RE: opinions vs knowledge - a View from the Cave

Edwina,

You commented:

<we cannot, as rational beings, operate in a world of personal opinions.
<That would be living in Plato's Cave.

Every time I go to a movie I am happily revisiting Plato's Cave.
Occasionally it makes more sense than the 'real' world outside.

I support your call for rationality and mostly agree with the logic of your arguments but unfortunately the truth is not always rational or clear cut. We don't merely 'operate' as systems. We may think in a matrix but we live in a vortex.

My experience of the world must be much more Bayesian and fuzzy than yours.
What is the 'real hard empirical proof' in cases with 'hidden variables'?

<This is merely moving, in Plato's Cave or Bacon's world, from the belief held
<by the individual to the belief held by the group. From 'doxa' to 'pistis' for Plato'
- and - Bacon's 'Theatre'. And - the fallacy of 'the popular opinion'.
<Whether held by one individual or a group, it's still an opinion and
<unless grounded in real hard empirical proof as well as logic - it's a
<fallacy.

Aren't opinions and beliefs only paradigms with varying degrees of fallability
according to time and place?

<I think that all the society could do to justify
<itself would be pure tautologies. It cannot prove, empirically, that
<there is any relationship.

Yes justification is somehow anchored in information.

Is somebody ever justified enough to decapitate another human being? Not an unwed mother in contemporary Nigeria but maybe for Danton in 1794 it was okay. The 'enough' (threshhold of justification) then depends on the information available. How do we empirically know the
Nigerian woman exists (or for that matter that Danton deserved to be or was in fact guillotined)?
We rely on information - or misinformation.

<I consider misinformation both a distortion and an absence.
<If someone tells me that 'women are nurturing' and 'men are violent',
<then I consider this merely an opinion, unfounded as well as
<misinformed.
 
Yes, the misinformation here is both in the distortion (false generalisation) and
in the absence of sufficient information.

However, the statement may not be completely unfounded. The evidence says that female gang
rape is less prevalent than the male variety and that men aren't much good at
breastfeeding.

If information is 'carried' by a sign or signal which reports truly on
a state of affairs then the statement 'men are violent' (for you) is ostensibly false
and therefore non-information. False information is not information at all - you're either informed or you're not. The rubber toy in the bath is not a species of duck.

But if information is knowledge-independent (say as part of a physics of
pure information states as in 'It from Bit') then the misinformation is a 'distorted' form of
the primary matter - 'men are violent' distorts the true nature of men as non-violent and nurturing beings (:

In this case the rubber ducky is nonetheless a kind of duck and represents a distorted
model of duckhood just like language and the movies both represent and distort the 'real' world.

Ironically 'It from Bit' and The Invisible Hand' take us back inside Plato's Cave -
'a world of primitive differences' without the true and false flipflop of Socratic logic,
a universe of intriguing 'white lies'.

 
John H

-----Original Message-----
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:taborsky@primus.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2002 22:53
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: Re: opinions vs knowledge - misinformation?

Yes, I agree with much but not all, of what John Holgate says. I am
aware that Pedro finds my criticisms of subjective opinions
'uninteresting', but we cannot, as rational beings, operate in a world
of personal opinions. That would be living in Plato's Cave. What we
conclude, must be based on evidence -both actual and logical.

[John Holgate]
If opinions are low-grade beliefs and knowledge is justified true
belief then opinions and knowledge are not binary opposites but part
of a continuum of belief ranging from 'subjective'
fanatacism and evangelism to 'objective' scientific truth. The
opinions of Giordano Bruno were considered illogical and evangelical
in their time. Later they became acceptable beliefs
and components of a body of knowledge. Given other circumstances even
Charles Peirce
(or Germaine Greer) might have been burnt at the stake for heresy.

[Edwina]
No - here I would disagree. You are defining knowledge and truth as
resting only in the 'most common' opinion. You are retaining its
definition as a 'belief' and defining their validity only when they
become believed by the majority. This is merely moving, in Plato's
Cave or Bacon's world, from the belief held by the individual to the
belief held by the group. From 'doxa' to 'pistis' for Plato' - and -
Bacon's 'Theatre'. And - the fallacy of 'the popular opinion'.
Whether held by one individual or a group, it's still an opinion and
unless grounded in real hard empirical proof as well as logic - it's a
fallacy.

[John Holgate]The truth of a belief is not in its logicality but in
its justification.

That pregnant unwed mothers should be decapitated is quite a logical
belief for the Nigerian government but it is not an (ethically)
justified belief.
[Edwina] Again, a belief can't be defined as truthful only if
justified. That is setting up a Truth Formula where your premisses can
be completely invalid but, as long as you have premisses, then, you
define your beliefs as 'valid'. ie.
    All unwed mothers are evil.
    This woman is an unwed mother
    Therefore, this woman is evil.
The premisses are opinions and require proof. The society has to
define the nature of evil and the actual proof that an unwed mother
actualizes that. I think that all the society could do to justify
itself would be pure tautologies. It cannot prove, empirically, that
there is any relationship.

[John Holgate]What role does 'information' play in all this? Is it, if
it exists at all, a kind of ubiquitous
crap-detector or a cognitive mist we have to pass through to get to
the truth?

Luciano Floridi's paper addresses the question from a hardcore logic
perspective
with his 'alethic' approach but the jury is still out.

In my view misinformation is a distortion of true belief rather than
an absence of information altogether.

Your opinion?

[Edwina] I consider misinformation both a distortion and an absence.
If someone tells me that 'women are nurturing' and 'men are violent',
then I consider this merely an opinion, unfounded as well as
misinformed. Therefore, it is an absence of information, for if the
speaker went to empirical tests, they would find that the statement is
simply, empirically, false. Their conclusion is ignoring information,
and takes the next step of simply 'making up' the conclusion...without
any evidential premisses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:taborsky@primus.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 23:17
To: Multiple recipients of list FIS
Subject: opinions vs knowledge

Again, I ask why are evangelistic opinions posted to this discussion
site? The reply to my rejection of the evangelistic post about women
having innate 'love' capacities while men do not and therefore, they
can 'save the world' was yet another post filled with illogical
opinions, this time from Thommandel (don't know his/her real name).

I don't think that readers want a sentence by sentence deconstruction
of that reply, but I could show how each sentence is based on nothing
more than subjective opinion. Each collection of sentences, when
framed in any kind of logical form, leads to an invalid 'conclusion'.
The reply has nothing to do with knowledge or information. These are
nothing more than subjective non-empirical and illogical opinions,
filled with pure speculation, with moving from 'some' to 'all', with
lots of 'perhaps' suggestions suddenly moving to 'always'; with false
innuendoes, with insertion of emotive fallacies - ad hominem, ad
populam,...and....false data, false links, sentences following each
other without any valid logical or empirical relation.

Again - what does this type of post have to do with the scientific,
rational examination of information? I could use these posts for
students to take apart in my critical thinking and logic classes -
but - what are they doing on this list?

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898