Do you want to be great?

[RazorBrain]

. . . yesterdays theories are incorrect and obsolete. Today's theories will be considered incorrect in the future and theories in the future will be rendered incorrect farther in the future. . . .

Is there no stability to knowledge? Personally, I'd feel pretty silly if I found something from yesterday or today that was correct and I passed it by simply because I believed everything is wrong and about to be proven as such. Not sure I get your line of thought on this part.

[Toge]

Is there no stability to knowledge?

- Generally no, there isn't. Theories can be constructed and evidence can be gathered. We would instinctively think that more evidence leads to greater clarity, but even the "best" theories have certain phenomena they can't explain. If the theory is young, settling of such inconveniences can be postponed to future, but eventually the number of anomalities starts to build up. When it's enough, paradigms that are foundations of important theories are shaken and new paradigms have to be taken in their place. Knowledge thus doesn't really increase incrementally as time goes on. This is a rough idea of philosophy of science by Thomas Kuhn.

Personally, I'd feel pretty silly if I found something from yesterday or today that was correct and I passed it by simply because I believed everything is wrong and about to be proven as such. Not sure I get your line of thought on this part.

- Pragmatic point of view helps. Perhaps it's useful to accept limits of our knowledge and stop trying to strive for objective, metaphysical truths (as in Plato's world of ideas). We're entities in physical world, constrained by our habits of action. What is true is simply what works. Check out C.S. Peirce. Great philosopher.

[palapiku]

Is there no stability to knowledge?

- Generally no, there isn't. Theories can be constructed and evidence can be gathered. We would instinctively think that more evidence leads to greater clarity, but even the "best" theories have certain phenomena they can't explain. If the theory is young, settling of such inconveniences can be postponed to future, but eventually the number of anomalities starts to build up. When it's enough, paradigms that are foundations of important theories are shaken and new paradigms have to be taken in their place. Knowledge thus doesn't really increase incrementally as time goes on. This is a rough idea of philosophy of science by Thomas Kuhn.

It's disingenuous to claim that no knowledge is stable and then hold on to that as a rock-solid, stable fact.

[Redundant]

Is there no stability to knowledge?

- Generally no, there isn't. Theories can be constructed and evidence can be gathered. We would instinctively think that more evidence leads to greater clarity, but even the "best" theories have certain phenomena they can't explain. If the theory is young, settling of such inconveniences can be postponed to future, but eventually the number of anomalities starts to build up. When it's enough, paradigms that are foundations of important theories are shaken and new paradigms have to be taken in their place. Knowledge thus doesn't really increase incrementally as time goes on. This is a rough idea of philosophy of science by Thomas Kuhn.

Ahem!

[Hazushi]

Leads me to think, What is the true meaning of Knowledge?

[Monadology]

Leads me to think, What is the true meaning of Knowledge?

What kind of knowledge?

[Hazushi]

What kind of knowledge?

I first saw this as "What Knowledge?" which for a strange reason feels like it answers my question, but knowledge in general.

From wiki...
The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato, specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed.

In my Britannica collection on the shelf over here is a famous quote by someone who I can't remember or find at the moment because I don't know which book it is in said that, "The true meaning of Knowledge is that you know nothing."

[Monadology]

My point was merely that there may not be such a thing as knowledge in general. Even if there is, its "true meaning" might differ depending on what sub-category it belongs to e.g. scientific, ethical, aesthetic.

[Hazushi]

My point was merely that there may not be such a thing as knowledge in general. Even if there is, its "true meaning" might differ depending on what sub-category it belongs to e.g. scientific, ethical, aesthetic.

Yes true I know what you mean.

For aesthetic knowledge do you mean that of the philosophy idea of knowledge?

[Monadology]

For aesthetic knowledge do you mean that of the philosophy idea of knowledge?

Aesthetic knowledge (at least as the word aesthetic is typically used in my experience) would be knowledge concerning issues of beauty, taste, creativity and the like.

[Hazushi]

For aesthetic knowledge do you mean that of the philosophy idea of knowledge?

Aesthetic knowledge (at least as the word aesthetic is typically used in my experience) would be knowledge concerning issues of beauty, taste, creativity and the like.

Yea Im off abit, I was thinking of Epistemology which is the philosophy theory of knowledge....

[hyperpape]

Yea Im off abit, I was thinking of Epistemology which is the philosophy theory of knowledge....

No, you're not. The whole discussion is about knowledge, Monadology was just claiming that perhaps we can't generalize about knowledge, because there are fundamentally different kinds of knowledge--scientific, aesthetic, and whatever other categories there might be.

[Stable]

Things being true isn't an absolute. It seems foolish to reject all knowledge just because it isn't perfect. 3.14159 might not be pi, but it's better for making circles than 3.

In other words - more evidence does lead to greater clarity, just not necessarily perfect clarity.

Also, xkcd love.

[Marcus]

This conversation reminds me of Stephen Garvey ... talk about a flashback ... haven't thought about his books in 15 years or so.

[DrStraw]

I just had a haircut. My wife tells me I look great. Mission accomplished.