Poll: but, I KNOW the earth is flat!

[Goldeneye1989]

being a psychology student we kinda know that nothing is ever proven

 

[tthor]

i believe it is physically impossible for humans to be sure of anything.
we can make pretty accurate guesses, but we have know way of being certain of it.
like, if i were to drop my remote in mid air, it is possible that it will float up to the ceiling. is it likely? hell no. but we have no way of knowing that it won't happen, whether by a natural anomaly, if if we are simply in the matrix and the computer screwed up.
everything we know is based on the signals sent from our senses to our brains, and thus, we have no way of even knowing how genuine those signals are.

i have too much time on my hands to think about these things...

 

[Corn Cutter]

'knowing' is believing in something until it's proven wrong - just like science

 

[Asturiel]

This reminds me of the theory of relativity, or at least the way my psychics teacher explained it to me...

You've phrased this well, but people just get all angry with me for going, "prove to me that the Earth is round.
The science you're using is just evidence suggesting something. I have plenty of evidence about its flatness all around!"
with the conversation going on and on.

Reality is all in our heads; I don't know if any of it is real or not, but I just roll with it.
This is where existentialism comes in.

Believe it or not Naruto had a speech about that that sounded pretty...not shit.

*sigh*

I hate philosohy. In my opinion its a complete waste of time.

"If a tree falls and no-one is around to hear it, Does it make a sound?"
"Look geoff, You can ask this question as many times over as you want, it wont pay the rent. Go get a job"

----

At the end of the day, Nasa have been up into space, The world is Round. Other planets are round.

Better question to ask:

Why do people with too much time on their hands ask pointless questions, Instead of the questions that need[/I] to be asked.

Because, it kills more time than practical questions and I FEEL LIKE IT RAWWWR!

There is one question with an undeniable answer: religion is false when it comes to Science.

EDIT: Please don't quote me with the sole purpose of "no."

No Negatory.

I've always held true to the notion that we can't really know anything.

Yeah. Thats kinda my view as well..... How do we know what we know? we don't

I don't know anything, but everybody seems to run on the assumption I know everything so let's go with that!

Short answer: Literally speaking we can't have perfect knowledge. Practically speaking we can.

Long answer: All knowledge should be amendable to future evidence, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that we can say we know for sure - mathematics for one. There are things that have been established to such a high degree it would take such massive evidence to change them that it's a pretty safe bet they won't change any time soon and it's an even safer bet that if they do, it won't involve completely throwing out the old theory - Newton's laws are horribly outdated, but they still work well enough so we don't throw them out.

I would fear that mans ghosts if we threw away his laws. From what I heard it sounded like graaah he raged and made calculus because the old math didn't work. I fear that kind of brain that just finds out a system to justify his work quicker and still works.

Even if Hydrogen was two functionally identical atoms that couldn't be discerned using any method we know, the periodic table makes detailed, useful predictions, all of which are fulfilled 100% of the time. That means it's either the truth and we know about how elements behave, or it's a perfectly predictive model of how elements behave, indistinguishable from the truth. At that point, any difference is so insignificant, we can't distinguish between the two so for all intents and purposes, we can just say the model and the truth are one in the same. Hence for practical purposes, we can know things.

To put it mathematically, what's the difference between 1 and 0.999...recurring?
The answer: none, they're mathematically identical. Similar principle.

Kind of like if it works 99.9% of the time, lets just run on the basis it works 100% of the time.

as socrates said i am the wisest man alive for i know that i know nothing

As Asturiel said

I am the wisest man because I have a infinite wisdom score and a periapt of Wisdom+ <Any number ever

You know, sometimes I pretend like you internet people are all figments of my imagination. It's great fun.

Pretend would imply that you all are not...

I don't disagree with what you're trying to say, but this part is wrong. Back in the day, people believed the earth was flat not because they could see it, but rather because they couldn't. General belief was that the earth was flat and it was accepted because no one ever traveled far enough to disprove it. Same with heliocentrism vs geocentrism: They saw the sun rise up and down each day and that was their proof that the sun revolved around the earth; Again, because no one could travel away from the earth and actually see it.

