dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (10/22/84)
> Ken Nichols said an awful lot of things, some of them > catching weaknesses in "EVEN IF I DID BELIEVE..." article that > I saw myself. Some of the better points remained unopposed: > "I can not explain how I know, but I do". > That means that you don't. Do you know how to raise your arm? Of course. But: how do you do it? Do you know how to add 2 and 2? Of course. But: how do you do it? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." Ephesians 5:25 Would you die for your wife?
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/23/84)
> > "I can not explain how I know, but I do". > > That means that you don't. > > Do you know how to raise your arm? Of course. But: how do you do it? > Do you know how to add 2 and 2? Of course. But: how do you do it? > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois What we have here is a classic case of the fallacy of argument of the shifting middle term. What does Paul mean by the word "know" in the first sentence? Does it mean that he has amnesia about making love? I don't think so. There are at least two meanings of "know" that he wants us to confuse in that first sentence. The first is "to be convinced of". I certainly won't argue that Paul isn't convinced of what he says. Others are "to perceive directly", "to have understanding of", and "to have knowledge" (where we might want to use the definition of knowledge "facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience".) That last definition, in terms of knowledge, is what Paul doesn't have, and what he is arguing about. The reason to argue is terms of knowledge as facts and ideas is to distinguish it from delusion. How can you tell knowledge from delusion unless others can follow in the same steps? In addition, Paul then provides an inappropriate analogy as an incomplete argument. I know how to raise my arm. But the question to follow is not "how do I do it", but "how do I know that I can raise my arm". Paul confuses knowledge with metaknowledge (metaknowledge is knowledge about knowledge.) Metaknowledge is our hope for distinguishing knowledge from delusion. There are many things that can be taught, including delusions. That something can be learned or propagated then is a poor guide to whether it is knowledge or delusion. Instead we have to look at the sources of what we "know", to see how what we know is originated, transmitted and verified. That is where religions fall down on their faces, and resort to fallacies of argument. -- Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh