forum for week of 14 Nov: when we don't want knowledge

Chapter six describes 'knowledge' as a label for top-grade belief. But on the other hand I have been warning you against thinking that if the grounds for a belief are not perfect then the belief cannot be known.  And according to fallibilism one can know something while thinking that further evidence could refute it.  So what is the relation between knowledge and the aims of inquiry?  Suggest situations in which one does the normal epistemic things - perceiving, thinking, conjecturing etc.  - but it is something less than knowledge that one is aiming at.

I would argue that the primary time in which a person would perceive, think, and conjecture without attempting to find something "known" (given the sort of strict definition of known, as we have seen both in class & in this weeks reading), would be when someone consumes Art. Consider (as a particularly obvious & Canadian example) viewing the work of Quebecois painter Jean Paul Riopelle. When you face it, you will do many things. First, you will perceive it, noting the colours & their interplay, the relative textures of different sections, and what appear to be the background & foreground tones of the work. After/during that, you would (hopefully) begin to form thoughts about the work, the painter at the time of painting it, and possible messages the work might offer. You would also be likely to form conjectures about the painting, and voice them to others, who would in turn voice theirs to you, which would further affect your thoughts about the painting. However, In doing all of this it would be ridiculous to think that you were searching for knowledge. Art, especially Abstract expressionism, cannot ever be reduced to being an expression of a single thought or belief, or even a finite set of thoughts. It is the multitudinous interpretations, in which none can be said to be known, that makes Art so interesting. So the relation between Knowledge and inquiry might be that knowledge happens when one is pressured to find concrete, singluar thoughts, and inquiry can be used much more broadly, in areas in which no single answer might be definitively right. For anyone who thinks that we are only ever searching for knowlege when using our critical tools, I would suggest a heavy dose of MoMA & Confusion.

Reading a novel. No actual knowledge, just the pleasure of some leisure time well-spent. sure, there are those who would argue that you gain a type of knowledge, but I don't subscribe to that.

"Information is not knowledge" -Albert Einstein

From this context, I would agree there are very few things that we would do which can be considered knowledge.

An example I can give would be video games. There is a large amount of perceiving, thinking and conjecturing involved - but is the aim to acquire knowledge?

Some might argue that to beat the game/win - one requires "knowledge".

I personally feel in this instance it is not knowledge but "information"

I would argue that while sitting a test you are not necessarily aiming for knowledge. Instead, you are aiming for whoever grades the test's belief of what is the correct answer. You may have to go through a series of perceiving, thinking, conjecturing , etc., but knowledge isn't what you're aiming for, you're aiming for someone else's belief, regardless of whether that belief is knowledge or not.

What about writing a story, a novel or screenplay for example. You would think of characters in your mind and perhaps even pretend you are them while you are writing your story. You would try to think as they do so to enhance the quality of your story. The aim would be to create something fictional rather then to seek knowledge about the real world. However, I think in a way this could still be considered aiming at knowledge because you are in a sense still creating knowledge and/or seeking knowledge on a subject, just not on a subject that exists in the physical world.

Any instance that would require a person to suspend disbelief would fit the criteria. This would include the previous art, gaming, and literature examples. Watching a movies would be another such example. I think that dreaming, in particular lucid dreams, may arguably fit the criteria. Here you could have some set of beliefs that though possible true in the dream would not be 'knowledge' in any sense of the word.

One perceives, thinks and uses conjecture both in the ‘real’ world and in fictional worlds. I would argue that when one uses these epistemic methods in the real world they are aiming at knowledge, and when they use them in a possible fictional world they are aiming at something different. Both art (i.e. paintings, novels), and games (i.e. video games), as already mentioned, offer examples of outlets to a sort of fictional dimension where there is something to be gained however it is not knowledge (being real world knowledge). Another example is that of theoretical physics. Physicists will use a variety of close possible worlds to help them eventually make observations about the real world, and as a result (hopefully) gain real world knowledge. In the intermediate stage physicists are using a fictional world very close to the real world and therefore aiming at something other than real world knowledge.

When I ride my bicycle, I say I know how to ride my bicycle. When asked to prove that I have this knowledge, I simply demonstrate by riding around the questioner. However, when pressed for an explanation to show that I know how it is that I accomplish going from a to b without capsizing, I am faced with a problem. Although I can give some explanation, if pressed further, the depth and complexity of how I actually manage the trick makes me realize that I don’t know a damn thing about it with any final certainty – except perhaps one thing. Somewhat paradoxically, it is not thinking about it reflectively, but rather concentrating, or being present-minded in the task at hand that keeps me upright and rolling forward – precisely not knowing: a kind of active forgetting. Only after the act, and upon reflection, can I examine, analyze and then explain how I did it. I then have instrumental, technical knowledge – how I ride. But is it complete, that is real knowledge without proven answers to why I can, (physical laws, how the brain and body work, coordination), or what it is? (transportation, exercise, entertainment, fun, escape, madness, etc.) This forgetting activity can be applied to much of what we do, e.g. swimming, singing songs, skiing.

