If knowledge is to know what a thing is then i propose that “only that which has been experienced and understood is knowledge”. The above meaning of what constitutes knowledge is not the wordly perception of “knowledge”. How do you know a thing is something? In usual course of living, people many times believe in what the majority view a thing to be. In keeping in line with my earlier proposition that humans cannot verify the “objectiveness” of a thing by empirical evidence, i propose that the only way humans can verify if a thing is what it is told to be is to experience it and understand it. Humans believe a rope to be rope because they have been told in their childhood and have been brainwashed by “education” to believe a rope is a rope. But did the humans ever tried to find out if a rope is actually a rope? If i reject the so called knowledge of the physical world as mere “information” being perpetuated as truths by many for many years because i could not verify it independently is this a right approach?
The information i referred to includes two types of information. One is the information which is conveyed to you by others (education or told by others)but not experienced by your senses. To give you an example : “We have been told by our school books and day to day drilling by media and others that Earth is somewhat spherical in shape. Now, i decide to believe this statement and accept it is a legitimate statement of the fact which it represents. But this i have not perceived through my senses. This is because observation of such complex phenomena as checking the shape of earth is ordinarily not within the reach of layman for lack of resources. But i anyway accepted this as truth keeping faith in science and the method followed by science. But can i say this blind faith of mine that earth is spherical in shape is knowledge of shape of earth?
In other words, can i call information of something is knowledge of the thing when i have not personally experienced or understood it? Is not personal experience sine qua non of knowledge? If this is the case can i call the statement “earth is spherical in shape” true if i had not personally experienced or understood it?”
It is one thing to read it from books, draw observations of things around you and arrive at logical conclusions and is another thing to believe in a thing absolutely. Although people tend to use words like belief, faith as if they are different from empirical evidence in truth there cannot be objectivity or independent verification or evidence which is empirical and objective. This is because no doubt what results evidence may give you, it is you who connects the results, try logic and arrive at conclusions. Evidence or for the matter any kind of empirical results obtained through observation do not tell you truth of something. It is the human who chooses to believe that if x is the evidence then y ought to be the truth of a thing. It is human mind which chooses to believe that if x, y,z are properties then the thing to which these properties may be attributed to belong to a specific thing. It is unnecessary to go into the name of a thing.
An unknown thing could be named anything until the name is accepted by other humans. Evidence or empiricism, observations, scientific methods are only helpful in cross verifying what we had already chosen to believe. Had we not believed in the first place how much ever evidence or result is put before you they may mean nothing to you. This is because as i said before evidence does not talk, it is does not reveal anything. It is human mind which chooses to believe that something stands for something, something is the reason and cause for another, and if one thing is there then there should be something else which connects it.
There is another set of information which is verified by your day to day senses. These are information like the air you breathe, the blood you see, the pain you suffer, the pleasure you enjoy. These things are experienced by you and somewhat understood by you in person. You do not need scientific results, or observations or you need to be educated to gain knowledge of these things. This is information is experienced and also understood through the medium of senses. But i am still wary of calling this second type information knowledge. This is because i doubt my experiences perceived through my senses. I do not 100% believe in them. But i do neither believe in evidence and empiricism as arbiter of truth of things.
Based on my above statements and my other posts on this blog it is clear that i do not believe in existence of empirical evidence, a posteriori knowledge in truth in real life. Therefore in order to decide which information is knowledge and which is not the missing link is absolute belief. The first type of information i referred to is the most uncertain since i cannot know what other thinks they know until i feel it. But neither the second type of information is so certain since senses are capable of deception (read Rene Des Cartes “Mediations of First Philosophy”).
If this is case i am not certain if all the information floating around me some verified by my own personal experience (senses) and some widely believed by other humans and propagated by institutions like universities, media etc is knowledge. Is there anything which i do not experience through senses? Is there anything which i have reason to be believe without proof? I think it is “I exist”. I may not know what i am but i know i exist. This belief of mine is absolute because this experience does not come to me from outside but rather i am this experience. I do not need any proof in the physical world to corroborate this fact (for which i have to again depend on senses). At this stage in my life i am sure of only one thing in life viz “I exist”. Rest all I choose to call information and not knowledge because I cannot verify it independently.
The information i referred to includes two types of information. One is the information which is conveyed to you by others (education or told by others)but not experienced by your senses. To give you an example : “We have been told by our school books and day to day drilling by media and others that Earth is somewhat spherical in shape. Now, i decide to believe this statement and accept it is a legitimate statement of the fact which it represents. But this i have not perceived through my senses. This is because observation of such complex phenomena as checking the shape of earth is ordinarily not within the reach of layman for lack of resources. But i anyway accepted this as truth keeping faith in science and the method followed by science. But can i say this blind faith of mine that earth is spherical in shape is knowledge of shape of earth?
In other words, can i call information of something is knowledge of the thing when i have not personally experienced or understood it? Is not personal experience sine qua non of knowledge? If this is the case can i call the statement “earth is spherical in shape” true if i had not personally experienced or understood it?”
It is one thing to read it from books, draw observations of things around you and arrive at logical conclusions and is another thing to believe in a thing absolutely. Although people tend to use words like belief, faith as if they are different from empirical evidence in truth there cannot be objectivity or independent verification or evidence which is empirical and objective. This is because no doubt what results evidence may give you, it is you who connects the results, try logic and arrive at conclusions. Evidence or for the matter any kind of empirical results obtained through observation do not tell you truth of something. It is the human who chooses to believe that if x is the evidence then y ought to be the truth of a thing. It is human mind which chooses to believe that if x, y,z are properties then the thing to which these properties may be attributed to belong to a specific thing. It is unnecessary to go into the name of a thing.
An unknown thing could be named anything until the name is accepted by other humans. Evidence or empiricism, observations, scientific methods are only helpful in cross verifying what we had already chosen to believe. Had we not believed in the first place how much ever evidence or result is put before you they may mean nothing to you. This is because as i said before evidence does not talk, it is does not reveal anything. It is human mind which chooses to believe that something stands for something, something is the reason and cause for another, and if one thing is there then there should be something else which connects it.
There is another set of information which is verified by your day to day senses. These are information like the air you breathe, the blood you see, the pain you suffer, the pleasure you enjoy. These things are experienced by you and somewhat understood by you in person. You do not need scientific results, or observations or you need to be educated to gain knowledge of these things. This is information is experienced and also understood through the medium of senses. But i am still wary of calling this second type information knowledge. This is because i doubt my experiences perceived through my senses. I do not 100% believe in them. But i do neither believe in evidence and empiricism as arbiter of truth of things.
Based on my above statements and my other posts on this blog it is clear that i do not believe in existence of empirical evidence, a posteriori knowledge in truth in real life. Therefore in order to decide which information is knowledge and which is not the missing link is absolute belief. The first type of information i referred to is the most uncertain since i cannot know what other thinks they know until i feel it. But neither the second type of information is so certain since senses are capable of deception (read Rene Des Cartes “Mediations of First Philosophy”).
If this is case i am not certain if all the information floating around me some verified by my own personal experience (senses) and some widely believed by other humans and propagated by institutions like universities, media etc is knowledge. Is there anything which i do not experience through senses? Is there anything which i have reason to be believe without proof? I think it is “I exist”. I may not know what i am but i know i exist. This belief of mine is absolute because this experience does not come to me from outside but rather i am this experience. I do not need any proof in the physical world to corroborate this fact (for which i have to again depend on senses). At this stage in my life i am sure of only one thing in life viz “I exist”. Rest all I choose to call information and not knowledge because I cannot verify it independently.
No comments:
Post a Comment