Poll: but, I KNOW the earth is flat!

[NeutralDrow]

Being an epistemology (a branch of philosophy) student, I naturally ask questions. The main question, the main focus of the course is around "how do we KNOW what we know?". Here is a little background knowledge to help you out when it comes to answering this...

Plato, an ancient philosopher, defined knowledge as a "justified true belief." This is the definition of knowledge that is commonly accepted as THE definition of knowledge by almost all philosophers today. You must recognize knowledge as something that is a) specific to individuals, and b) attached to emotion. Back in the day, people KNEW that the earth was flat because it was justified (they could see!), true to individuals, and people believed it. They KNEW, this was their knowledge. The reason there cannot be knowledge without emotion is because believing something requires emotion as a backing force.

"Back in the day?" What, back in 1000 or so B.C.? People have known that the world is round for over 2000 years, now. Sorry man, you just need to use a better example. Maybe the Geocentric solar system hypothesis.

And it's very easy to have knowledge without emotion. My belief or emotion doesn't change the fact that I'm using a computer.

Anyways, the question! Do we REALLY know what we know? How can you be certain that, say, you are reading this?

Because my brain is working and my consciousness is reading what's happening.

What is telling you that you are reading this?

At least three of my senses and countless nerve endings.

How do you know your computer is the color that it is?

Because it absorbs all wavelengths of visible light.

How do you know who your mother is?

Because many, many people have told me and we share enough traits to make it plausible.

How do you know that you look as you do?

Because still water and polished glass have the marvelous property of reflection.

How do you know the earth is round?

Because the implications of a round world fit with the weather patterns, celestial movements, and other varying factors that I observe every day.

 

[AgentChunk]

The truth is whats useful so yes we know the world is round because it is useful for circumnavigation around the world and space exploration. Sense these things both show us it is round their is no reason to think other wise. If something ever show us this is incorrect then the truth would change.

 

[Retardinator]

How do you know who your mother is?

Aha! So you stooped to using low-blow jokes!
In all seriousness, the actual question is why we should even care. It's not like you can change anything regardless of your own philosophy.

 

[BabySinclair]

At the time that you read this, the world/universe/time itself is only 30 seconds old. Prove me wrong

 

[klakkat]

snip

snip

Strictly speaking, "nothing" does exist; though it is a concept that is about as difficult to understand as "infinity." The two are reciprocal concepts; understanding one necessarily implies some understanding of the other.

However, the notion that the universe can expand is a matter of definition only. If the universe is all matter/energy, then it can expand as the matter/energy moves farther away from other matter/energy. If you define the universe as "everything that exists" then it cannot logically expand; it already encompasses everything, so there is no thing that it can expand to contain that it does not already contain. As such, whether the universe is expanding or not is merely a matter of definition.

Yes, nothing can exist, practically, nothing is the absence of everything.
But the concept, as you said, is pretty hard to grasp and even harder to explain.
Logically speaking however, nothing cannot "exist" nothing is "non-existance" in it´s truest form...

In the easiest way, the best example of nothing would be the space between atoms and their neutrons...

I think it would be best to focus on the abstract form of "nothing" rather than the physical form (which your second argument is almost correct on; the physical form is the lack of anything else there, but nothing still has a definite measurable volume and density; the physical form is still very important for spacing of energetic particles without which we wouldn't exist). The abstract form of nothing is most typically represented as "0" and not only exists directly, but is extremely important on modern mathematics and digital logic. Again, this form of nothing does not physically exist and cannot be measured directly, but does exist abstractly.

 

[blankedboy]

If the earth is flat, why can't you see the Himalayan mountains?

/thread

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.
The only thing that I know for certain is that I exist because I can think. I don't know if any of you are real or just some sort of stimuli false interpreted in my brain. Neither can I prove to you that I actually exist. Does that mean nothings real? No. It might all be real, it might all be fake. We'll never know for certain. But until further proof comes along, I'm just gonna go on like all this exists because otherwise I'd go insane. (I'm disappointed that "Cogito ergo sum" wasn't an answer in the poll. I had to pick "We cannot be certain of anything")

Goddammit, junior here has discovered radical skepticism.

