3 ms·

Epistemology is tricky, isn't it? By your standard, most of us also don't "know" that the Civil War happened or that there is a vacuum in space. It's deduction

Epistemology is tricky, isn't it? By your standard, most of us also don't "know" that the Civil War happened or that there is a vacuum in space. It's deductions, inductions, personal attestations, and consensuses all the way down. Yet, to navigate a modern world that presents itself as scientific and evidence-based, most of us adopt beliefs about these things -- sometimes with much stubbornness and sometimes very lightly -- and call these things "knowledge" too. You can be a stickler about your use of the term, but the more you are, the more distanced you find yourself from common usage, the more needlessly contentious and pedantic discussions become, and the more you're left to come up with your own language to describe all the usages you've chosen to reject.

verisimi 2y ago
Right - I'm more distanced from common usage, for sure. On the other hand, my assessments and understanding is my own. My brain is not "outsourced" to consensus or experts. I'm fine with that! I'm interested to see if you have a suggestion that would draw this distinction out better. The idea that something can be 'known' at large by a group, and the idea that the individual 'knows' because he has personally verified something. Are both these really "knowledge"? Can knowledge be a team sport? Is knowledge what the person with the biggest megaphone, or the most supporters say it is? I'm also interested to hear a better term than 'know', for those things that the individual has verified vs what you would call (group) "knowledge" - but I personally think my 'hard' definition is the proper one. One knows, or one believes (or theorises/hypothesises/etc). It might (or might not) be fair/useful to hold consensus opinion - but, as far as the individual is concerned this type of information ought to be characterised as 'belief'. I'm sure you can tell, but I think knowledge (all thinking and emotions actually) occur in the individual only. A generic "we" cannot know anything - knowledge is enlivened in the individual mind only. I think this is all self-evident, but I'm always happy to hear alternative views, better definitions of terms, etc. I invite you to explain further and correct me!

verisimi 2y ago

Right - I'm more distanced from common usage, for sure. On the other hand, my assessments and understanding is my own. My brain is not "outsourced" to consensus or experts. I'm fine with that! I'm interested to see if you have a suggestion that would draw this distinction out better. The idea that something can be 'known' at large by a group, and the idea that the individual 'knows' because he has personally verified something. Are both these really "knowledge"? Can knowledge be a team sport? Is knowledge what the person with the biggest megaphone, or the most supporters say it is? I'm also interested to hear a better term than 'know', for those things that the individual has verified vs what you would call (group) "knowledge" - but I personally think my 'hard' definition is the proper one. One knows, or one believes (or theorises/hypothesises/etc). It might (or might not) be fair/useful to hold consensus opinion - but, as far as the individual is concerned this type of information ought to be characterised as 'belief'. I'm sure you can tell, but I think knowledge (all thinking and emotions actually) occur in the individual only. A generic "we" cannot know anything - knowledge is enlivened in the individual mind only. I think this is all self-evident, but I'm always happy to hear alternative views, better definitions of terms, etc. I invite you to explain further and correct me!