On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:10:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Actually, though, "knowledge" comes in two ways, I think - first,
>> through the act of learning, and secondly through an instinctive
>> certainty.
> 
> I think you're mistaken, except to the extent that instinctive certainty
> gives you knowledge of instinctive processes. I'll grant you that you
> can know you're hungry via "instinctive certainty", but not about how
> the universe started.

I am not so certain about that.  But what you said (which I replied to 
later in the thread) actually more closely approximates what I'm trying 
to say here.  It's hard to explain.

>> I've
>> always considered "belief" to be something that is "knowledge gained
>> instinctively, with such a certainty that it forms a basis for what you
>> do in your life".
> 
> I wouldn't call that knowledge, and it's generally not how the word is
> defined.
> 
> The philosophers like to say it's "justified true belief", and without
> the justification, you just have a "good guess".

Justification comes in different ways for different people.  There are 
some ways that are commonly accepted, and some ways that are not.

>> but I do consider many people I know who are religious to have this
>> kind of certainty about their beliefs - a certainty that makes it
>> "knowledge" from their point of view.
> 
> I think arguing that faith is knowledge for "some people" is just
> diluting the term.
> 
> What do you call knowledge that's the kind that's actually congruent
> with the real world?  I.e., not the "instinctive" knowledge?

Learned knowledge.  But more to the point, instinctive knowledge isn't 
necessarily exclusive of learned knowledge.  I can instinctively know 
that objects that are farther away appear to be smaller, but I can also 
prove that scientifically.  That doesn't invalidate the instinctive 
knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message