RE: why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?
January 16, 2019 at 11:29 pm
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2019 at 11:37 pm by Alan V.)
(January 16, 2019 at 10:42 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(January 16, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: philosophers think knowledge must be certain, while in fact our best knowledge always seems to come with probabilities.
That's an interesting thing to say. I hadn't heard that before.
It's true that the standard definition of knowledge is "justified true belief." So by that definition, something that isn't true isn't knowledge. But this is generally invoked to remind us that what we hold to be true is more tentatively held than we are inclined to remember. That what we call knowledge now, if disproved, we will call belief later on.
But what philosopher thinks we have to disregard things we aren't certain of? I mean, they all do their best to prove their cases, but as far as I know most of them accept that we can't be sure of very much.
After all, Socrates, who got the whole thing rolling, taught that self-doubt is the beginning of wisdom. And he leaves a number of his dialogues with no solid conclusion -- just an aporia.
"Philosophical skepticism begins with the claim that the skeptic currently does not have knowledge. Some adherents maintain that knowledge is, in theory, possible. It could be argued that Socrates held that view. He appears to have thought that if people continue to ask questions they might eventually come to have knowledge; but that they did not have it yet. Some skeptics have gone further and claimed that true knowledge is impossible, for example the Academic school in Ancient Greece well after the time of Carneades. A third skeptical approach would be neither to accept nor reject the possibility of knowledge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
My problem with some philosophers (I should have emphasized) is that they take their skepticism too far. The perfect is the enemy of the good, to paraphrase Voltaire I believe. At a point, such thinking blurs the line between justified true belief and unjustified false belief. We might be brains in vats. A thermostat might have awareness. Science can't study the mind, or whatever. Nothing is good enough to go on. Scientists would waste their grant money if they took the same approach.