Wasn't it more of a they never returned to prove it wasn't flat? Or that if they did they simply "didn't go far enough".

 

[FalloutJack]

I voted maybe. I voted maybe because knowledge changes every day according to better research, new theories being made. However, there are certain facts which must remain facts. The world being flat is not a fact. It is round. If you disagree with me, I invite you to find the edge of the world where you fly off into space and tell me about it.

However, if we're getting philosophical, well... I've had classes dealing highly with the truth of the nature of things according to our perceptions and how to read those perceptions. Existentialism, Rationalism, Meta-Physics, and so on. I'm surprised I didn't touch upon bold-faced Logic. Still, we have this and I like to go the Descartes way on this. Start with a thinking thing and work on up. Eventually, you create the world around you and find out that everything you questioned that is true...IS actually true, and it works all out.

 

[nazorius]

um...from what I remember from philosophy, the justified true belief conception of knowledge was that "p" is true (p being the subject in question), "s" believes that "p" (where s is the person), and "s" is justified in believing "p". Well, they certainly believed that the earth was flat, they were justified, however it wasn't true. Therefore they don't have knowledge according to the JTB conception of knowledge.

 

[Terminal Dogma]

On some level, I think that it is impossible to know if what we perceive as true is true. All human beings are forced to work within the framework given to us, moment by moment. A quote comes to mind which echoes the points set forth in your post.

"We live only one real day, during which we dream of living many more. Today is not that day."

 

[Powderedhippo]

Being an epistemology (a branch of philosophy) student, I naturally ask questions. The main question, the main focus of the course is around "how do we KNOW what we know?". Here is a little background knowledge to help you out when it comes to answering this...

Plato, an ancient philosopher, defined knowledge as a "justified true belief." This is the definition of knowledge that is commonly accepted as THE definition of knowledge by almost all philosophers today. You must recognize knowledge as something that is a) specific to individuals, and b) attached to emotion. Back in the day, people KNEW that the earth was flat because it was justified (they could see!), true to individuals, and people believed it. They KNEW, this was their knowledge. The reason there cannot be knowledge without emotion is because believing something requires emotion as a backing force.

Anyways, the question! Do we REALLY know what we know? How can you be certain that, say, you are reading this? What is telling you that you are reading this? How do you know your computer is the color that it is? How do you know who your mother is? How do you know that you look as you do? How do you know the earth is round?

I have formulated my own answer to this and will update here soon, so keep checking back!

I know what colour my computer is because I have eyes, I know who my mother is because of dna (and eyes), I know how I look because I have eyes, I know the earth is round because I've seen pictures and videos and a whole lot of people say it is.

 

[Unoriginal]

This is the basis of religion.
Except mine is right.

 

[nazorius]

Being an epistemology (a branch of philosophy) student, I naturally ask questions. The main question, the main focus of the course is around "how do we KNOW what we know?". Here is a little background knowledge to help you out when it comes to answering this...

Plato, an ancient philosopher, defined knowledge as a "justified true belief." This is the definition of knowledge that is commonly accepted as THE definition of knowledge by almost all philosophers today. You must recognize knowledge as something that is a) specific to individuals, and b) attached to emotion. Back in the day, people KNEW that the earth was flat because it was justified (they could see!), true to individuals, and people believed it. They KNEW, this was their knowledge. The reason there cannot be knowledge without emotion is because believing something requires emotion as a backing force.

Anyways, the question! Do we REALLY know what we know? How can you be certain that, say, you are reading this? What is telling you that you are reading this? How do you know your computer is the color that it is? How do you know who your mother is? How do you know that you look as you do? How do you know the earth is round?

I have formulated my own answer to this and will update here soon, so keep checking back!

Um......no? I'm starting to think you don't know much about philosophy, considering that Gettier disproved the JTB conception of knowledge...

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

WE do KNOW what we know, but you probably meant, do we understand what we know?!
In that case I would say most of the times we dont. And there is not much of a philoshical question there anymore.

