KNOWLEDGE Outlined
© Cary Cook 2007
The word "know" is used to express two concepts: ACQUAINTANCE and CERTITUDE.
1. ACQUAINTANCE is of 2 types: FAMILIARITY and OPERATION
FAMILIARITY: to know X.
OPERATION: to know how to X, or how to do X.
OPERATION: to know how to X, or how to do X.
2. CERTITUDE is of 2 types: EMPIRICAL and PROPOSITIONAL certitude
EMPIRICAL: to know one's experience of X.
EXPERIENCE is of 4 types: thought, perception, emotion, will.
PROPOSITIONAL: to know that proposition X is true or false.
Knowledge exists also in degrees.Degrees of FAMILIARITY range from:
DISTINCTION: to know X from not X.
to
EXHAUSTIVE FAMILIARITY: to know everything about X
DISTINCTION: to know X from not X.
to
EXHAUSTIVE FAMILIARITY: to know everything about X
Degrees of OPERATIONAL acquaintance are similar:
i.e. First time encounter to every day encounter.
i.e. First time encounter to every day encounter.
CERTITUDE contains both types and degrees under two major categories:
APODICTIC and PROBABILISTIC.
APODICTIC and PROBABILISTIC.
APODICTIC CERTAINTY (not subject to error, 100% certitude)
1. IMPOSSIBILITY of the CONTRARY
ONTOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY (relative to empirical certainty only)
I know that I exist and experience (prior to logic)
I know my own experiences.
I know my own experiences.
i.e. It is impossible that I could think, perceive, emote, will something and not know it.
e.g. I know that I am looking at my computer APODICTICALLY.
But I only know that what I am looking at is a computer PROBABILISTICALLY.
I know that I am feeling a mousquito bite APODICTICALLY.
But I only know that what I am bitten by is a mosquito PROBABILISTICALLY.
But I only know that what I am looking at is a computer PROBABILISTICALLY.
I know that I am feeling a mousquito bite APODICTICALLY.
But I only know that what I am bitten by is a mosquito PROBABILISTICALLY.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY (undeniability) (rational knowledge)
I know that knowledge exists, because to deny that I know is itself a knowledge claim.
I know that absolute truth exists, because denying it is an absolute statement.
I know that logic has truth value, because I can't deny it. Denial is a logical event.
I know that knowledge exists, because to deny that I know is itself a knowledge claim.
I know that absolute truth exists, because denying it is an absolute statement.
I know that logic has truth value, because I can't deny it. Denial is a logical event.
Any proposition which violates the laws of logic is necessarily untrue.
I sometimes have thoughts that violate the laws of logic. Therefore: I know that my knowledge is limited, and my thoughts are not always correct.
I sometimes have thoughts that violate the laws of logic. Therefore: I know that my knowledge is limited, and my thoughts are not always correct.
If I don't have apodictic certainty of premises A & B, but I have apodictic certainty of logic, then if A & B logically imply conclusion C, I have apodictic certainty that A & B imply C. But I have only the same level of certainty of conclusion C as I have of A & B.
2. IRRELEVANCE of the CONTRARY (a difference that makes no difference)
I know that the world apart from me exists because if it were imaginary,
it would make no difference to me.
I know that my memory has recorded real, not imagined events for the same reason.
But I do not know that all events in my memory are real and not imagined.
PROBABILISTIC CERTITUDE (subject to error, less than 100% certitude)
3. INCONCEIVABILITY of the CONTRARY
Just because my mind can't conceive of something doesn't mean it's impossible, but it may be so improbable as to be unworthy of consideration.
e.g. I know there is no such thing as a square circle because I can't think the concept.
e.g. I know there is no such thing as a square circle because I can't think the concept.
4. IMPERCEIVABILITY of the CONTRARY
i.e. I am unable to perceive evidence of the contrary.
e.g. There is not a weightless invisible parrot on my shoulder.
5. IGNORANCE of the CONTRARY
i.e. I have never perceived evidence of the contrary,
and if there were such evidence I would have probably perceived it by now.
e.g. Mermaids don't exist.
They may exist, but I have never perceived any evidence of it.
They may exist, but I have never perceived any evidence of it.
The Holocaust actually happened.
It may not have, but I have never perceived any evidence to the contrary.
It may not have, but I have never perceived any evidence to the contrary.
6. IMPROBABILITY of the CONTRARY
i.e. I have perceived evidence of the contrary, but not enough to dissuade me from claiming knowledge.
e.g. I know my world view is correct.
I know there have been no alien spacemen land on earth.
7. 50% CERTITUDE
I know there have been no alien spacemen land on earth.
e.g. a coin flip
Anything less than 50% certitude can be dismissed on semantic grounds.
49% certitude of X is 51% certitude of not X.
49% certitude of X is 51% certitude of not X.
Only the apodictic level can strictly be called knowledge. The rest are called knowledge only for pragmatic and emotional reasons. Though people may disagree as to what knowledge claims belong in what categories, all rational beings must agree on the truth of the items on the apodictic level. By whatever level of certitude you claim to know that X is true, you claim to know that any hypothesis contrary to X is false.