People are educated to believe that their knowledge is unexpected. The fundamental question remains unanswered. Is every knowledge unexpected? What is the basis of expectations. Another view is that ‘expectations direct your searches’. Many believe that ‘observations direct your searches’. Bit confusing.
@ moderator: question reposted to get a clear answer. Pls, do not delete it.
When you say expected and unexpected, I think you’re talking about how they teach kids that you inquire w/ science into the unknown and then you find something unexpected.
But in reality, on many occasions scientists decide what they want to know, and then build up a case for it, rather than simply discover or uncover the truth of it on its own.
Are we on the same page roughly?
Do expectations direct your searches? What is the basis of your expectations?
Are you asking if I go out into the world seeking to validate my expectations, as opposed to going out into the world seeking to discover things whether they agree with my expectations or not?
The question is a bit abstract, so I’m not sure how to answer about what the basis of my expectations is.
I suppose if I had to determine a basis for my expectations in general, that it’s be that I would expect things to be roughly similar to the way they have been in my prior experiences.
I think a part of your brain already knows the answers to many questions especially deductive ones, but not to all knowledge. If we consider the brain as a supreme calculator then there isn’t that much out of its reach ~ that it cannot deduce.
However for knowledge to be known to we the consciousness, then it has to get past our subjective filter, which decides what knowledge it can trust e.g. “do I trust that set of info as compared to others which may contradict it”. I guess if there were no debate then there would be no such distinctions and the brain would act like a computer or something like, but life isn’t that simple and what we consciously experience is not as simple as pure intellectual reasoning based on assumed truths.
If I may I would like pointoout the value of the scientific method. As stated earlier scientists go out to prove what they already believe. This is undoubtedly true and the most fundamental reason for the need for the scientific method. Every scientific endeavor begins with a hypothesis. It is assumed that the hypothesis is full of opinion and prejudice. The purpose of the method is to open the hypothesis to collide with its many antithesis and see what happens. Do we the arrive at the same synthesis. In the method each step is documented so that if the same synthesis is not arrived at, you can go back and find the anntithesis which is usually someones hidden prejudice. So the real questiion is where do the hypohtesis come from. Classical philosophy postulated that the mind was the tool of the soul. Therefor inspirations came from God. Modern philosophy has demonstrated that there is no such direct connection to God and no “a priori” knowledge of any kind. But the question remains where do insights and new ideas come from? Certainly as pointed out there are ways that seem to promote their birth and things that inhibit them. My personal belief is kind of a synthesis of all the previous. We do not need a direct phone line to listen to God because he created us to be gods. Even Jesus stated in the gospel, 'I tell you, you are gods". If we are gods we produce the ideas from our minds because we share in God’s being. He does not need to tell us what is right and wrong because he gave us the capacity to decide on our own.
I would say that knowledge can be either expected or unexpected. I think there is a real phenomenon where people are consciously and unconsciously looking to confirm beliefs and will tend to find (notice) information/knowledge that supports these. However even the most rigid learner is occasionally shocked by what they find is true and often forced to go through rather elegant (or crude) forms of denial, suppression, rationalization, forgetfulness in the face of what they find. That is, if they want to deny it. Otherwise they may change their minds, have learned something unexpected.
And we do not have complete control over our searches. We may think there are no bats in New Hampshire but when we round the corner of our cabin one night - definitely not looking for bats - and one gets caught in our hair, we have found something we did not search for. We may try to convince ourselves it was just a sparrow, even though we felt the hair and teeth and what our spouse said. Or we may accept what was there to learn: there are bats in New Hampshire, what a surprise, I didn’t expect that and I certainly didn’t expect to learn it.
I’m not so sure I agree with this. If you never opened a certain car door before, wouldn’t you expect to know how to open it?
But, you know that the door can be opened, before learning how to open the door.
“what” precedes 'how."
You cannot separate your ‘self’ from what you listen to or look at. Your preconceptions and expectations are all built into what you think you are listening to or looking at. We normally hear only those things which interest us, give us hope, give us something which we can turn into a recipe for living, something which will give us happiness or enlightenment. The mere fact that we even listen with attention and respect reveals that we are after some kind of useful change which we hope to receive by using what we hear. But whatever knowledge it is you acquire that has been imposed upon all people for functional value, has significance only on that level. And since when you look for and find what you already know, much of what you want is what you have been told.
The type of knowledge (what, how) doesn’t seem to be relevant.
Are they primary? They are secondary ones.
Primary is: What can I know about it?
Only after knowing what you have to know, you can device methods to know - how.
Nope. One can open things that one does not know can be opened. Children have that experience quite often with boxes and drawers and even yes, doors. Taking that as a metaphor this happens to all of us. Accidental learning happens all the time.
No, all sorts of exploration happen without this kind of planning.
One may not aware of the plan which is inbuilt in his thoughts. But, the plan exists and is extensively used.
No, this means people are all psychic. They missed the last train and were forced to walk home through a poor neighborhood and learned that certain people live very differently or that Puerto Ricans seem to spend social time on their stoops or whatever. Your idea would mean that he or she planned this to learn that poor people live like this or that or that Puerto Ricans have a certain tendency to associate in a way other cultures are less likely to.
That’s ridiculous, unless you think everyone is psychic and using it for every decision they make.
Difference in life style does not mean the difference in what they can know about each thing!
Difference in life styles does not mean the difference in their ability to know!
Perhaps what you are saying then is that what they learn is expected given the bodies they have, the sensory organs, the interests. That some objective viewer might be able to categorize the types of things they would learn, if not the specifics. Is that what you are getting at?
But since any objective viewer, unless we are speaking about a god, is going to have biases, the view willed be surprised by what the learner learns.
But, first, I think you need to make it clear who it is who expects or does not expect and also that you only mean ‘expected’ on a very abstract level.
Also ‘knowledge’ can’t really be plural, which makes your title thread confusing. (of course we can know many things, but the word is singular. So the use of ‘every’ instead of ‘all’ makes one think the details are expected, which is absurd.)
But this is giving you quite a generous benefit of the doubt. If I go back to the statement…
Of course it does. Different lifestyles ARE parts of the nature of an organism, including a person. How one lives utterly limits and presents opportunities for one CAN know, not just what one does know. Wild horses and moles cannot know some of the things the other does. And given the range of lifestyles humans have, the limitations and opportunities vary radically.
yes every knowledge is unexpected.