Knowledge & Illusion (for Romansh) (General)

by dhw, Sunday, February 26, 2012, 12:33 (4461 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH (21 Feb at 18.25): I have no trouble believing other people exist. [..] Just tell me how I can prove it and therefore know it.
ROMANSH (25 Feb. at 03.54): I don't recall saying people don't exist. [...] I am just saying they are illusions (not as they seem) as opposed to delusions (they don't exist).-You are right that you didn't say they don't exist. You asked me how to prove and therefore know that they do exist, and I am trying to rise to your challenge! The fact that they are not as they seem is a different problem altogether.-Recap: I pointed out that 1) if by "know" you mean cast-iron certainty, it's not possible, so we need to define "know". 2) On a common sense level (as opposed to what you called "solipsism gone mad"), perception, communication and experience provide the evidence we have that other people exist. I asked you for evidence that they don't. You haven't come up with any. Next I offered you definitions distinguishing between knowledge and belief, with knowledge = "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it", and I pointed out that there is no general consensus on your example (Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected etc."), which therefore = belief.-ROMANSH: Again in the Bible belt I would argue there is general agreement. This was my point. [...] While I agree the earth spinning is a better model than the sun going around the sun [you meant Earth], members of the Flat Earth Society would disagree there is general concensus.-The above definition was thrashed out precisely to deal with such objections. 1) As regards Jesus, there is no general consensus AMONG THOSE WHO ARE AWARE of the claims made for him. The Bible belt is a small section of those who are aware, and billions of people would disagree that he was resurrected etc. There is therefore no general consensus. 2) As regards the Flat Earth Society (I thought they believed the Earth was flat!) there will never be unanimity on any subject, which is why we included the word "general", which allows for the odd (in both senses) exception.
 
ROMANSH: But ultimately knowledge comes from a common belief. So knowledge is just a belief with some bells and whistles.-This discussion alone confirms the need to distinguish between absolute (objective) truth, knowledge and belief. I would hope that you can see a difference between statements like "God is good" or "Natural selection explains the whole of life" (pure belief ... no general consensus) and "The Earth goes round the sun", or "2 + 2 = 4", or "There is Life on Earth". "Belief with some bells and whistles" doesn't seem to me to make the difference very clear, but on what I like to call the "philosophical" level as opposed to the "common sense" level, you are right. That's why we have to establish an epistemological hierarchy if we are to have any meaningful discussions on anything, which is where the common sense level comes into play.
 
ROMANSH: I don't deal in proof dhw. I have none. Just evidence. The evidence (for me) points to free will being an illusion or a total non sequitur.-You asked me how to prove that other people exist, so that you could "know" it. Free will is not the subject here***, any more than the fact that people are "not as they seem". I would argue, then, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, our perceptions, communications and experiences shared with other people prove the following: the information that your family and friends and acquaintances exist is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of the existence of your family and friends and acquaintances. Ergo, I have proved and therefore know that other people exist. QED, LOL, dhw.-*** The discussion with David on free will is an interesting one, but please let's have it on a different thread.