What is knowledge?
While we started with discussing what is it that we really know to be true, it became fairly futile as we soon realize that we do not know anything for sure other than that we think, the famous "I think, therefore I am."
Sure, there are truths like mathematics, logic and the like which are true with some definitions and axioms but it seems unsatisfying to only consider these as the only truths of things that we know for sure.
We want to think that some of our daily observations we "know" and will be true in the future - the sun and the moon will rise tomorrow, gravity will be around to cause things to drop, that we will enjoy our next meal.
We also want to "know" that human nature is kind, there is love in this world, that good deeds are rewarded.
So there is a strict definition of "knowing" versus a more interesting group of concepts that we would like to believe that we know, even if there can be "exceptions" from time to time. Is this strong desire to believe what we would like to be true call "faith"?
Another way of looking at knowledge is that we observe the world and our lives and these observations are like data patterns that comes into our brain or consciousness. A bunch of ones and zeros to computers if you will.
This data on its own is not that useful until they start to form a common pattern with other observations so that we can start postulating a rule or hypothesis and start testing it on more observations. Our confidence on the hypothesis grows with each confirming observation and we start to believe that we "know" and can predict the future outcome of a similarly developing situation.
A pencil falls off the table, followed by a piece of paper drifting down, then the ruler.
We start to "know" that it is not pencils that have a peculiar property of falling but other things do too and they all fall with different speeds it seems. Until Galileo's famous experiment at his local leaning tower, we "know" that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. After Galileo's experiment, we "know" differently.
We read about crime on newspapers and we "know" that we should not trust strangers.
While these are not strictly true, they are more useful and therefore we sacrifice some truth in return for usefulness, sometimes forgetting that we have made that compromise and act as if we really "know" enough to predict the outcome.
Can we therefore move on to say that wisdom comes from a pattern recognition of knowledge just like knowledge is an attempt to summarize data to make it useful?
Not so fast! The line from data to knowledge to wisdom does not seem like a straight one, there is a turn on the way to wisdom, any suggestions on how to quantify this? Your comments please!!!
Another discussion this week was on the peculiar common connection between conservatism and the religious. Why is that?
First we have to define conservative; Rafi offered the definition that a conservative is one who is content with how things are and not going to try anything new unless someone successfully convince him why he should do this new thing. In other words, I am going to sit in this comfortable couch unless you give me good reasons to do otherwise.
A liberal (or someone who is not conservative) is someone who thinks it is a good idea to try something new just because it is new unless there is good reason not to.
Religion in its various forms commonly offer that they have the answer and the truth. With this basic position, there is no need to change as they either already know the truth or have access to it through some supernatural being. Is it any wonder why they fit the definition of the conservative so well? why the two descriptions happen to come together?
New age spirituals and those who claim they are spiritual but not religious tends to consider organized religion as dogmatic and even not caring while preaching charity and kindness. However, this is inevitable. Once a religion offers an all knowing super being that possess the truth, they cannot be wrong and they cannot change. Thereafter, when there is a decision to be made between protecting the truth reputation of the religion versus doing a charitable act, organized religion can only choose to protect their previous proclamations to protect their position that they know the truth.
The longer the religions has been around, the more previous proclamations there is to protect. New age spirituals and cults have the luxury of a short or no history to burden themselves to be consistent.
Being right is much more important than being compassionate.
Does this also seem like what a conservative would do? Staying the course rather than trying the new route?
I cannot help but use poor Galileo one more time. After being condemned by a previous pope for proclaiming that it is the earth that revolves around the sun, not that the sun revolves around the earth, he was finally pardoned by Pope John Paul in the last decade.
Why did it take this long? Does the Catholic church still think that the sun revolve around the earth? Did the previous pope that condemned Galileo not get the message right from god? Can popes be wrong from time to time? Which pope is right if one pope pardons someone who was condemned by another pope? Can we trust a pope that can be wrong from time to time?
It is a tall order to be possessing the truth, be right all the time, and to be defending that reputation even with hind sight.
No comments:
Post a Comment