[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 248 KB, 560x747, aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974386 No.5974386 [Reply] [Original]

I am curious,
What do you believe it means to "know" something? To truly "know" something?

>> No.5974389

Nothing.
You can feel like a smart-ass about it.

>> No.5974391

>>5974389
I wasn't asking for a smart-ass answer, sir.
Please refrain from posting on a board, such as /sci/, if you cannot follow rule 6.
I am looking for legitimate, philosophical answers.

>> No.5974398

It's like waking up from a dream. You know it's real.

>> No.5974401

>>5974398
But how do you know that it is real?

>> No.5974404
File: 16 KB, 83x124, kiprensky-pushkin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974404

>>5974391
>I am looking for legitimate, philosophical answers.
then youse on the wrong board, son.

>> No.5974408

>>5974404
If I am on the wrong board then I implore you point me in the direction of the right board. (preferably with those mee mee arrows ">>>")
I was under the assumption that those who visited /sci/ were capable of higher brain function :^P

>> No.5974416
File: 46 KB, 294x470, mayakovsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974416

>>5974408
>If I am on the wrong board then I implore you point me in the direction of the right board
There isn't a philosophy board. Sorry.
>I was under the assumption that those who visited /sci/ were capable of higher brain function
This board is for discussing predictive physical models, not semantics.

Also, your question is dumb.

>> No.5974417

>>5974416
I know there isn't a Philosophy board; I chose this as a second best.
If you want to argue over predictive physical models then by all means, let's discuss the neurology behind the "knowing" and "believing" and how it differs in brain patterning

>> No.5974424
File: 53 KB, 290x339, 029.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974424

>>5974417
>the brain pattern is different because the thought is not based on fact

What the fuck am I reading.

>> No.5974425

>>5974417
>let's discuss the neurology behind the "knowing" and "believing"
good luck with that. I'm going now.

>> No.5974428

>>5974424
Okay, good.
How do you "know" something is a fact though?

>> No.5974431

>>5974428
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

>> No.5974435
File: 1.33 MB, 236x161, 1328948487070.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974435

>>5974408

>> No.5974437

>>5974417
>let's discuss the neurology behind the "knowing" and "believing"
Lol bye

>> No.5974440

>>5974431
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I'm not looking for wikipedia links or quick google searches.
I'm looking for your logic behind the difference between knowing and believing, fact and perspective.

>> No.5974444

>>5974440
WE CAN'T KNOW! WE CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW!

>> No.5974446
File: 6 KB, 315x290, 1224704296644.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974446

>>5974440

>> No.5974447
File: 266 KB, 560x747, hegel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5974447

>>5974444
And why do you believe that?

>> No.5974448

>>5974440
If you're seriously interested in this question, go read some Daniel Dennett. But neurology has little to offer you and /sci/ has even less.

>> No.5974449

itt: semantics

Feel free to debate anything you like, of course. I'm just stating the obvious.

>> No.5974450

>>5974449
>debate
I'm not debating or disputing any idea, I am simply looking to see what others think about this subject.

>> No.5974462

>>5974450
Apologies. You are free to do whatever the flip you want itt.

>> No.5974473

>>5974447
It's been revealed to me by the All Father, who has drank from the well of wisdom.

>> No.5974477

In science, something is generally accepted as a known fact when it is observed repeatedly in multiple independent studies. If that something does not stand up to peer review within the scientific community, it is rejected as a plausible concept. In contrast, belief requires no fact checking. An individual can choose to believe in whatever they like, beliefs do not require supporting evidence, and in fact may ignore opposing evidence.

>> No.5975424

>>5974408
>I was under the assumption that those who visited /sci/ were capable of higher brain function
I think this is your mistake, as you can see by most of the replies you get.

Unlike maybe this
>>5974448

and this
>>5974473
because I laughed.

also
>>5974449
neuroscience can help if you're looking for differences
between brains who are "convinced" of sthg or "doubt" about stgh. For instance I believe that Darwin's theory is a better explanation than creationism. Unfortunately, my mother doubt this is a good answer. She "knows" that God made the world (or at least parts of it). -_-
If you're not clear about semantics, you may want to look for philo. websites/forum

>protip : not /lit/

>> No.5975462
File: 36 KB, 295x300, i_will_remind_them-295x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5975462

>mfw this thread

>> No.5975471
File: 274 KB, 307x3000, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5975471

If your looking for philosophy, epistemology is >>>/lit/ domain.

If your looking for neuroscience the answer is that is yet uncharted territory.

/thread

>> No.5975472

>>5974473
It's true, he sacrificed his eye for wisdom, so I know it to be true.

Hail the Thuderer

>> No.5975474

>>5974477
This, which is ignored in our current system of capitalistic science, which basically says that if something makes money, it's tenets of value are indisputably justified and beyond doubt.

>> No.5975481

>>5975471
I love the

>/thread

It never happens