What is knowledge?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. There are 3 types of knowledge.(1) Knowledge how—Example: Legolas knows how to shoot an arrow. (2) Knowledge by acquaintance—Example: Frodo knows Gandalf (3) Knowledge that—Example: Sauron knows that Frodo has the ring.

Most epistemology is the study of "knowledge that". In this context, the traditional definition of knowledge is justified, true, belief. I think that this definition is a good start in analyzing knowledge. I will define each of these aspects of knowledge.

Justification The state of being validated by proper means.

Truth The state that applies to propositions that accurately correspond to reality.

Belief A proposition that one accepts as being true.

If a belief is true and it is justified, then we say that a person has knowledge.

Example of not having knowledge: If the time is actually 12:00am and Ronald looks at a broken clock that is stuck on 12:00am and then Ronald believes that it is 12:00am, then Ronald has a belief that is true but is not justified. Therefore, we say that Ronald does not have knowledge because he did not gain his true belief by proper means. At least all 3 conditions must be met to consider whether or not someone has knowledge.

Example of having knowledge: If Lula witnesses a murder then she has knowledge that the murder happened because (1) Perceptions are a justified means, (2) the murder actually happened in reality and is therefore true, and (3) Lula believes that it happened.

Opposing theories of truth

To contrast with the only objective theory of truth—the correspondence theory—here are few examples of non-objective theories of truth. The Constructivist theory: Truth is merely socially constructed. According to this theory what is true in one culture, race, or gender can be false in another culture, race, or gender. This theory assumes idealism and is therefore self-refutting.

The Consensus theory: Whatever is agreed upon is true. According to its own standards, this theory is false since I do not agree with it. This too assumes a form of idealism and is therefore self-refutting.

The Pragmatic theory: Truth is whatever works. This theory confuses an indication of truth (what works) with truth itself. Pragmatic theory of truth can lead to relativism. If what "works" for you is different from what "works" for me, then what is true for you may be different from what is true for me. Therefore, the pragmatic theory of truth also rests on a form of idealism and is self-refutting.

Defining Truth

Truth is a concept. I would not be able to talk about truth without first explaining the axioms of reality and concept-formation. Truth is a quality of propositions. A proposition is true if it accurately corresponds to reality. According to Thomas Aquinas, “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality." This is called the correspondence theory of truth. It is the only valid theory of truth. Another way to state the correspondence theory is found in LDS scriptures. "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." (D&C 93:24) You cannot have knowledge of things as they aren't.

Truth does not apply to objects. The question, "Is the Matterhorn true or false?" is a meaningless question. The concept of truth does not apply. To say, "the Matterhorn is true" is to speak nonsense.

Truth only applies to propositions such as judgements. Here is an example of a proposition: "A goat is on Matterhorn?" This proposition makes sense because it can be either true or false, though it cannot be both.

goat-on-matterhorn

If a proposition can be true or false it has sense. If a proposition cannot be true or false, it is nonsense.

nonsense-on-matterhorn

If one wants to judge whether or not a statement is true, one must assume reality and concepts. Then he/she must compare the statement to the way things really are in reality. Without reality as an axiom, the concept of truth is meaningless.

Concepts and Reality

Sensations lead to perception. We simply perceive too many objects to remember every individual thing. We mitigate this problem through conceptualizing our perceptions. What is a concept? A concept is cognitive unit of meaning—a symbol that refers to objects in reality. Humans can form concepts because we can recognize similarities and differences among objects in reality. We summarize these similarities or differences through a process of abstraction. Let me give a few examples of concepts and concept-formation.

The color green: Green is a concept. Green does not exist by itself just floating somewhere in reality. There is no "green" that one can point to. But we can see a green mango, a green car, and a green turtle. These each have the property green. Green does not exist apart from green objects.

green-things

Colors: We can also create concepts of concepts. Once we understand the concept green and the concept yellow, orange, red, purple, and blue. We conceptualize these concepts into a higher concept called "color."

color-concept

Properties: A property is an even higher concept. It is a concept that can group color, shape, mass etc.

property-concept

Humans: When we see a particular human that we have never seen before, we don't think, "Whoa, I have never seen this before; I have no idea how to interact with it." Instead we automatically create the concept "human" through our past experiences with other humans and we then know how to interact with new "humans" that we have never seen before. Now the word "human" does not refer to any one thing in reality. There is no one "human" that we can point to. Instead "human" is a concept that refers to any object that shares certain similarities among other concepts such as arms, language, body odor, etc.

From these examples, we see that the human mind can create more concepts than objects in reality. Concepts can refer to reality. But the farther the concepts move away from reality, the more likely people will be confused. We must be vigilant in making sure that (1) concepts accurately reflect reality and that (2) our concepts are properly integrated with all other concepts to avoid contradictions.

An axiom is a foundational proposition that cannot be proved but can be validated. Propositions are axioms when one must assume the proposition when trying to deny it. Conceptualization is an axiom because one must use it in order to try and deny it. Likewise the validity of the senses are axiomatic because (1) the senses lead to concepts and (2) one must use concepts to attempt to reject the senses.

Nonsense about the senses

In my

last post

 I wrote about the philosophical error of subjectivism—the belief that we only have access to our own ideas and not to any objective reality. In this post I will address that error by arguing that our ideas can be objective.

The senses are faculties that we use to obtain information about the world. The eyes probably provide the most influential information about the world. The eyes are not a sensation. The eyes are an organ that we use to get sensations which lead to perceptions. According to the philosopher John Locke and subsequent philosophers, sensation and perception are both forms of ideas.

that-by-which

The grand mistake is to believe that ideas are that which we perceive. The truth is that ideas are that by which we perceive. The difference is one word “by”. What difference does this one word make? Think of the meaning of the sentence, “A brush is that which I am painting” and the sentence “A brush is that by which I am painting.” In the first sentence I am painting an image of the brush on the canvas. In the second sentence I am using the brush to do the painting. 

We are not aware of our ideas that are the result of our sensation and perception. We are only aware of the cause of our ideas. For example, when we use our eyes to look at bananas, we are not aware of the light that hits our retina. Nor are we aware of the physiochemical process by which our brains interpret that light. We are only aware of the cause of the perception— the bananas. We have direct access to the bananas which is the object of awareness.

In the picture below subjectivist philosophers would say that we do not have direct access to banana (A) we only have access to a "representation" of (A) expressed in figure (B). This is the major error.

perceiving-bananas

Let me review the difference between objective and subjective. Objective is that which is the same for everyone. Subjective is that which is different for everyone. Everyone with senses has direct awareness of objects in reality. This means that everyone has access to objective reality. We experience actual reality. We do not experience anything through the senses unless it actually exists in reality.

An error about ideas

The significance of philosophers should not be underestimated. Their ideas can permeate society for generations. It is very important to closely scrutinize the most influential ideas of philosophers. As Aristotle said, "The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." Enlightenment philosophers such as Descartes and John Locke were very influential. Many of these philosophers made a very crucial error concerning the relationship between the ideas and the intellect. Here I will briefly explain this error and point out the consequences of the error.

The error: Many philosophers believe that a person is only conscious of his own ideas. We are not aware of anyone else's ideas. We can only infer the ideas that other people have based on what they say and do. When we think of an apple, we have an idea of the apple in our mind. This idea may be a percept, a memory, a sensation, or a concept. One only perceives his own ideas.

The consequences of this error: 1. Objectivity is destroyed. "Objective" refers to that which is the same for everyone. "Subjective" refers to that which is different from one individual to another.  If we are only aware of our own ideas then ideas are merely subjective since we have no way of knowing if ideas are the same for everyone.

2. It leads to skepticism. If one only perceive his own ideas, then when one looks at an apple he/she is only aware of the representation of the apple in their mind. He/she is not actually aware of the apple in reality. One can guess that his/her idea of the apple is a good representation of the real apple, but he/she has no way of knowing. Why? because we can only tell if a representation is accurate by comparing the representation to the original. Since we have no access to the original we have know way of knowing whether our senses our trustworthy. Therefore we cannot directly apprehend what reality is like.

In my next post, I will show why these ideas about ideas are wrong.

How We Know Reality: Perception

Humans have senses. We can sense light (via eyes), sound (via ears), pressure and temperature (via skin), chemical composition (via nose and tongue), balance and acceleration (via the vestibular labyrinthine system), and we can sense many other things via various organs in the body. All of these senses give us access to reality by creating sensations. These sensations are the result of physiological processes. As such they cannot be right or wrong. The senses simply do what they do regardless of how one might wish them to be.

Sensations lead to perception. Perception is an automatic process in mature adults. We cannot control it. When we dip a straight straw into our glass of water, we perceive the straw to be bent even though the straw is not bent in reality. This is not because our senses are wrong. This is due to the fact that water refracts light. If anything, this example show how good our eyes are at interpreting light traveling at different speeds through different mediums.

bent-straw

After we perceive something we make judgements. In the case of the straw in water we can use our reason to judge that straw really is not bent after all. Likewise through experience we can discern between optical illusions and reality. Unlike perception, judgements can be right or wrong. If we were to believe in magic after witnessing a performance by a magician, our judgement about what we perceived would be wrong.

Our access to reality starts with perceptions. As we gain experience, our judgements about what we perceive in reality will improve.

A Foundation for Knowledge

All knowledge rests on the following 3 axioms. All principled thinking depends on these axioms.

Axiom 1: Existence exists or in other words reality is real. Existence is independent of consciousness. This is a self-evident axiom because a conscious person can only reject existence after first presuming his own existence. Existence is the widest of all concepts. It includes all that is known and unknown. I am going to call things that exist in reality “existents.”

Axiom 2: Consciousness exists. Consciousness is the awareness of existents.

Axiom 3: The law of identity. The first two axioms imply the law of identity. Consciousness can identify existents. The identity of an existent is its identity. If we substitute the word identity for the symbol “A” we know that ‘A’ = ‘A’. This means that ‘A’ cannot equal ‘not A’

The law of identity implies the law of causality. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. The law of causality is the foundation for our understanding of natural laws. It in turn implies position symmetry and time symmetry. Position symmetry means that existents have the same identity no matter where they are in reality. Time symmetry means that existents have the same identity regardless of when they are in reality.

The law of identity also implies the law of non-contradiction. This is another axiom. It shows that contradictions cannot exist in reality. The law of non-contradition is the foundation of logic. Logic provides the foundation for mathematics. Logic is the key to understanding the universe. Reality sans logic would be unintelligible. By rejecting the axioms one necessarily destroys their ability to think.

These axioms are the foundation of knowledge. The systematic application of the axioms validates scientific inquiry. No consciousness in the universe can change these axioms—not even God. Causality, Logic, and Mathematics are necessarily the same in every time and in every place.

Axioms

An idea can be a premise or a conclusion. A premise is an idea that supports a conclusion. A conclusion is an idea that is derived from premises. To validate a conclusion we must identify and validate the premises. How do we validate a premise? By identifying the premises that support that premise. Here we can see a potential problem. Either (1) each premise will have its own premise going down a chain of premises forever, or (2) eventually we will find a stopping point. That stopping point would be an irreducible premise that can stand alone. If option (1) is true, then knowledge would not be possible. If option (2) is true then knowledge is possible only if we find irreducible premises that can stand alone. I believe that knowledge is possible because irreducible premises do exist. I am going to call these premises "Axioms". An axiom is a foundational premise that is self evident. An axiom is self evident if when one attempts to reject it, must assume it first. An example of a self-evident axiom is the idea that "existence exists". This is self-evident because if a person tries to reject it, he/she must first presume his/her own existence.

Axioms cannot be proven. The concept of proof is not irreducible. "Proof" relies on axioms. For example, the concept of "proof" first assumes that existence exists and that it exists independent of consciousness. The concept of proof is meaningless without the concept of reality/existence. Even though Axioms cannot be proven, they can be validated. Validation is a larger concept than proof. Axioms are validated if they are self-evident.

In the next few posts I will lay out the most fundament Axioms of knowledge and science.