your hand, I probably would infer that you mean to do me harm. Inferences can be accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical, justified or unjustified.

    Assumption:
    An assumption is something we take for granted or presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.


    www.criticalthinking.org...

    Either can be right or wrong - but the assumption can have deadly consequences when wrong. At least the inference requires some conscious thought - or not???

    I was looking for how to evaluate sources.... LOL



    posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 10:36 PM
    link   
    a reply to: FyreByrd


    While I work on my own process and understanding, will you share your's with me?
    I really should write a book.

    We start off believing in Santa Clause, well, most of us anyways. By the time we are teenagers, we realize that belief may not have been correct. That, is a good pattern for life. Always allow for what you thought you knew to evolve into a new belief as more facts and evidence arrive throughout your life to support a new reality.

    I.Q. is not as important, as information. If you give a functional idiot all the correct information and a gifted thinker half and half, the idiot will look like a genius, and the gifted like a idiot. In other words garbage in, garbage out.

    The trick is being able to decipher what is good honest information, and what is crafted disinformation. For you must always allow for the possibility that certain types of information are not intended to be known by mankind. And as it turns out, that is, a fact of life for me. And that is the reason for paradigms, in the first place (The Box). To keep your wondering mind from wondering too far away from, the gospel.

    You must ask yourself do you want the truth, or, the accepted truth, in any subject your looking at. For the accepted truth must be peer review by someone with credentials, ensuring your opinion remains safely inside the box...

    Be wise not to allow emotions into your decision making process. People run into a great deal of trouble when this happens. This might take a bit of explaining here. I have come to the conclusion that there are two worlds at play in our reality, that of the physical, and that of the spiritual. Instincts belong to the physical as emotions belong to the spiritual. In the physical world we were enslaved by chains and cages. Today, we are enslaved by emotions. And of the two, emotions are the most powerful. Logic can not stand when emotions are in control.

    The last is, time. Time will always be the judge of any truth. Some just take a bit longer than others.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    3
    << 1  2   >>

    log in

    join