thegreatninja13
Member
This is a long thread so if you want a summary read the first and last paragraph.
People seem to misunderstand two things A LOT on this site. I am more of a fan of logic than of Naruto and as such it kills me to see people butchering the use of "knowledge" and "proof". This thread is basically just a quick analysis of what "proof" is and what you really "Know."
Knowledge.
According to modern day philosiphers knowledge is defined by three definitions.
1. Belief- In order to classify something as knowledge one must have a firm belief that it is infact true. This point is the most represented on this site, as clearly everyone thinks they are right.
2. Truth- In order for you to be able to know something it must inevitably be true, if it has not yet been proven true or you can't personally prove it 100%, it is not true and therefor you can not "know" it.
3. EVIDENCE- This is the section that most people seem to lack. Even if someone believes something is true and it turns out to be true it does not classify that idea into the realm of knowledge. If something lacks evidence its truth is meaningless because it is a factor of chance. For example if, lets say, Tim were to play the lottery every day and Tim totally believed that one day he would win the lottery; even if Tim windes up winning the lottery he did not "know" that he would because he lacks evidence.
This is not to say, however, that ideas that do not satisfy these conditions are useless. Quite on the contrary many of the things we "know" are mearley rational belief. Even things as concrete as "the grass is green" are subject to fallacy based on the perception that out sensory feedback is correct.
So why does this matter? Well basically what finding "proof" is is not what most people on here seem to think it is. Proof does not mean undoubted factual representation of an opinion. What it means however is that you are working towards the section of "knowledge" that is called rational belief. This means that, because the truth is an indiscernable enigma, we can merely supply evidence and belief.
In summary, because I am aware few people will read this, the poin of this thread is to show why people who say "proof" and claim to "know" things are severely undereducated. It is also supposed to show the neccesity of facts needed to support an argument, when people post comments such as /thread it is a very ignorant gesture as you are assuming a lack of representation and accounting for too many variables as certainty. In general there is an over usage of absolutes such as "proof" on this site that need to be left open to more than just your personal interpretation.
People seem to misunderstand two things A LOT on this site. I am more of a fan of logic than of Naruto and as such it kills me to see people butchering the use of "knowledge" and "proof". This thread is basically just a quick analysis of what "proof" is and what you really "Know."
Knowledge.
According to modern day philosiphers knowledge is defined by three definitions.
1. Belief- In order to classify something as knowledge one must have a firm belief that it is infact true. This point is the most represented on this site, as clearly everyone thinks they are right.
2. Truth- In order for you to be able to know something it must inevitably be true, if it has not yet been proven true or you can't personally prove it 100%, it is not true and therefor you can not "know" it.
3. EVIDENCE- This is the section that most people seem to lack. Even if someone believes something is true and it turns out to be true it does not classify that idea into the realm of knowledge. If something lacks evidence its truth is meaningless because it is a factor of chance. For example if, lets say, Tim were to play the lottery every day and Tim totally believed that one day he would win the lottery; even if Tim windes up winning the lottery he did not "know" that he would because he lacks evidence.
This is not to say, however, that ideas that do not satisfy these conditions are useless. Quite on the contrary many of the things we "know" are mearley rational belief. Even things as concrete as "the grass is green" are subject to fallacy based on the perception that out sensory feedback is correct.
So why does this matter? Well basically what finding "proof" is is not what most people on here seem to think it is. Proof does not mean undoubted factual representation of an opinion. What it means however is that you are working towards the section of "knowledge" that is called rational belief. This means that, because the truth is an indiscernable enigma, we can merely supply evidence and belief.
In summary, because I am aware few people will read this, the poin of this thread is to show why people who say "proof" and claim to "know" things are severely undereducated. It is also supposed to show the neccesity of facts needed to support an argument, when people post comments such as /thread it is a very ignorant gesture as you are assuming a lack of representation and accounting for too many variables as certainty. In general there is an over usage of absolutes such as "proof" on this site that need to be left open to more than just your personal interpretation.
