The value of knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The value of knowledge » The value of knowledge

Page: 1 2 3

The value of knowledge

uBeR
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 02, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 60

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:07 PM: Subject: The value of knowledge	#1
There are various arguments for and against the value of knowledge. The assertion is that having true belief is just as good as having knowledge (assuming knowledge, here, means something more than just mere true belief). If my opinion (e.g. the way to Larissa) is true, then the value is in the "truthness" of my belief, not whether I know it or not. Here's an interesting, but somewhat different argument I've run across: "What matters in philosophy is that one obtains the truth. If your opinion is true and correct, then it matters little whether you can defend it with argument or reply to the arguments of others. On the other hand, if your opinion is false, then you will be compounding your errors by defending your opinion with argument and attacking the arguments of more enlightened persons who know the truth. Thus argument is irrelevant to philosophical inquiry." I disagree because I think there is value in knowledge that goes beyond the value of true belief. E.g., Plato discusses it in Meno where he says true belief escapes recollection and that knowledge is tethered to the mind and therefore much more useful. There are other arguments too, but what do you guys think?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid. —Søren Kierkegaard

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 808

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:19 PM:	#2
There is the knowledge we make up by asserting a value or meaning to a thing and the knowledge that is more the intimate connection to things. The truth of a matter doesn't need justification. The assumptions about a matter require evidence.
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 337

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:46 PM:	#3
Knowledge is power. It's supreme. It's God.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 10/29/09 - 12:09 PM:	#4
uBeR, I admire your approach to asessing knowledge, but as an avant-propos I must contribute my opinion on valuation and usefulness then and only then will I be rendering assistance to the discussion. Unfortunately I view value as the effect of an organized series of actions that effected a resulting organized geometry. The geometry is of value because of its intrinsic propertiies and it is useful due to the potential of its extrinsic qualities, Knowledge is similar because knowledge embodies organized properties, Suitably the value of knowledge is embodied by various levels of organization and it is from within one of these implications that professors draw their vaunted reputations in Universities. Need I say more. Yes I should add that in a general sense the value of knowledge is dependant on the conscious human filtering system. On the individual level the real value of a person's knowledge lies with the further organization of knowledge.
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4158

Posted 10/29/09 - 12:38 PM:	#5
uBeR wrote: There are various arguments for and against the value of knowledge. The assertion is that having true belief is just as good as having knowledge (assuming knowledge, here, means something more than just mere true belief). If my opinion (e.g. the way to Larissa) is true, then the value is in the "truthness" of my belief, not whether I know it or not. Here's an interesting, but somewhat different argument I've run across: "What matters in philosophy is that one obtains the truth. If your opinion is true and correct, then it matters little whether you can defend it with argument or reply to the arguments of others. On the other hand, if your opinion is false, then you will be compounding your errors by defending your opinion with argument and attacking the arguments of more enlightened persons who know the truth. Thus argument is irrelevant to philosophical inquiry." I disagree because I think there is value in knowledge that goes beyond the value of true belief. E.g., Plato discusses it in Meno where he says true belief escapes recollection and that knowledge is tethered to the mind and therefore much more useful. There are other arguments too, but what do you guys think? I supose some people might argue that "truth" has some sort of intrinsic value, but as far as I can tell it seems that truth, beliefs, and knowledge are only as valuable as they are useful.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 920

