Actually this has made me think of something, how about, just for kicks, I share with you a sample of some of the questions I had to answer before the Research and Evaluation course, just so you can see why I have wanted to give my writing brain a break for a few days.
So here we go, put your thinkin caps on cuz I'm about to pop open a can of intellectual whoop ass. But be forewarned, this is not going to be funny and some of you may think this is some of the most boring load of tripe you've ever read in a blog but others may find those thinking juices flowing and want write a response of your own to which I say "Bring it!".
Can you think of some other ways of knowing besides experience and reasoning? What are they? What, if any, are the limitations of these methods?
- I would argue that our emotions to some limited extent help us in our “knowing”. Though emotions can be and really are quite fickle I believe they can nevertheless help us in validating our knowledge of something. For example if we do something which has been agreed upon by humanity in general as wrong, like stealing something which doesn’t belong to us, then we feel guilt over that act then that helps us to verify that this is in fact something that is not right. Even without being conditioned to have ideas of right and wrong we as humans in our innermost beings typically know these things (as in the knowledge of good and evil, to use biblical terminology) and our emotions are the projection of this knowledge.
"While certainty is appealing, it is contradictory to a fundamental premise of science." What does this mean? Discuss.
- Well when I think back through the annals of science history we see that many times man has been “certain” of something only to find as the years pass and we advance in our knowledge that what had been deemed “fact” was in actuality complete fiction. Take the belief, or at the time the certainty, that the world was flat for an easy example. All the leading scientists of the time thought for certain that the world was indeed flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. It certainly made plenty of sense based upon the world as man had always seen it, but of course, we found out later that it this was entirely wrong and we laugh at the utter ignorance of the so called scientists of the time. Only to miss the more important point that for all of our “advancements” in say 500 years what will cause men to look back at us and scoff at the ineptitude of our so called “scientists”?
Is there such a thing as private knowledge? If so, can you give an example?
- I believe there is such a thing as private knowledge, as in the knowledge we have about ourselves that no one else can obtain. This is simply because no matter how close someone has been with us they have never been there for every event of our life, and even if they were there they may have interpreted the event different than we did. I think it’s the kind of knowledge which we allude to when we say things like “be honest with yourself” or when we refer to looking into one’s innermost being. It’s the kind of knowledge that I and only I have about myself and how I view the world around me. But it also seems to be a knowledge that is not very often recognized or especially thought out, we just know.
Thinking Quote of the Day:
"I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it."
WHOA, OK, so hold up...before anyone tries to accuse me of suddenly taking this blog all high brow here's this:
"Philosophical cat admits he was only trying to think outside of the box"
Hmm...maybe thinking INSIDE the box is not always such a BAD thing...