Being trained to recognize and create good argument, and to recognize and critique the bad is only the first step in being a participant. Having a wide berth of knowledge and the skills to again more is particularly important for evaluation of premises. This is the only way to determine valid false statements from valid true ones.
What then can be said of knowing and it's methods? We cannot ground the experience of knowing on some abstract idea; it is an intrinsic part of our development and must be dealt with As part of the knowing whole. Knowing is part of the function of brains (minds). We can store information in a book but the book does not know anything about its contents. This is what I referred to earlier as a self referential learning system. Knowledge in its simplest sense is a form of Pavlovian conditioning (however abstracted it may be from simple impulses)
This does not tell us how to know or solve he issues of epistemological concern. I merely want to suggest that knowledge must be in reference to a knower. There are certain things that may exist in a world with no animus but knowledge is not one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment