What do you think are the possible ways to create new knowledge?
How do we create new knowledge?
What do you think are the possible ways to create new knowledge?
Last edited by Singu; 05-10-2018 at 04:46 AM.
- Careful Observation of Nature
- Dreams
- Mystical states/Eureka
- Trying to be deceptive and actually being correct
- Retrieving it from the depths of the Great Ass
- Not trying and realizing you did something weird in hindsight (may be related to the Great Ass... "hindsight" hehehe)
Dangerous and Reckless Observation of Nature also I think creates knowledge, whatever that is. Just you might be the last person to know that knowledge if you die too quickly
Sometimes trying to solve problems creates new knowledge: You might come up with a solution that is new. That can lead to a change in perspective and new knowledge.
By sacrificing forum members to Aushra.
The real question is: What is knowledge? How do we get to know what is knowledge. It seems quite random observation of thinking that you know something. Can we know that there is knowledge? Or is it just sightly altering states of seemingly crystallized states of information that gets ultimately destroyed over time?
Is there knowledge in the first place? Is it just instruction set that unfolds?
I think knowledge is just a snapshot that we can store but something that is also subjected on the mercy of unfolding which might corrupt it even when we do not realize it.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 05-10-2018 at 05:44 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Just keep repeating it.
Uncomfortable situations should reveal new things to you.
Brainstorming
Aha moments
Being open minded
A way to create "new knowledge" is to make shit up and publish it
Yeah oddly enough, that's actually how you can create new knowledge.Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot
seems as if you're talking of Asstrology, or maybe of yourself, but maybe it's the same thing ehehehe
True knowledge doesn't exist for us subjective beings, only levels of confidence. The search for truth is guided by doubt, not taking things for granted, rather than being limited by unquestioning faith. It is represented by getting tangible results.
We can build bridges over knowledge to help us navigate. But even knowledge of those bridges can't have complete consistency and correspondence to a reality.
You have to test what you've found, but you'd be surprised how people get their original ideas. Unfortunately, Asstrology isn't a thing.
You do not create new knowledge, you uncover it.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
+1
All knowledge is with Allah but we can acquire it either by learning it from others, or from observation, or inspiration. All truly new human knowledge derives from inspiration (or intuition as it is called).
How do you uncover knowledge?
By repeatedly trying to prove your ideas wrong and being unable to.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
this takes for granted "knowledge" is some definite object of worship, this is thrown up like a fetish of power we're obliged to chase... knowledge is useful but its goodness (thus its fitness for worship) depends on how we use it; in this context its being used exactly the way derrida criticizes as phallogocentric which is the weird authoritarian version of it, like a stick to beat people with, or a religious idol for its own sake, rather than real usefulness. in other words "knowledge is power" "power is good" QED. When that is not really the case. creation of knowledge, if such a thing is even possible, then is viewed as the successful leveraging of power, which is kind of like usefulness except it cuts out the ethical element [1] (whatever person x did leveraged power therefore it was good is subtly different than choosing from a variety of means subject to their ethical implications--its the difference between might makes right and with power comes responsibility) . its essentially a Ti/Se form of "knowledge" rather than Te, which relies on Fi
anyway it always goes back to what people mean by knowledge, in this case what is really asked is "how do I become more powerful" which is the hidden criterion based in an individual psyche, for the answer to the question "how do we create knowledge?" nested within that question is the real question, and it is not my question, but the question a certain kind of individual is seeking an answer to, namely singu. this sort of base power seeking is really quite gauche, even though it drapes itself in abstraction, its like carry a gun bro, I know lots of people who do it to feel strong
[1] ethics is itself a nested criterion for usefulness because ethics is precisely what makes a thing beneficial over time and for the greatest number of people in a way that doesn't ultimately undermine itself. in other words, social utility. the reason the might makes right is wrong is because of how it ultimately is counterproductive and why enantiodromia always undoes such a thing. to live by the sword turns the whole world into a slaughterblock. history is the story of humanity trying to learn this
Last edited by Bertrand; 05-11-2018 at 04:01 PM.
You shit it out of ur ass.
Ironically this makes Te/Fi supremely authoritarian, since we'd have to rely on Te/Fi to know what is the "correct" knowledge or the "correct" ethics. Which presumably, somehow rests on someone like Bertrand.
And hence this makes Bertrand supremely authoritarian. QED.
yeah until you realize anti authoritarianism is built into that notion of "correctness." you're really just making the argument now that tolerance is a form of intolerance and that we need to allow for the possibility that being a tyranical shithead is okay. and that is precisely what Jung accomplishes when he says you can't have the yin without the yang. the bottom line is you're free to be you, don't project your own authoritarian wishes on the rest of the world when that is precisely what they aim to avoid. in the final analysis it makes you gauche in my eyes, but God will finally judge. until then then the desire is not to enslave but simply point out the nihilism and harm of a philosophy of power draped in "knowledge"--which really just devolves into a power game itself in defining such a thing, which is why you made this post
Anti-authoritarianism is not built into the notion of "correctness". Anti-authoritarianism is about opposing the dogmatic view of "absolute correctness". It's about admitting that things can always be wrong. That is the whole point of "authority" - of things always being correct, according to them.
like clockwork
eat the poo poo
carry a gun
etc
And so yet again, Bertrand has only self-destructed, and it has ironically been revealed that Bertrand has been the authoritarian one all along. Presumably, only he knows what is considered to be the "correct" ethics. For him, no arguments are necessary.
nah my point was you immediately regress into definitional quibbling like clockwork, and there's a much easier solution to your insecurities than trying to encapsulate the world in a rationalist bubble of pristine language, because the world exists out there, not in your head. at a certain point you're not even arguing with me, or arguing at all, its like you're only having a conversation with yourself, which is odd because what's it all for if you're the only person around anyway. at some point you've elevated a kind of internal ideological pursuit to totally dominate your behavior in the world and the idea is maybe if you perfect it you can pass it off and do people some benefit, when its like you could benefit people right now by simply not being so gross all the time. this is the disjunction between an actual and a declarative ethic. declarative ethic is just the rationale people come up with to do whatever they were going to do anyway, and if what they do ends up working out they say the ethic is "good"--it was never good, so much as forced on everyone or likewise forced out of existence (laundered into existence at the point of a sword). the point is your weird solipsism invites such violence and its like you can't see how maybe thats a bad thing. anyway, thats beta in a nutshell for you. thanks for always providing the example of how not to be
Therefore we even have typology for it.
Again from here we see that extremes dualize and Type 4 is left alone for ever.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
If something is not falsifiable, it cannot be considered knowledge. Any attempt at finding the truth must be based on falsifiability.
lets take the contrapositive of that:
if not f then not k
k then f
knowledge is falsifiable is your statement (if k then f), this makes f necessary condition for k. then you go on to say t requires f, which is just a restatement (t->f and k->f) [1]. in other words, you moved the words around but only repeated the assertion that falsifiability is the criterion for knowledge. fair enough, but its an outdated way of thinking about the issue, because all it does is define knowledge in a way that purports to link it to something, when in fact the nature of knowledge is such that you have to accept, not as a matter of logic or argumentation, but as a matter of faith, the fundamental axiomatic presupposition in question. in other words, that knowledge is falsifiable is itself not falsifiable rather it is a matter of faith. in the final analysis whether knowledge comes down to falsifiability is a statement of person psychological convincingness. what falsifiability does do is provide an intersubjective standard and asks people to adopt it, but this makes knowledge a matter of consensus, if not directly, indirectly through acceptance of the nested premise of falsifiability. in other words, falsifiability and any science that requires it is essentially a new form of church--i.e.: logos, which was Jung's point all along
the reason Jung is so hated is precisely because he makes it hard to go along with popular slogans of the day. although for a minute it seemed like the world had adopted a version of this idea, that its mainly faith, but they did so in the negative form which was nihilism--that because it was all faith there was no meaning. when really the opposite is true, that because it is faith it allows us to express our individuality and express our own destiny
in other words, this intersubjective standard inasmuch as it tries to universalize itself and force everyone into the fold is anti individualist to the core, and the thing is knowledge itself requires individual inspiration and faith in order to seek out possibilities the collective eliminates up front. "knowledge" of this kind has within in it its own stultification and death, which is interesting because that doesn't seem to be knowledge, more like a different kind of nothingness, the true nihilistic heart of conformity for its own sake. the loss of self
[1] in this case "truth" and "knowledge" are not necessarily the same thing, they simply both require falsifiability. I would agree they're not the same thing and knowledge requires falsifiability, by some definition of knowledge, but not that the truth does. that is where I think the underlying error really lies
making falsifiability the criterion for truth is a mistake, falsifiability is itself subject to the truth, whatever it is (and it is something like usefulness)
Last edited by Bertrand; 05-11-2018 at 05:12 PM.
It isn't so much that knowledge is (or should be) falsifiable. It's more that we cannot have true knowledge because that is only possible if you are omnipotent. For humans, if something is not falsifiable, it should not be considered knowledge, because it cannot be determined to be true or false. And if something is falsifiable, then we can establish levels of confidence based on our observations.
yeah I agree with that, but I think people adopt your thinking in part, which is to say they say knowledge is possible, and it confers omnipotence [1] (in fact that is what knowledge is to them). in other words, your entire way of looking at it is is cabined within the idea of knowledge being limited in the rights and power it confers, so it is used judiciously. the problem is people take your thinking to mean knowledge in principle is possible, without those appurtenant limitations, and we end up with stuff like communism
this is, not coincidentally, how Se/Ti is often construed--"I am omnipotence"--this is how it views itself and how Se/Ti valuers see it, when it is properly instantiated. in other words, anything less than omnipotence is not knowledge and knowledge is not less than omnipotence. something I think we both fundamentally disagree with. rather knowledge is like a useful consensus with real limitations that should be kept in mind at all times. the first group would say if you have to qualify knowledge in this way it is not knowledge. there's also something supremely disconcerting about how in tower of babel or luciferian fashion Se Ti tries to usurp the role of God. what's weirder still is how they've infected religious institutions and ultimately threw God out the back door, which is why no one looks to them for truth anymore and they laid the seeds for their own elimination. in the end its a lot like cancer--theorized to be necessary to limit lifespans so that the new can be given a chance. like burning dead wood, but they view themselves as "right"--its true there is something "right" about that in the negative sense, if you ever wondered how cancer might view itself as the good guy look no further than betas corrupting time honored traditions unto their death, without consciously realizing that is their role.. there is a reason they are called "fire." only something akin to dunning kruger could give such a destructive force the oblivious confidence required to act out such a fate. what's weirder still is how alpha hurtles toward that flame like moths. you see this play out all the time if you watch social dynamics
It is still commonplace to confuse questions of morality with scientific knowledge. Morality is inherently subjective in focus - not falsifiable. When a moral principle is pinned on unwavering faith in some objective truth, it does not become any less subjective or unfalsifiable. When people start with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis and regard it as the unquestionable truth, they close themselves off from searching for the truth and leave themselves open to committing terrible deeds, because they have already given up their capacity to think.
some people may confuse it, but I think many people really do believe the is/ought gap is closeable in principle and aim to do precisely that. in that sense they have no respect for the distinction between questions of morality and scientific knowledge; in fact they aspire to science one day usurping morality and the seeds for that are laid in these pernicious philosophical theories of knowledge in order to do exactly that
I am hopeful that within the next century or two, the situation will have significantly changed for the better.
yes I think we are slowly realizing the problems with such an aspiration. delta is on the march
we will see though, it only takes one crisis for everyone to circle the wagons and start up with atrocities again. this is why warmongering is so popular for those in power, because it causes people to overlook faults in their leadership and ignore domestic issues in favor of outside threats, which in turn keeps power in place. its so annoying how imperialism is like incentivized by way of self preservation instinct for leadership itself. it essentially means the temptation to be an asshole as soon as you come into power will never fully go away (and the more you screw up the more alluring it becomes in order to compensate for unpopularity--truly the "dark side" temptation of power). this is what I think is meant by power corrupts
Dogmatism will decrease as countries become more democratic and prosperous, not necessarily because of increases in knowledge.
yes the number #1 factor in me opening my mind was exposure. something my beta family intentionally tried to control and manipulate using fear and by leveraging, i.e.: artificially withholding and limiting, resources. they literally hated democracy (free expression), wanted to constrain prosperity to "those who toed the line", and spent all their time fear mongering and othering anyone who was outside their system, in order to prevent anyone from ever leaving or questioning it. for that kind of stuff to go away you just need material prosperity and open communication. so its always funny how they want to ideologically control the definition of "knowledge" because that is where they can at the root prevent such things and discredit any future threats by excluding it at the onset (if knowledge is within control of the state all research, resources, technology, etc flows from that directive). if "knowledge" is the gatekeeper of admissible truths they can simply predefine truth as whatever they want by fitting "knowledge" into any box that suits them (this is why weapons of warfare flowed from communist ideology and not quality of life or work saving technologies--and why save labor when you can simply define as criminal anyone you want in order to create unlimited free labor, etc). this is not what is meant by knowledge is that which is useful. and probably why the beta ethicals chafe under such a statement, because they are oriented to see it in that light and even they can see how awful that is. what delta sees as useful is objective usefulness not subjective and therein lies the difference
And I'm sure who you're arguing against is your imaginary enemy of an "analytical philosopher" (someone who hurts your butt all the time, apparently), and not me. The whole point of what I'm talking about is not about definitions at all.
It's like you really need to stop projecting already.
You don't even have an idea of what I'm talking about, because you're just having an automatic reflex and not even reading what I'm saying and start rambling and shooting your mouth off.
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, and I guess you're just rambling to "save face".
You're totally not up to my level, and it's actually kind of boring. Get out of my thread, creep.
As Subteigh points out, yet you still miss the point. We're not trying to "establish truth", as that would ultimately lead to authoritarianism. The whole point of falsifiability is to NOT establish any "truths".
It's not a matter of whether we can have any knowledge at all or not. Obviously, it is possible, but we will always have imperfect knowledge. To idolize not having any knowledge "because of power" or something, is just idolizing ignorance. And all evil is derived from lack of knowledge.
Well not quite, because we will need knowledge in how to become more democratic and how to become more prosperous and how to become less dogmatic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
