12-25-11: Mrtennis
since components are inaccurate , a stereo system is inaccurate.
knowledge is analytic a priori. it exists in the realm of mathematics and logic, where it is absolute. for example, given axioms, postulates, and other "rules" base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. knowledge is not fallible or reversible in math or logic.
in the empirical world, induction rules and there is no knowledge. knowledge cannot result from sense perception.
without proof there is no knowledge. without truth, there is no knowledge.
Hi MrT. Ive seen you make similar statements several times on various threads, and Ive never taken the time to carefully respond to them. Nor have I seen anyone else carefully respond to them. So I will do that now.
I gather from your comments that you believe that all knowledge is
1.
tautological2.
a priori3.
analytic4.
conceptual5.
certain
which is identical with saying that all knowledge is
1. true in virtue of its logical form
2. justified independent of experience
3. true in virtue of the meanings of its terms
4. independent of sense experience
5. justified beyond any doubt
and hence you believe that there is no such thing as
1.
empirical knowledge2.
a posteriori knowledge3.
synthetic knowledge4.
perceptual knowledge or
procedural knowledge5.
unproven knowledge
and hence you believe that there is no knowledge to be found in
1. science
2. human experience
3. statements other than definitions
4. perception or practiced skill
5. any human endeavor other than logic and mathematics
I have to say that this is the most narrow use of the term knowledge I have encountered in my entire life, and that is saying something, given the fact that I spent 9 years studying, writing, teaching, and publishing philosophy, which entailed a lengthy exposure to theories of epistemology, both historical and contemporary.
You are entitled to use the term knowledge any way you like. But you should be aware that no one, and I mean NO ONE, will understand what you mean by that term, if you limit your use to such a parsimonious and idiosyncratic definition. You would literally have to be transported to the 17th century and happen upon Rene Descartes to make yourself understood.
And this is to say nothing of the fact that such radical skepticism about the scope of human knowledge is based on a profoundly impoverished view of both philosophy and the natural sciences.
bc