BBT 11

Friday, October 25th, 2013.

Think about the following statements.

I know that: 

a) the sun is shining today.

b) John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963

c) if a=b, b=c, then a=c.

d) my parents love me unconditionally.

Answer: 

1) Do all of the four statements describe the same process of knowing? 

2) Are these statements equally verifiable, that is, can they be proven in the same way?

3) Does verifiability matter in determining what is and what is not?

       First, these statements reflect different "types" of knowledge, that involve different process of knowing/ In case a), we know that the sun is shining today because we see the sun shining outside. This knowledge is based on the weather, on a condition that is not controllable by us (as it is a force of nature) associated with a state, the state of sunniness. We could almost say that this knowledge is based on our observations, on our perception of the world around us. In case b), we know that John F. Kennedy was killed on that day based on memory. For those who took US History, we have learned this historical date, and this information has entered our mind as part of our memory, of information we process and retain. In case c), this knowledge is based on reason and logic. Since a is equal to be, and b equals to c, it seems logical and correct to say that a is equal to c. This string of thought is based on logical reasoning. (As a side note, this reminds me of the logical fallacy to Rhogerian method.) In case d), we know, or at least strongly believe and hope, that our parents love us unconditionally based on emotions. It is an emotional attachment, a logic based on emotions. Emotions can often not be explained by logic and reason (as goes the famous question "Do you rely more on emotion or reason?").

       Second, these statements are all provable, to a degree. Some of them are proven in a more concrete manner while others are based on belief. It could be argued some are "more verifiable", "truer" than others, while others are more based on faith and are less concrete. For example, for case a), our claim that it is sunny today is verifiable based on our observations. Our claim is based on the observations we make, based on our perception. Therefore, this knowledge is supported by our perception, the observations we make leading towards this claim. In case b), the support we provide is based on historical evidence and records we can provide in order to support this occurrence. Historical events are from the past, and in that sense they are unchangeable. If something happened, it happened, and there is no way we can change this. The records are the proofs for historical knowledge. In case c), based on the Rhogerian method mentality, the evidence we can provide is based on reason and logic. In some way, even though the evidence can be very powerful, this way of providing evidence can also be crumbled easily (according to the physics principle of "an object, a principle, is only as strong as its weakest point"). Finally, the evidence that can be provided to verify this claim is strongly based on intangible aspects, on the emotional attachment we have. In some way, it is all based on personal knowledge, as the evidence depends on the way we receive the emotions of the individual in question (shared knowledge) and incorporate it in our personal knowledge. The proof that I have that my mother loves me is by the way I feel her love, is determined by how receive her love and how I perceive it. And these things are often not explainable in words. They depend and can be felt only by me (and, to some degree, the people involved). "Emotional proof" is often seen as not acceptable, as it is so subjective and vulnerable to multiple factors leading to different interpretation, and heavily dependent on the individual in question.

        Third, proofs are not required once we form our personal knowledge. Personal knowledge is like a selection; it is the knowledge that we acquire from the shared knowledge around us. I think that the acceptance of a shared knowledge as part of our own knowledge is sufficient evidence. Our acceptance is the acknowledgement that we have enough evidence to support the knowledge. On the other hand, proofs are a requirement for the formation of shared knowledge, for the incorporation of a knowledge in the shared body of knowledge. Any time someone presents his or her belief, he or she is immediately questioned and ask "Why?" by the people around. Proofs are a crucial element to verify the shared knowledge. I think that "proof" for personal knowledge especially comes from emotion, perception, intuition and imagination from the eight ways of knowing. Support for the formation of personal knowledge depends on the way that we accept and perceive things, which depends on the way we evaluate and interpret the situation in question. On the other hand, for shared knowledge, proof depends heavily on language, because the belief has to be communicated to the people around. Of course, the other ways of knowing, such as reason, are essential as well in order to find and support the found evidence. However, shared knowledge is formed and approved not just when an individual has managed to explain a knowledge to himself, but when he was able to spread it and communicate his ideas to the mass of people. And communication is dependent upon the use of language. Going back to the question, whereas shared knowledge is in high correlation with proofs and evidence, personal knowledge does not need to be under constant verification, because as the name reveals it, personal knowledge is "personal", accepted and held as true because that particular individual accepted it and incorporated it as part of his own knowledge.