RE: opinions vs knowledge - a View from the Cave

In reply to John Holgate:

[ET]> <we cannot, as rational beings, operate in a world of
personal opinions.
> <That would be living in Plato's Cave.
>
>[JH] Every time I go to a movie I am happily revisiting Plato's Cave.
> Occasionally it makes more sense than the 'real' world outside.
[ET] But you know that it is a movie and not real life. And a movie
is reduced in complexity - otherwise, it would be open to too many
interpretations.
>
>
[JH] 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'?

[ET} I'm not saying that the truth is always clear-cut. I am saying
that our experience must be open to validation. That a belief cannot
be self-affirmed. Clear cut beliefs are operative in ideologies, such
as those that are forever being posted to this list by Elohimi (sorry,
I can't recall the name properly] and they are not only ungrounded
but not open to verification. As for 'hidden variables' - I don't accept
that. Too Hegelian for me.
As for the truth being rational, I believe that our world does operate
logically rather than randomly. Certainly, randomness exists as
well as freedom (not the same thing), but, overall, both freedom and
logic interact in a 'logical' manner. And our perceptions must
always be open to validation, or, rejected. I can continue to believe
in a flat earth, but I must allow that belief to be open to proof.
>
.>
[JH} Aren't opinions and beliefs only paradigms with varying
degrees of fallability
> according to time and place?
[ET] No. You are taking a relativist view, which links the
opinion/belief to a particular society/culture. I don't agree with this,
for that denies the reality of the external world. The opinion must be
kept open to ongoing validation. I cannot conclude, now and
forever, that X is true. I can only conclude that, according to the
evidence, at the moment, X is valid, but further research might
change that conclusion.
>
>
>[JH] 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.
[ET] You are trying to preserve a fallability by irrelevant examples! If
I put forward the hypothesis that women are as violent as men,
then, that hypothesis can't be disproven by the example of 'inability
to carry out gang rape', for violence is carried out in multiple
manners. Equally, the physiological fact that men do not have the
hormonal capacity to provide milk, says nothing about nurturing
behavioural capacities in men. That is: the ability to provide milk is
not the sole indicator of the ability to nurture.
>

[JH] 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.
[ET} No - I don't say that false information is 'non-information'. That
would be setting up a scenario where only 'valid' data is
information. I certainly don't agree with that! Most certainly, false
information 'is' information. I have to explore it and find out whether
its relations to the world are valid or invalid.
 
[JH} 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 (:
[ET] I disagree with the statement that 'information is knowledge-
independent'. It is knowledge-dependent. What is going on, in the
universe, is an evolving 'knowledge' where bits of matter are
'informemd' (set up into relations). These relations operate within a
logical interaction; they are not random or the matter would rapidly
dissolve. The relations, as operative in the logic, are knowledge-
dependent. But, this knowledge cannot be isolate. It cannot be a
self-asserted belief. It has to enable information 'bits' to emerge
that are validly operative in the real world. Also, there is no such
thing as a 'primary matter' in the sense that the emergent
information is a copy of it (that's Platonic, and I'm not a Platonist).
There is primary energy which is formed, by logical relations, into
matter.

So- those are my comments. Thanks for the input.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University Phone:(819)822.9600 Ext.2424
Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
Canada JIM 1Z7
Received on Wed Sep 4 14:11:37 2002