Free Riders

[Jake_Ellison]

So anything you know may be wrong = nothing means anything, total free for all existentialist nihilism?

Right.

You people only think in extremes and have no intention to discuss ideas rationally beyond that narrow frame of mind. I'm out.

"anything you know may be wrong" obviously means exactly that, retard:

anything you know may be wrong = there is nothing that can be known = nothing can have meaning, as far as we know = nothing has meaning ( since there is no other conscious mind in the Universe to evaluate the meaning of things, as far as we know-oh, wait, is that a bad word?) -unless of course you want to bring God into this. I assume you're agnostic too, since saying that we know there is no God (or saying that there is one) would both negate your little theory that anything we know may be wrong.

We didn't say everything is relative, you did. How else are we supposed to interpret that? That is not jumping to conclusion, that is a very simple logical equivalence, please ask any high school math teacher you know, they'll tell you.( I hope at least the math teachers still can. Go with an older one, just to be safe.)

[Tenure]

Zedic,

'Anything you know may be wrong', has two possible implications:

1) Any claim to knowledge is only a degree of certainty - there is always the possibility of error and therefore there are no definite, certain truth claims. Even this claim is only true... to a degree.

2) Knowledge is capable of expansion. I may have performed the processes correct to grasping knowledge. To use the swan example: I know that there are only white swans, because that is all I have ever seen. Knowledge is not a matter of waiting to be proved right or wrong. Proof lies in perception, and if I have seen it, and judged it correctly, I know it. Now, you may raise objections to whether or not I judged it correctly, but you accept then that there is a method of correct judgement, a point at which I can properly say, "I know this" as opposed to, "I just wished this up in my head because I can't be bothered to actually think about it". But when I see a black swan, does that mean I was wrong? No! The fact that I see black swans does not invalidate my seeing white swans. It only expands my knowledge. If I now tried to claim that I was right, that there are only white swans, then I would be wrong, but that is only because it has been proved that I am wrong.

Knowledge, in short, is contextual. It is not about measuring up against a standard of perfect knowledge, but about making claims, according to a certain, correct method, according to the context of everything you have seen on the perceptual level.

But, to go back to the original claim, "Anything you know may be wrong", means you have reason to suspect that there's evidence disproving every single claim you make. But then, ignoring the self-contradiction of that statement, if I know that I can find evidence to prove me wrong on all my beliefs, surely then, that evidence is certain, and I will then have knowledge? But then that evidence may be wrong, once I come to claim knowledge from it. So then I must find more evidence. I remain in a state of perpetually hunting down evidence, trying to disprove myself, accepting that there just is no knowledge. I become like Sextus Empiricus, holding that for every argument, there is a 'possible' logical counter-argument, therefore I may be wrong, if only I knew why I was wrong.

So, you see, your statement destroys the meaning of knowledge. The detective who notices his suspect, who he's been tracking for weeks, mounting up evidence against him, actually has an alibi corroborated by someone who has no reason to help the suspect - this detective has reason to suspect he may be wrong. The alibi may be a lie and the man corroborating the story may be threatened or being paid off by the suspect, but until the detective can find certain evidence one way or the other, he will never be able to prove whether the alibi is really that water-tight or not.

I highly recommend you read 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology' and 'Maybe You're Wrong' from 'The Objectivist Forum' collection [though I understand you may not have any kind of access to the latter, so here's a good quote from it, republished in the Lexicon:]

The crusading skepticism of the modern era; the mounting attack on absolutes, certainty, reason itself; the insistence that firm convictions are a disease and that compromise in any dispute is men’s only recourse—all this, in significant part, is an outgrowth of Descartes’ basic approach to philosophy. To reclaim the self-confidence of man’s mind, the first modern to refute is Kant (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology); the second is Descartes.

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Tenure

[Zedic]

"anything you know may be wrong" obviously means exactly that, retard

Wow, this is rich. Nice to know that it's okay for 'established" members can resort to ad hominem attacks. It makes you look stupid and hot headed - the opposite of rational and composed - Mr. Ellison.

[KendallJ]

Wow, this is rich. Nice to know that it's okay for 'established" members can resort to ad hominem attacks. It makes you look stupid and hot headed - the opposite of rational and composed - Mr. Ellison.

Well, Zedic, it is not okay, and it does make him look rather foolish and crude at that.