Posted 10/29/09 - 05:00 PM:	#6
wuliheron wrote: I supose some people might argue that "truth" has some sort of intrinsic value, but as far as I can tell it seems that truth, beliefs, and knowledge are only as valuable as they are useful. The theory that evolution provides us beliefs that are useful but not necessarily true implies that intelligence is not necessarily a beneficial thing. That is, perhaps a person with a godlike understanding of the universe would die a quick death due to his inability to survive simply because true knowledge has no value. It's an interesting thought, and as I recall Neitzche said something about the true nature of the world being one of flux, and if one actually perceived things as they really were, the person would not be able to actually function..
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/29/09 - 08:08 PM:	#7
uBeR wrote: "What matters in philosophy is that one obtains the truth. If your opinion is true and correct, then it matters little whether you can defend it with argument or reply to the arguments of others. On the other hand, if your opinion is false, then you will be compounding your errors by defending your opinion with argument and attacking the arguments of more enlightened persons who know the truth. Thus argument is irrelevant to philosophical inquiry." That's a very nice ideal - but how is it to be achieved? How does one get access to what is true (as opposed to what is false)? How does one differentiate true from false? How does one actually GO ABOUT any form of philosophical enquiry? There are (I believe) only two ways that one can attempt to access truth (and neither of them is guaranteed or infallible): 1) Revelation or intuition. 2) Logic and reason. Logic and reason are a fundamental part of argument. Logic, reason and argument have nothing necessarily to do with revelation or intuition. I suspect that someone who argues that "argument is irrelevant to philosophical enquiry" is somehow trying to defend "revelation or intuition" as a method to access truth.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/29/09 - 08:21 PM:	#8
Hanover wrote: The theory that evolution provides us beliefs that are useful but not necessarily true implies that intelligence is not necessarily a beneficial thing. Evolution does indeed provide us with beliefs that are useful but not necessarily true - we often refer to this as "intuition" (and intuition has nothing necessarily to do with high intelligence). Once we start using our intelligence we can often reject the false intuitions which were once useful. Simple examples are the intuitions that the sun rotates around the earth; and that the earth is flat. These intuitions provided a useful way of viewing the world at a time when heliocentric systems and round earths were generally beyond intelligible conception. Other (more controversial) examples are the intuitions of human free will, that consciousness and the "self" are something more than a reflexive process which emerges in certain dynamic systems, the existence of an immortal "soul", and intelligent design.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 920

Posted 10/30/09 - 04:32 AM:	#9
reincarnated wrote: Evolution does indeed provide us with beliefs that are useful but not necessarily true - we often refer to this as "intuition" (and intuition has nothing necessarily to do with high intelligence). Once we start using our intelligence we can often reject the false intuitions which were once useful. Simple examples are the intuitions that the sun rotates around the earth; and that the earth is flat. These intuitions provided a useful way of viewing the world at a time when heliocentric systems and round earths were generally beyond intelligible conception. Other (more controversial) examples are the intuitions of human free will, that consciousness and the "self" are something more than a reflexive process which emerges in certain dynamic systems, the existence of an immortal "soul", and intelligent design. Your position seems to be that intelligence does lead to a better understanding of the world, as opposed to intuition, which leads us astray. My suggestion was that evolution provides utilitarian solutions which may in no way relate to reality. That is, the reason you believe the world is round, and the reason that successful societies hold that view is not necessarily related to the world actually being round, but it is related to survivability. If Western society were to hold that the world were flat, we would be a less successful society, and for that reason we hold that the world is round. However, there is no suggestion that a solution that leads to success or survivability does so because the solution reflects reality.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:13 AM:	#10
Hanover wrote: Your position seems to be that intelligence does lead to a better understanding of the world, as opposed to intuition, which leads us astray. My suggestion was that evolution provides utilitarian solutions which may in no way relate to reality. That is, the reason you believe the world is round, and the reason that successful societies hold that view is not necessarily related to the world actually being round, but it is related to survivability. If Western society were to hold that the world were flat, we would be a less successful society, and for that reason we hold that the world is round. However, there is no suggestion that a solution that leads to success or survivability does so because the solution reflects reality. For once, I agree completely with you I'm not suggesting that intuition ALWAYS leads us astray - but like you I believe that intuition evolved to give us practical competitive advantage in absence of understanding, but only up to a point. If the assumption of a flat earth is enough to enable you to go hunt deer and gather berries, then why bother trying to understand that the earth is in fact not flat? Its totally unnecessary. Intelligence is in most cases better than intuition in this respect. But, like intuition,there is no guarantee that intelligence (along with the use of logic and reason) will necessarily lead us to truth. Only to (as you put it) better utilitarian solutions.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.