 

[manaman]

Being an epistemology (a branch of philosophy) student, I naturally ask questions. The main question, the main focus of the course is around "how do we KNOW what we know?". Here is a little background knowledge to help you out when it comes to answering this...

Plato, an ancient philosopher, defined knowledge as a "justified true belief." This is the definition of knowledge that is commonly accepted as THE definition of knowledge by almost all philosophers today. You must recognize knowledge as something that is a) specific to individuals, and b) attached to emotion. Back in the day, people KNEW that the earth was flat because it was justified (they could see!), true to individuals, and people believed it. They KNEW, this was their knowledge. The reason there cannot be knowledge without emotion is because believing something requires emotion as a backing force.

Anyways, the question! Do we REALLY know what we know? How can you be certain that, say, you are reading this? What is telling you that you are reading this? How do you know your computer is the color that it is? How do you know who your mother is? How do you know that you look as you do? How do you know the earth is round?

I have formulated my own answer to this and will update here soon, so keep checking back!

I get what you are saying, but maybe as a student of epistemology, basing you beliefs on past knowledge you would think you would try to look into what they did actually know, and what is just assumed that they knew by common believes today. Take the world being round vs flat. Any sailor of the day could see that the world was not flat by the fact that land, ships, and everything rises from the horizon. Atlas has the world on his shoulders, and it is a globe. A Greek man was the first to accurately describe the circumference of the earth, and if he knew enough to figure that out, he had to already know that the earth was round.

Interesting idea, but one I have heard before, problem is it assumes incorrectly that people today are more evolved physically and mentally then they where in the recent past. Doesn't stop it from being an interesting debate as seen in the past, and still seen today the common held belief is not always the correct one.

 

[kahlzun]

Believe it or not:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/

people -still- believe that.

 

[1blackone]

You really shouldn't use a gaming forum to get people to help with your Descartes Metaphysics homework. You'll invaribally end up with the answer: Final Fantasy 7

 

[CATS FTW]

I've asked every math teacher / science teacher "But how, do we know this?" since 7th grade and have never EVER gotten a straight answer.
Not that particular question but just about the thing they so nonchalantly say is the truth.

 

[Adzma]

I can't tell you how much I hate philosophical, existential, "prove you exist" "what do we know" discussion. It just bothers me.

Yeah me too. The fact is I know I exist because I am here answering a question of whether or not I exist. The world is round because we have proven scientifically that it is so. Back when humanity thought it was flat, the science to prove it didn't exist.

 

[Roganwilson]

Grr, I hate philosphy. Too much thinking.

I think that we believe what we want to believe, and will alter our world to conform to that. I am very much a show-it-to-me-first person, and if I am going to believe in something, I need proof.

 

[crudus]

Anyways, the question! Do we REALLY know what we know? How can you be certain that, say, you are reading this? What is telling you that you are reading this? How do you know your computer is the color that it is? How do you know who your mother is? How do you know that you look as you do? How do you know the earth is round?

Have you noticed that you see the sails of a ship before the bow when it is coming over the horizon? (The Greeks did) Have you noticed that you can sail around the world without ever hitting a hard corner? (Magellan did).

This is what happens when someone gets just enough knowledge to be dangerous. What you are clearly neglecting is two major things about epistemology is that A) how does it affect me if what I think is true is actually false (example, you are adopted vs the color green is actually slightly lighter than we think it is) and 2) you need to make assumptions or define things that are the basis for the rest of the knowledge. Fretting over "do we really know *insert*?" really doesn't get you anywhere when you question foundations (without good enough evidence to do so) or trivial things like colors.

 

[Blydden]

"What the f*ck do we know?!"

There is only a single postulate that will always be true, and that we all know by heart.

"I EXIST."

But, what the f*ck CAN we prove with only one postulate?

 

[klakkat]

I'm a physicist.... I'm trained to make use of the model that makes the most accurate predictions given current data, while maintaining the possibility of a more accurate model. Any model that does not accurately predict observed phenomena is wrong. Any model that does predict observed phenomena is potentially right, or is correct within certain limits (for example, Newtonian mechanics works so long as the speed is much less than 1% of c, the speed of light)