Move along, nothing to see.

Sorry that you had to come across this. Did you have to condecend to leave you're high pillar of absolute knowledge to sully you're divine feet with the filth of the ignorant masses? /satire
Seriously, arogant much?

 

[MortisLegio]

There is one question with an undeniable answer: religion is false.

Let's not do this.

Agreed this guys just gonna make a whole lot of trouble

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

What we see is what we know study and acknowlage, what we know and acknowlage knows it's existance par to say.

 

[dagens24]

Being an epistemology (a branch of philosophy) student, I naturally ask questions. The main question, the main focus of the course is around "how do we KNOW what we know?". Here is a little background knowledge to help you out when it comes to answering this...

Plato, an ancient philosopher, defined knowledge as a "justified true belief." This is the definition of knowledge that is commonly accepted as THE definition of knowledge by almost all philosophers today. You must recognize knowledge as something that is a) specific to individuals, and b) attached to emotion. Back in the day, people KNEW that the earth was flat because it was justified (they could see!), true to individuals, and people believed it. They KNEW, this was their knowledge. The reason there cannot be knowledge without emotion is because believing something requires emotion as a backing force.

Anyways, the question! Do we REALLY know what we know? How can you be certain that, say, you are reading this? What is telling you that you are reading this? How do you know your computer is the color that it is? How do you know who your mother is? How do you know that you look as you do? How do you know the earth is round?

I have formulated my own answer to this and will update here soon, so keep checking back!

I find this line of reason to be pretencious; abrassive philosophy for the sake of it. You can argue this idea all you want but at the end of the day you have to accept that reality exists independant of you because there is no other way to live in a reasonable world.

 

[oppp7]

3+3=6, so there is certainty among some things. If there's certainty for some things then there probably is for others.

 

[Megacherv]

I do say that you can't know what's going to happen in the future, it's impossible.
-"I'm going to get married on the 24th of March."
-"Oh really? How do you know that there won't be, for instance, a huge raptor attack, and all of humanity is destroyed?"
-"...what?"

 

[orangeapples]

That's like when people try to explain the whole Tectonic plate shifting Pangea thingy to me. I just don't "see" what everyone else seems to "know."

 

[clzark]

being a psychology student we kinda know that nothing is ever proven

well, to an extent. we learn through patterns and experiences. so we THINK we know how the world works. but really our mind is just thinking "well, when I do do this, the result is NORMALLY this" we may not completely know things, but we know enough to get through the day

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

You've touched on the fallacy of "I think, therefore I am", your thinking may be just some computer simulation, or the thoughts inside another's brain, you may not truly exist.

Actually that's exactly my point. I (note the "I" there) know that I exist because I think. You (once again note the pronoun) know that you exist because you think. Do we know for sure that the other exists. In no way because we don't know if the other is thinking or just the creation of our mind. Other people reading this don't know if we exist or not because they only know for sure that they think. They do not know if we truly think. Thus to them we could just be creations to their minds just as they could be creations of our minds. In conclusion the only thing that you can prove to yourself is that you exist. It is impossible to truly prove anything to anybody else.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

As for the examples you gave- I suppose I can't KNOW who my parents are. Perhaps I was adopted at a very young age.

As for whether I KNOW that I am reading this, and what color my computer is- I do know that beyond a doubt because I am witnessing it empirically.

 

[Ameatypie]

As for the examples you gave- I suppose I can't KNOW who my parents are. Perhaps I was adopted at a very young age.

As for whether I KNOW that I am reading this, and what color my computer is- I do know that beyond a doubt because I am witnessing it empirically.

Which of your senses is telling you this? HOW DO YOU KNOW your senses are not deceiving you? Look at optical illusions, for example. They show just how easily our senses can deceive us.... we cannot be certain of anything, only relatively certain.

 

[Xeros]

"All I know is that there are known knowns and there are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns, things that you don't know that you don't know."