How do we know?

This is a topic which grew out of a question put to me by Hangdaw13 So what does it mean to know? Is there any way of being absoultely certain? I do not think so.The nature of our investigation of the world through science is that we cannot be certain as that would require unattainable perfect knowledge.Science tells us what we can say about the universe and does not deal with certainty but rather it embraces doubt.So I would answer to Hangdawg that I do not know for certain but I strongly suspect that his existence {if it is indeed there} will reveal itself to me on this computer forum at a later time.{Prophecy anyone?}If I get such a response then I would have evidence of his existence that I could further study and try other experiments to lend credence to my suspicions.
If,in responding to me,I do not have to change my assertion that he does exist because no new evidence is presenting itself then I can maintain my level of confidence until some other means of evidence presents itself to contradict such.Does anyone have some other way to look at this that we can examine?

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

Hangdawg13 Presuppositions are necessary but only through concensus.There is no need to believe in them.However a presupposition is asssumed in order to progress by testing what the presuppositions can tell us about the world.Now here is where science has leapt ahead in uncertain knowledge.We use experiments to test whether our presumptions are valid in the sense that they fit the results of the experiments.Now if the results are in complete conflict with the model time after time then that model is discarded.The model we use is not a belief but a conditional assumption that allows us tho organize our means of investigation.We must here explain that the word theory is not a "guess" but a model that has been consistently shown to agree with experiment in a vast number of experimental trials.We also must state that a theory is never 100% certainty for the very reason that scientists do not have perfect knowledge and as our ability to investigate gets better with the capabilities of our technology we sometimes find that our theories breakdown under certain conditions.
Therefore a theory is always open to modification and is capable of doing so because of the nature given to it by consensus. Your beliefs however do nothing to sway the outcome of the tests of the theory that we hold to be fact only because they have not been shown to be wrong.Belief is seperate from the results.However as we have seen time and again these beliefs can cause us to deny the evidence presented.Whether you believe in the existence of a scientist that does the experiment makes no difference to the outcome of the experiments.It is the evidence of these experiments that cause us consider that there is an objective world that is amenable to our investigations whether we are atheist christian muslim republican liberal marxist or whatever.Even the reality of the world is questionable since we use senses that are themselves composed of the things we investigate.Our senses are sometimes fooled and indeed our very notions of who "we" are are called into question by our investigation.Take for instance the work of Benjamin Libet.In the 1970's Libet documented a gap between the time an individual was conscious of the decision to flex his finger{and Libet recorded the exact moment of that consciousness} and the time his brain waves indicated that a flex was imminent. The brain activity occured a third of a second before the subject consciously decided to move his finger.
So a lag exists between the beginning of the neural events leading to consciousness and the moment one actually eriences the consequence of those neural events.So where is free will in all of this?It might seem that such notions disappear yet there are other explanations.How would you decide to proceed on this work? This is not the case at all.Again yes assumptions must be made and by testing those assumptions we are able to eliminate those models that do not stand up to the evidence.Thus we are indeed weighing the assumptions over and over.Such is the nature of science.Beliefs in the assumption do nothing to influence the outcome of the tests of those assumptionsYou can disbelieve that radiation falls off according to the inverse square law but if you are accidently exposed to a dose of radiation then your distance from the source will indicate your survivability regardless of whether you believe in it or not.We gain a level of confidence not a belief.The level of confidence is capable of change the belief is not. We do not know and we have found through our investigation that not only are there things that are not accesible to our five senses there are indeed things we cannot ever have any knowledge about at all.However you may recall that what set us on this topic was jazzlover claiming that he knew something without evidence to back up his statement and I called him on it. I do not agree.That a god would exist is not the problem. That human beings make the claim that god is beyond human understanding and in the same breath say that they know god exists is the problem.If he is incapable of being understood then we also can have no knowledge of his existence since this would constitute understanding.The claim is that god is beyond our spacetime and interacts with it yet leaves no trace. God speaks to people yet has no vocal apparatus.God created a universe of such enormity with actions occuring within it that are forever beyond our obsevation or interaction yet the only place he seems to be concerned with is this immensly tiny speck upon which even tinier creatures live out life and this same god seems to require from us worship without which he will punish us with horrible suffering.This is even remotely reasonable? Neither the rational nor the science run to probability of a universe exploding from nothing.Our physical laws only hold to the level of Planck time and beyond that we can say nothing with any level of confidence.The notion of the big bang still is only the conception arrived at by "revesing the clock"on the observations we make of the universe which appears to be expanding and accelerating.
The reasonable assumption is that going backward in time we have a universe that at one time was closer together and hotter. Thus we at least have a model which explains some of what we see and as we progress we find we must revise our model of the universe somewhat.God,on the other hand,is not amenable to investigation.God is not evidenced in any way that is clear nor does the belief in god have a definition of consensus among people.Indeed the various properties of god seem to inexticably tied to the culture that the belief resides in.Since cultures are a result of human construction it would follow that so is god. I do not believe such,rather,it is my experience that science lend itself to clarity about the world around us that is independent of belief.As science progresses its foundations support its further investigations.Whether this clarity is pointing to a reality or an illusion we cannot say since an illusion may be forever be beyond our ability to resolve.
But then a perfect illusion is different from "reality" in what way? Then if it can and does happen why can you not evidence it? Why does the "reality"{or perfect illusion} of scientific investigation never line up with personal revelation? Could it be that the errors of human perception are lending themselves to further errors in personal revelation?Why or Why not?
If it does happen why does it leave no trace other than personal interpretation?Why is there never objective evidence ever? I have shown you the arguements that not all presumptions are equally valid yet the fact that I cannot agree with you will never,repeat never, have any bearing as to whether I can get along with you or others.

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

AdminDawgJust a note to congratulate you on admin status. I somehow missed your appointment.Good to have you on board.

Hangdawg13 That is not at all the case. We can in science not only show that something we model can be practically applied we can also make predictions based on that model for things we have not yet witnessed that we can investigate and test the model we use.Science has ways to demonstrate such things to be testable and they are independent of belief.
That these models do explain the world around us in ways that anyone who repeats them can use to arrive at the same result is what makes the arguement of its validity compelling.You need not accept as "true" that relativity is a valid explanation for phenomena in our world,however if you ignore this because it conflicts with your belief then you are left with trying to explain how the use of GPS is crippled when this model is not taken into account.
It becomes knowledge because anyone can use it to arrive at practical application in the world they interact with. That we know something is not necessarily that we can practically apply it.That we know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west need not ever impact into our day to day practical world.That we know the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter is a number that remains constant no matter how large a circle we measure is can be logically arrived at and is considered real only in the sense that it does have practical value.I do not think there is anything in the realm of theology that comes close.In point of fact theology is proud and adamant that it is beyond investigation by science.That this is so is a matter of choice that can be made because it is unassailable by design.This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-29-2004 08:38 AM

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg