Here's how it is, and this goes back to Socrates

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Watching this turn with interest.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now, in my middle ages, I see that this is a nice thing to have; like being good looking, or being coordinated, or getting good genes, or having rich parents. It's a little advantage you get, right out of the box. But A) it entitles you to exactly jack shit; like all the other advantages, it only matters what you do with it. And B) you wind up terribly wrong and utterly confused about a shitload of things, just like everybody else.

So, as I get older, I find that I pay more attention to people with a certain humility. (And not Rk's fake humility, as Clod pointed out, where at the end of the day he's still utterly self-absorbed and it's still all about him.)

I can't agree more. The more I learn the more I learn about what I don't know and on that note that I will never learn it all. I think the key is to stay engaged and take in as much as I can. In the end I will die.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Great thoughts on critical thinking Jinx.
There is no better gift to give our children than the tool of critical thought.

I'll take a critical thinker any day over a sophist.
( philosopher/politician)

The statements but me at a conundrum.

If I chose think I am smart then I am not wise.

If I say I know nothing then it is false humility in order to seem wise.

Critical thinking is beyond a persons ability to use language in order to manipulate.

...as I type my mind keeps wanting to put political flavors on it.
There are no greater sophists than our political leaders.

bravo. insightful.

[TheMercenary]

Ut oh.

I have suddenly realized this is not a serious thread.

Moving on.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ut oh.

I have suddenly realized this is not a serious thread.

Moving on.

It could have been. It's just the way it rolled.

Originally Posted by Redux

"...as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- the world according to + E

Actually the epistemic skeptic would claim that no one can obtain knowledge and by my measure they are correct. The best that anyone can do is form a justified true belief- not knowledge. Knowledge requires absolute universal observation and of course this is impossible via DesCartes' "madman deceiving" principle.

Not only this, but in order to even form a justified true belief one must escape the infinite regression problem that we find in foundationalist claims.

[glatt]

And yet, if Chuck Norris punches you in the nose, you will absolutely know it.

[Griff]

Glatt, you are amusing.

[ZenGum]

Hiya Crotalus, since you seem philosophically inclined, try David Lewis' article Elusive Knowledge. You may find your sceptical doubts are somewhat eased. He argues that what counts as a relevant consideration depends on the subject of inquiry - and so for everyday purposes we do have knowledge of the world, and it is only when philosophers start musing on the nature of reality and knowledge that sceptical scenarios become relevant considerations, and thus knowledge becomes "elusive".

I'd add that all sceptical positions require us to accept that some scenario is possible - Descartes' evil demon, the matrix, etc. All current accounts of modal epistemology make it piggyback on real epistemology, so how could a sceptic know that such a scenario is possible? Scepticism, like post-modernism, gets sucked down into a vicious regress of it's own creation.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

- and so for everyday purposes we do have knowledge of the world, ...

A working knowledge, as opposed to academic knowledge.

[beauregaardhooligan]

Someone said...
The key is not knowledge, it's access to it.

[monster]

Someone else said....
The key is in the fake stone next to the boot scraper. You need to jiggle it a bit.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by glatt

And yet, if Chuck Norris punches you in the nose, you will absolutely know it.

Which updates Samuel Johnson's "Thus I refute. . ."

Who was that unfortunate refutee?

I seem to have recast the phrasing from Johnson to Collier: Bishop Berkeley, arguing how material things, er, weren't.