The value of knowledge: Philosophy Forums

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

The value of knowledge

Page: 1 2 3

The value of knowledge

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 185

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:35 AM:	#11
I would say that the question of whether our most successful theories are true is vacuous. After all saying that they aren't seems to require some mysterious reality that is 'out there' but can't affect us in any way. What would be the point of this?

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:48 AM:	#12
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. I agree; whether something resolves questions, problems and concerns we encounter in life is, I suggest, the only sensible standard of value.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

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

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/30/09 - 09:08 AM:	#13
reincarnated wrote: 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. Previously you argued that implicit within the term "justification" was the fact that a justification must be objectively true in order for it to be a justification. If I understood you, you were claiming it was redundant to say "objective justification," because objective truth is assumed within the term "justification." It was that explanation that provided you with a solution to the Gettier problem, namely that a subjectively believed, yet objectively false, justification would be sufficient to declare a proposition "knowledge." Are you now accepting that a justification need not be objectively true, but that it simply be pragmatically true? That is, if I believe the earth is round because that provides me the best method for sailing the seas, is my belief "knowledge." You will note that my belief is true, but it is based upon pragmatism, not observation or reason. Is a Newtonian justification an adequate justification for a belief if it provides me with an accurate answer, even though I know that Newtonian physics ultimately fails to relativity?
"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

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

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

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 10/30/09 - 09:22 AM:	#14
reincarnated wrote: ... 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. I wanted to flaunt the proposition that the correlates of intelligence are methods and there are apriori methods, by making the appropriate substutitions. Methods are in most cases better than intuition in this respect. But, like intuition, there is no guarantee that methods (along with the use of logic and reason) will necessarily lead us to truth. Only to (as you put it) better utilitarian solutions. p.s. If Methods can be exposed as necessary to intelligence then that broad term Intelligence can be refined and subsequently accurately directed. Edited by nousPLOTINU on 10/30/09 - 09:31 AM
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

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

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 10/30/09 - 09:46 AM:	#15
Hanover wrote: ... Are you now accepting that a justification need not be objectively true, but that it simply be pragmatically true? That is, if I believe the earth is round because that provides me the best method for sailing the seas, is my belief "knowledge." You will note that my belief is true, but it is based upon pragmatism, not observation or reason. Is a Newtonian justification an adequate justification for a belief if it provides me with an accurate answer, even though I know that Newtonian physics ultimately fails to relativity? The Earth is flat is true on certain scales of distance but as it turned out those flat parts were a subset of a larger round. Calling the Earth flat is valid knowledge over certain distances at least as far as my eye can see...
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

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

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:07 PM:	#16
nousPLOTINU wrote: [The Earth is flat is true on certain scales of distance but as it turned out those flat parts were a subset of a larger round. Calling the Earth flat is valid knowledge over certain distances at least as far as my eye can see... Sounds like a definitional game. The earth is not flat. I define "earth" as the entire planet. You apparently are defining "earth" as any part of the earth. I suppose if the earth were a perfect sphere, it would still appear flat because the arc is so gradual that you wouldn't notice it, much like when you look out at sea.
"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: 2133

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:08 PM:	#17
Hanover wrote: Are you now accepting that a justification need not be objectively true, but that it simply be pragmatically true? That is, if I believe the earth is round because that provides me the best method for sailing the seas, is my belief "knowledge." You will note that my belief is true, but it is based upon pragmatism, not observation or reason. Is a Newtonian justification an adequate justification for a belief if it provides me with an accurate answer, even though I know that Newtonian physics ultimately fails to relativity? I’m struggling to understand what it is that makes you think my position on this might have changed? I have not (thus far) referred to “justification” (or even knowledge) anywhere in this thread. nousPLOTINU wrote: I wanted to flaunt the proposition that the correlates of intelligence are methods and there are apriori methods, by making the appropriate substutitions. Methods are in most cases better than intuition in this respect. But, like intuition, there is no guarantee that methods (along with the use of logic and reason) will necessarily lead us to truth. Only to (as you put it) better utilitarian solutions. p.s. If Methods can be exposed as necessary to intelligence then that broad term Intelligence can be refined and subsequently accurately directed. Agreed – but not all methods are created equal, and part of intelligence is in selecting (perhaps even creating) the best method to solve a particular problem (or perhaps this is then a meta-method?).
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")

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 10/30/09 - 09:00 PM:	#18
Desidude666 wrote: Knowledge is power. It's supreme. It's God. Oh, crap! And God doesn't exist!

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

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

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/31/09 - 10:59 AM:	#19
reincarnated wrote: I’m struggling to understand what it is that makes you think my position on this might have changed? I have not (thus far) referred to “justification” (or even knowledge) anywhere in this thread. I was referencing perhaps another discussion of yours in a related thread, both dealing with almost identical epistomological questions. Does each thread stand independently?
"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

Go_
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 93

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:59 PM:	#20
reincarnated wrote: 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. . . . unless "truth" is nothing more than the best utilitarian solution to a problem that it's possible for our species' collective intelligence to lead us to.

Page: 1 2 3

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