Sunday 16 November 2014

Flaxen spouting bollocks, once again......

Another fucking Venn diagram

What is knowledge and more importantly how do we know whether something is true as opposed to total bollocks? For those who are interested there is a an accepted method which helps us to distinguish between these often bewildering concepts. It has a fancy name, epistemology. Essentially, it defines the methodology involved in deciding whether something should enter the accepted pantheon of 'true' knowledge or whether it should be rejected and discarded into the deep recesses of detritus which litter our imaginative landscape.

Over eons, very clever men (for it is they) have forged the concept which underpins our core knowledge basis. Often this sounds like sound common sense. But we only perceive this as such due to the brave intellectual pioneers who carved out the fundamentals. I'm talking a mere four centuries ago when the intellectual world existed on the cusp of reason and religious dogma. Luckily for the Western world, reason prevailed. Although the church did not go down without a fight. True to form, the church, transcendent at the time, tried to influence the debate through intimidation. If the intrepid could not be beaten down with the old refrain of 'hell fire' they risked being physically broken on the wheel, ouch. Predictable, I know. For those who could, and have power, violence to 'change minds' is an easy option.  But the march of reason was unstoppable. Once sensible men found confidence in their principles, religious dogma went on the run. Today, fundamentalist religious belief is resplendent in the ignorant third world and the ignorant bible belt of America. I digress.

And so, coming back to my original question, what constitutes the wherewithal for obtaining knowledge? Again the solution is relatively simple and gives scant evidence to the hard earned intellectual cost suffered by the likes of Galileo.  There are only two paths to knowledge; induction and deduction. Deduction proffers true, absolute knowledge, and is represented by the facts garnered by mathematics and logic. Once established, these truths hold for an intellectual eternity. Induction is knowledge obtained from the senses. It is the basis of the scientific method and is the 'mainstream' method by which most folk obtain their knowledge base- unless they are logicians or mathematicians. The observable world gives us evidence. It is not true knowledge like mathematics, but after calculus it is the only method available for obtaining verity about the world. To be fair, induction gives us probabilities about whether something is true, but never absolutes.


There are some who would argue the contrary, and state with zeal that there are alternative methods to obtain knowledge. To those who proselytise thusly, I leave the onus of proof upon their unrepentant and irrational bonces. If they believe that faith offers a pathway to true knowledge, then they should offer sound judgement and reasoning (which they never do), otherwise they are just pissing in the wind and contributing bugger all to this most important of debates......   


A pongid contenplating the cosmic awe (arse)
                                                                                                    Arse bucket on a stick

9 comments:

  1. I'm told there are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth, whatever that is.

    Apparently, the truth is out there. Not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find discovery of the truth quite simple, I look into a persons eyes with my glasses balanced on the end of my nose (intimidating teacher stylie) and say " Now tell the truth, because if you lie I WILL know and you WILL suffer a horrid demise and abject pain and misery if your lying to me, bear that in mind before you answer" this usually has the desired effect although one could argue that as it has only been attempted on my children, my partner and my ex husband (who although a notoriously shit liar, lied lied till his pants were on fire, I knew by default he was lying anyway) it is possibly not a fool proof method worthy of scientific research.
    I should add I also have a nasty habit of knowing things when I first knew my partner I sometimes scared him with my knowing things he hadn't told me , especially when it came to a bit of truth bending, he fairly quickly gave up his antics because I always knew what was really going on. Even now I sometimes pick up on something in my childrens voices especially if they have a problem and astound them with my intuition.
    I am someone who needs to know, for me there is no greater fear than not knowing, because once you know, no matter how bad it is you can formulate a plan of action.
    Iv'e always told him indoors it's useless saying to me what you don't know can't hurt you because I DO KNOW and not being told hurts far more than being told straight, the longer the lie is carried on the more it snowballs and hurts when you get found out, it's like a festering untreated wound. Anyway I shall wander off and compose myself now by imbibing in another cup of tea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Indeed. Women are forces of nature and manipilate us manfolk in ways only known to themselves and god. Men can only hold three concepts in their minds at any one time. In my particular conceptual world, it is: Katy Perry, jelly wrestling and Holden's best bitter. On a good day I can conflate all three into Katy Perry jelly wrestling a pint of beer. Sad, I know..... but men only come in one flavour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) I have to disagree about men and one flavour, My ex was all about a bird in a short skirt he wasn't married to, as many pints of guinness as he could pour down his neck, making his wife and children utterly miserable the more miserable the better and shooting as many small animals as possible on the weekends. But my current partner is all about music, making me happy and a bottle or 2 of old peculier. I agree there are similarities, but I'd take Katy Perry and jelly wrestling over shooting small creatures and abusing family for fun any day.

      Delete
    2. "...shooting small creatures..for fun...

      If the small creatures are those that inhabit the Palace of Westminster (especially if they answer to 'Millipede', 'Balls', etc.) then it could be rather spiffing fun...

      Delete
  4. Knowledge is one thing: wisdom another.

    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The concept of Katy Perry is OK, but beer jelly is just wrong. Which is inconsistent, when you consider that port jelly is acceptable and respected.

    As a matter of science, is there anything in beer which prohibits it turning to jelly? I don't want it to, and it would be awful if it were transubstantiated accidentally. Handy on the wild off-chance that Katy Perry comes round but otherwise, no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your point and pain. In order to prevent a lapse into absurd contradictions, I substitute beer for a ferret (may or may not be Shagger, can't say). Now we have a truly consistent/coherent scenario: Katy Perry, in a ring full of jelly, wrestling a ferret called Shagger, possibly.

      Delete
    2. Some ferrets have all the luck.

      Delete