Making an acquaintance with another person - while inquiring into another persons existence we develop ideas and beliefs about them through many different tools. Some may be accurate, while in other cases we make misjudgments. We can ask them questions and believe or not believe their answers, which may be true or may be false; and interpret their actions and body language and how they interact with others. Here we are searching for knowledge to know something about a person while simply creating our own idea of them, consisting of our own beliefs. Our beliefs may not be the same as a person has about themselves, or they may be in tune with how the person sees themselves - but even then is it a true belief? You may be wrong in your interpretation of them, or they may be wrong in the interpretation of themselves. I would argue that we are not searching for knowledge but ideas or feelings - trying to learn how to interpret, read or interact with another person. Because you, others and themselves can not be sure of your interpretations they cannot be true beleifs or knowledge, even though we are attempting to collect as accurate information as we can. On the other hand some straightforward information like physical appearance, occupation, and nationality we can mark as true beliefs and could thus be argued to be knowledge about the person if we had good reason to belief it (ie they tell us, we see them at work ect.)

On knowledge for week of November 14, I would like to include a reference to the book by Bertrand Russell titled The Problems of Philosophy, 1912. In Chapter V, Russell mentions knowledge of things and knowledge of truths. Russell refers to knowledge of things by acquaintance and by description. Beyond sense data, he includes acquaintance by memory and acquaintance by introspection. In addition to acquaintance with particular existing things Russell includes acquaintance by universals such as whiteness. He writes, awareness of universals is called conceiving, and a universal of which we are aware is called a concept. And that among the objects with which we are acquainted are not included physical objects (as opposed to sense-data), nor other peoples's minds. These are things are known to us by what I [Russell] call 'knowledge by description'... And a nice discussion of propositions. November 17.

If a kis is crying and I'm trying to stop her from crying I might try to figure out why she is upset. I would perceive, reason, etc. why she is upset, however it isn't neccessarily the knowledge of the cause of her crying that I'm aiming at but rather any belief that would lead to a sollution to stop her from crying. So although she might be crying because she scraped her knee, I might decide to belief that she is crying because she wants some ice cream and her parents won't buy her any, and although the belief is wrong I might be able to stop her from crying by buying her ice cream, and it doesn't really matter to me whether the belief is true or not true, so my aim isn't knowledge but any belief that would be useful

I believe a lot of sensory data obtained by individuals often lacks epistemological characteristics, in which the individual’s primary purpose is to obtain knowledge. I agree that empiricism and sensory data is most commonly used in the pursuit of knowledge, however all individuals are subject to their own biases. People often project their biases in order to interpret the world in a way that will improve their lives. Although, these individuals may realize deep down that they possess flaws or shortcomings, they may search for data which reaffirms their desired beliefs, while dismissing data which refutes it. An example of this could be a woman who believes she is the most beautiful woman in the world, but if she sees someone who is prettier than she is; she quickly turns away and tells herself that she did not get a close enough look to determine whether this woman was more attractive. Although, this is a somewhat unrealistic example, and the idea of beauty is quite subjective, I believe this example illustrates how people are prone to gather sensory data which benefits them, while disregarding other data that negates their desired beliefs.

A belief qualifies as knowledge if, in acquiring it, one has achieved the basic aim in the inquiry that led to it. For example when one tries to find a logical explanation for an unnatural phenomenon of which they were involved in, they tend to perceive and think. However due to the rush of shock that as overcome them, their search for an explanation is hurried, and they probably would settle for the first explanation that calmed their worries. The search here is not for knowledge rather it’s for the slightest plausible answer that can place the world back to what they know it as. Also a deep skeptic would argue that when people normally attempt to find conclusive reasons as to why their beliefs can be claimed as knowledge they cannot, even though they are thinking, perceiving and to some extent conjecturing. This is what leads deep skeptics to believe we have no or very little knowledge. Therefore the qualities of our present believes make a scenario where we are using epistemic methods of thinking but it’s something less than knowledge that we are aiming for, even if we don’t know it ourselves .

I would say when a judge is hearing the arguments of lawyers they are going through such an instance that they are thinking, perceiving and conjecturing meanwhile assuming the whole time that they are not witnessing any true 'knowledge' being brought fourth to them. They have to think deeply and try and appreciate the 'beliefs' of each party and pick and choose certain instances which to them constitute something more along the lines of 'knowledge'. The judge, meanwhile, full knows that when they deliver a verdict they are hardly delivering any 'knowledge', but only trying to piece together what evidence was presented to them to try and create a version of knowledge without aiming to deliver or create any true knowledge.

As far as all the "art" realated examples go, often the mechanisms of thought still aim at knowledge, even if that knowledge may not be attainable. We may seek to know what a work of art "means", or conjecture about the state of mind of the artist when they created it. Also, there is the knowing of the work itself, for example, a one may know many things about a piece of music surrounding the details of its composition, the instruments used, how it was put together both concretely and theoretically. This is more in line with acquaintance; someone may ask "do you such-and-such song" and one may answer in the affirmative if they are acquaintted with that song.

Similar to the idea of the consumption of art; when one is writing a novel, poem, screenplay, television script, or creating any other kind of art of some sort for public viewing, the writer or artist is creating a fictitious world for the artistic consumer, but is not necessarily searching for knowledge. The writer must perceive and inquire both to create a logical world in which the consumer's imagination exists, and also must create something that the consumer will appreciate. In the case of the television screenwriter, he must conjure up a fictitious series of events that will both appeal to the viewer's imagination and make logical sense. The writer is not searching for knowledge, but is perceiving what will appeal to the audience in order to reach success among consumers.