To Know

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Know - To regard as true beyond doubt + To have fixed in the mind

Doubt - To tend to disbelieve + To regard as unlikely + A lack of certainty

Certain - Established beyond doubt or question + Capable of being relied on + Having or showing confidence

To know is to have confidence in the reliability and integrity of something.

I don’t like the word, I prefer to say believe.

Believe - To expect or suppose + To have confidence in the truth or value of something + To credit with veracity

I suppose I don’t like that definition of know. I know when I can’t comprehend any possible circumstance that the known is incorrect. For example, ‘I think, therefore, I am’. Or 2 + 2 = 4. The first, it’s impossible for it to be false, and the latter, is defined that way - it’s abstract. There’s nothing that could discredit it.

If it’s possibly false, then I wouldn’t say know.

I believe that every time I tap a lettered key on my keyboard, a letter will be displayed on my monitor. I wouldn’t say I know that a letter will be displayed - perhaps my keyboard disconnected, the wiring broke, the browser froze, or there was a software error.

However, I don’t need to know that a letter will be displayed, I just need to believe it for the desired result to be possible.

It’s simply a question of risk vs reward. We don’t really need to know anything, rather, be prepared and willing to gamble.

2

From all you have said, you are basically saying, if something is contingent then that something can’t be known.

For something to be contingent, it is possibly true and possibly false. It’s neither necessarily true nor necessarily false, and it’s possible. Those things that aren’t contingent, as you hold them, are things that aren’t possibly false and possibly true, and you can know these.

So it is obvious that there are things that can be known. So if you know something, it would appear to be more than belief, even though belief would be necessary for you to know contingent things.

3

Yeah, that’s a fair representation of what I’ve said and a reasonable conclusion.

We can know things.

4

Now let me give you something else.

Suppose we have that you know “2 red apples are here & 2 green apples are here, so there are four apples here”. This is, what some might consider to be a mathematical true, something that isn’t possible false. But this is a contingent proposition, since red is contingent, green is contingent, and apples are contingent. So we can’t know that two red apples plus two green apples is four apples. So even when we apply necessary truths, it is contingent whether those necessary truths hold or not. So even when you apply knowledge to the contingent world, it isn’t known that contingent world will follow it. It might not.

5

If you state the contingency of the conclusion within the truth statement, the truth statement itself isn’t contingent, only the stated conclusion. The truth of the statement does not change just because the stated premises were not met.

“If box A is larger than box B, then box B is smaller than box A.”
That statement is always true regardless of which box is actually larger.

6 
Your conclusion doesn't precisely follow from your premises, but I think you just misspoke.  Yes, we can know that Two red apples plus two green apples is four apples, it's a necessary truth.  What we can't know is that any particular state of affairs apparent to our senses is, in fact, two red apples or two green apples.  The terms you hold to be contingent ARE contingent, but they are also irrelevant to the conclusion when properly understood- that 2 of a thing and 2 of a thing is 4 of a thing is true irrespective of what things you're talking about or what color they are.
7

Joe Schmoe"

Hmm…to regard something is to look at it in a certain way. Your definition at least to me doesn’t so much point to knowing but to perception and our perceptions may not be real. There seems to be room here for belief rather than knowing.

I don’t think that doubting is tending to disbelieve…maybe I’m wrong. It seems to be that doubting is open to the possibility that we may be wrong but not necessarily disbelieving…as of yet.

Having or showing confidence is not necessarily based in certainty. Certainty requires proof. The first part though speaks to “proof”.

Couldn’t that be a definition of “faith”? Why would there be a need for confidence in this regard. I see a tree. I know it’s there. Does that require confidence? unless I know that I’m given to hallucinations.

I prefer to only use the word know when I do. That’s based on evidence. I do not like the word “believe”. that can be based on perception. But I do know that I have to work on that word “belief”. …or not. It takes too much energy though - to believe. I’d rather just withhold judgment. :laughing:

Belief is based more in possibilities and desires. But I think your definition works. I think.

8

All the bold and italic definitions are from a dictionary. They’re not mine, rather, the closest definitions to my perception of their meaning. The closest definition to the context that I’d use them in, or intend them to express.

Feel free to give alternate definitions, whether personal, or from another source.

Examine - To observe carefully or critically; inspect + To test or check the condition or health of

I used doubt to mean examine. Doubt has a different meaning, so I’ll try to say examine from now on.

We can always examine, and re-examine a proposition. Examination is a wise habit.

We don’t need to doubt something, in order to examine it.

Sure - Impossible to doubt or dispute + Bound to come about or happen; inevitable

To say I am sure, appears to satisfy what I wanted know to express.

Proof - The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true

Therefore, to prove something, means using any evidence or argument, to compel one’s belief.

It’s whatever the individual requires in order to accept, which is relative to the individual.

9

To use your example, “box” is contingent like “apple” is contingent, and “red” & “green” were also contingent. So box is possibly true and possibly false, neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. What “A” happens to be would also be contingent, similar to how “red apples” of “2 red apples”. Your inference would be flawless without contingent things filling them in. Abstract objects would be just fine. So the premises were contingent, the inference wasn’t contingent. But we can’t know the “premises” since contingent can’t be know, by OP, so can’t know when to use necessary inference.

10

2 and 2 is four is a necessary truth, and it is agreed on all hands. But that’s not really what we have. There are three contingent things that are added on, which changes the character of the argument. So you can’t know those contingent things, but you use knowledge to move from unknown to unknown without at all losing truths. When have it as 2 and 2 is 4 isn’t saying anything about the world, while adding on the contingent is saying something, and something that can’t be known with working with known. It isn’t necessary that one thing happens from another, since possibly that way or possibly not, and can’t know it.

11

“Box” is neither true nor false. Box exists or doesn’t. The statement had already included the contingency of its existence.

“If box A is larger…”

Note the “is”, as in “exists as”.
The only concerning contingencies were covered.
The statement is always true.

12

“Box” I don’t see the part about “Box” is neither true nor false. It’s neither necessarily true nor necessarily false, but it’s possibly true and possibly false. It’s possible. So there is an inconsistency there.

Now take “box A is larger” is same as “box A exists as larger”. Box is contingent and possibly true and possibly false, and that the box exists as larger is possibly true and possibly false. It could have been smaller, that is also contingent and can happen. None of these things can be known, since they are unknown and unknowable. The “larger” part points to relative index’s, which would also be themselves contingent.

13

The words and concepts of “true” and “false” do not apply to a box.

So what do you really mean when you say “box is true”?

14

Same thing that you mean when you say that “box A exists as larger” is true, Box exists. This is a contingent statement there, since there was a time in which human beings did not have boxes. But it is something that can’t be known, even though true or false that it does, or that the contingent statement is true.

15

The statement is “IF box A IS lager than box B,…”

The contingency of the box being in existence has already been specified, thus the statement is always true whether there is a box A at that moment or not.

16

It is probably true to an extent to believe that the knowledge one has personally accumulated --to aid him in whatever it is that’s good for him – has significance. After all, you are what your thinking has helped you to become. But certain ways in which thought is utilized can destroy you. Open-mindedness, along with knowing one’s limitations is a more intelligent approach.

Even with preparation there’s no guarantee that unforeseen elements will not intervene resulting in a series of events where there is little possibility for expected outcome… hence, the gamble. Knowledge then becomes something that has less impact on one’s well being. Aside from the functional purpose it has in naming and labeling things, knowledge would be something that is simply accessible only when needed. The question of what is needed is moot.

17

Approach to?

18

I think we’re saying the same thing, broadly. “2 and 2 is four” is a necessary truth. “2 apples and 2 applies is four apples” is also a necessary truth. What isn’t a necessary truth is that any particular thing before us is an apple, or that any particular quantity of things before us is two.

19

When there is a need or a demand from the world to utilize knowledge about the world. When there is no demand, is the world a separate thing looked upon?

20

‘Open-mindedness, along with knowing one’s limitations is a more intelligent approach to addressing a need or a demand from the world to utilize knowledge about the world.’

That’s your answer?

Give an example of demand. Separate in regards to? Have you not separated ‘the world’ by the very title?