Can we truly KNOW anything?

voo-doo-wop

I have no (real) formal training but I think. I hope it's this easy to entice people. But can we as humans fundamentally prove anything to be real? Science, for example, is often looked on as truth but are all these ideas (essentially that's all they can be) which we call theories ( observe Theory of Relativity vs. Fact of relativity) actually correct?
Is it a representation of what we are prepared to believe or how these experiments etc. appear through our possibly distorted viewpoints rather than what happens in the "physical" world we "inhabit"?
And please let's not be wound up and opinoin shoving but present cases calmly. I'm also open to people forwarding ideas they don't exactly believe to b true.

Victor

Possibly not and while it is a philosophical point, we can know enough to (a) get by (b) improve ourselves.

voo-doo-wop

I can't detect sarcasm in text so cheers for repling at such a communist hour of morning. True self improvement and by-getting are more important than being "real" and "knowing"

Fysh

Mind-body problem, tbh. Unfortunately the truly questioning mind will not be willing to just accept that the senses of the biological box it's trapped in are reporting the world accurately, nor would it be willing to accept the claims of so-called memory.

However, the only certainty that this can leave such a mind with is that of its own existence. All else would have to be questioned and, ultimately, rejected for lack of proof. As such, in order to get on with the more nuts-and-bolts end of existence (Eg making dinner) people take it on faith that their senses provide a reasonably accurate depiction of the world as it is, and don't overly concern themselves with finding an exactly accurate depiction unless it is immediately required by that nuts-and-bolts approach.

I would say that personally, all we ever have are interpretations of how the world works based on personal experience, and none of them can be 100% accurate because none of them can be formed upon reviewing all possible experience. So for example a homeless orphan's world-view is staggeringly different to a middle-aged succesful investment banker's; neither is inherently wrong or right, rather they are both incomplete. The only way I think any such world-view can really be judged, however, is in terms of how useful it is for the holder to achieve their desires (ie if the orphan holds the view that rich people are uncaring bastards and proceeds to succesfully mug them at knifepoint, thereby getting enough money to eat it could be argued that it is a succesful viewpoint. However as it is unlikely to provide a long-term escape from the situation he/she is in, I would be wary of endorsing it).

Neuro

Three simple words...

Cogito Ergo Sum

By the way, are you a Clinic fan by any chance?

Fysh

Neuro wrote:

Three simple words...
Cogito Ergo Sum
By the way, are you a Clinic fan by any chance?

I haven't got a clue what you mean. Saying "I think therefore I am" is all very well, but parroting bits of someone else's argument without providing any reasoning behind it doesn't really hold up in a discussion. I mean, I don't even know if you're saying that we can only know that we exist in some form through being self-aware, or that we at least know that much.

Dades

I put very little worth in such thinking. It's nothing more than an endless cycle of speculation with no possible chance of satisfaction. Why speculate that everything is not as it seems, if every possible physical input tells us that it is? When you hear hooves - don't think of zebras.

Somebody can stand in front of me and ask how he can be sure I am really there, are perhaps his perceptions of reality wrong? Are they in someway altering the truth of the situation?

If I then punch him in the face I wonder would he still question both our existances in that space and time.

I can see this getting interesting.

bonkey

voo-doo-wop wrote:

Science, for example, is often looked on as truth

I would argue that science is an eplanatory tehnique to allow us to understand what we perceive.

but are all these ideas (essentially that's all they can be) which we call theories ( observe Theory of Relativity vs. Fact of relativity) actually correct?

That begs the question of what correct means Do they form a valid framework for explanation? Yes, but only within that framework, and it doesn't preclude the possibility of alternate, equally valid explanations based on other frameworks, which can be equally valid.

Take a slightly strained parallel in mathematics. There are often completely seperate methods of achieving the same proof - we have different systems of co-ordinates (x,y or angle/distance from a point) and methods to perform operations on the spaces they define. In geometry, we have two main methods of achieving the various proofs. They're simply different ways of explaining or looking at the same thing.

Are either incorrect (by whatever way you interpret correctness as pointed out above)? Or are they both correct?

Science has no illusions of having all the answers....yet. And even were we to have all the answers, the scientific framework is still only dealing with the measurable - the physical. The concept of metaphysics is completely outside the framework our scientific methods currently encompass, so science cannot address the reality/correctness of it. But does that make science wrong? Or just a way of looking at things, which - for its intended purpose - is just as correct as any other?

I think I managed to write all of that without using the words prove or real once, so arguably I'm dodging the question somewhat, but I'll try to tie it back in.

Proof implies a framework. In fact, proof requires a framework. And the proof is only as strong as the framework, and only valid within the strictures of that framework.

If you consider reality to be what the framework defines, then yes. We can prove things to be real - as best we understand reality to be.

If you mean reality to be something greater - above the framework, so to speak....then proof is not an applicable concept, because it will only exist within frameowk, so no.

jc

Neuro

Fysh wrote:

...or that we at least know that much.

Yes, or in other words we know something. This implies that the answer to the question:

"Can we truly KNOW anything?"

is yes.

randombassist

We can only really KNOW that we think, therefore we are, nothing else is to one extent or another truly proveable, as it could all be an elaborate dream etc. But we all obviously ACCEPT a lot more than that to be true, otherwise we'd all end up going mad in a corner somewhere.

Dades

randombassist wrote:

otherwise we'd all end up going mad in a corner somewhere.

or on a philosophy board...

vibe666

a tough one alright.

we're getting into matrixy type territory at any rate.

Werner Heisenberg gets stopped for speeding by the police. the cop says to him "do you know how fast you were going?" to which he replies, "i have no idea, but i know exactly where I am!"

just thought i'd throw that in there.

think someone said it a couple of weeks ago.

still a valid point though.

mr_angry

Even science admits that our ability to determine "truth", or to "know" something is limited by our ability to measure. To give an obvious example, we cannot see smaller astronomical bodies in other solar systems becuase instruments like telescopes don't have a fine enough resolution to see them, or instruments capable of detecting their level of light reflected.

However, to give a stranger example, your ability to see that a cup has fallen on the floor is also restricted by your ability to measure. Your eyes help you determine the event through light, yet we know that light is a manipulatable thing... a mirror could be telling you that the cup is on the ground when the cup is in fact on a very similar bit of ceiling. (Quite unlikely, but you get the gist.)

Quantum mechanics muddies the waters even further. By observing a qubit, you alter its state. By the time you have made your measurement, the qubit has changed. The waveform function that determines this was examplified in a rather amusing way by Schrodinger. You can find an article on this on Wikipedia.

In short, we can only do the best with the tools we have. As for knowing absolute truth? We will never know anything for sure.

Jack137

I have only just started reading philosophy, I don't know much of what came after Kant so I could easily be reiterating an existing theory, but I think this may provide a basis for sound concrete knowledge.

All criticisms are more than welcome.

(1) Two conflicting premises, if followed logically to their final conclusions must yield conflicting results

(2) A false premise which is drawn to its final conclusion, must provide false theories

(3) A false theory when fully expanded must at some point be visibly false, because if it all deductions from the theory are true, the premise must then be true

It seems to follow from this that contrary to Descartes opinion that we must systematically doubt everything, we should embrace all theories and develop fully their implications, safe in the knowledge that what is false will be provably so from its conclusions.

It would also follow that undeniably true premises may be deduced by a method of elimination.

It is probably riddled in flaws so any criticisms are more than welcome

blearyboy

Try searching on Google for "Wittgenstein Popper poker" for a demonstration of how greater minds than ours have had to resort to physical violence to resolve this question.