How do we know what we know?

[Aegon]

Human consciousness is a survival tool, not meant to figure out the truth of reality. We're not hardwired to see things as they really are, but rather hallucinate a reality which benefits our survival the most. It's crazy shit, innit? The idea that our brain gets sensory input and just puts out its best guess as to what it going on... insanity. I don't think this is a controversial statement, since we all learn in high school physics that there are various waves that are not visible to our brains like the visible color spectrum is. Then on the quantum level, we know that the act of observing particles is enough to change them. This then begs the question: can we really know anything to be objectively true if everything we do passes through such imperfect filters as our senses? If the answer is no, then is there even a point in thinking about it?

What can we confidently say is objectively true and true independent of the human experience? How much can we confidently say is true and how much are we assuming is true for the sake of our collective sanity?

[Foxaèr]

We can trust in the knowledge of that which withstands the scrutiny of empiricism. Anything else would just be subjective conscientious fancy.

[no one]

Nothing is real. Not even this thread.

[brewer]

OP: You just tell me everything that I need to know and we'll call it good.



















(shit guys, think he bought it?)

[Aegon]

We can trust in the knowledge of that which withstands the scrutiny of empiricism.  Anything else would just be subjective conscientious fancy.

You mean a process created by the human brain and performed by the human brain? It doesn't change the problem I outlined in the beginning of the OP

Even then, an empiricist can accept one thing, and then 50 years when research develops and we realize that that one thing is false and a new thing is true, the empiricist was guilty of calling something a fact that wasn't. Not that I blame them, because I'd be in the same boat. If what we firmly think is true now is shown not to be in 50, 100, 150, etc. years... then that surely can't be objective knowledge or truth because we know it wasn't. So why call today's facts facts? 

I suppose that's why we call very convincing scientific theories "Theories" regardless of the insane amount of evidence, but how many of us forget to be humble and assume what we think is true today is really, truly, objectively true?

[DLJ]

...
Then on the quantum level, we know that the act of observing particles is enough to change them.
...

I'm not sure that 'change' is the correct word. 'Decide' might be a better way of looking at it.

State vector reduction (collapse of the wave function) would be a bit like a choice between two paths. Once you've decided, you've collapsed the future function.

...
This then begs the question
...

It doesn't. It raises it.

...
objectively true
...

Ugh! Will no one rid me of this turbulent word?

...
What can we confidently say is objectively true and true independent of the human experience?
...

"And"? So what is the difference between a) objectively and b) independent of the human experience?

True (or false) is a label applied to a proposition for a given epistemology. It's relational, by definition.

...
How much can we confidently say is true and how much are we assuming is true for the sake of our collective sanity?

Think of all the social constructs we accept as normal unthinkingly (because they've been grandfathered) or rationally (because we recognise the social value)... 'money' being an obvious example of both.

Nothing is real.
...

Except Strawberry Fields.

[Alan V]

Human consciousness is a survival tool, not meant to figure out the truth of reality. We're not hardwired to see things as they really are, but rather hallucinate a reality which benefits our survival the most. It's crazy shit, innit? The idea that our brain gets sensory input and just puts out its best guess as to what it going on... insanity. I don't think this is a controversial statement, since we all learn in high school physics that there are various waves that are not visible to our brains like the visible color spectrum is. Then on the quantum level, we know that the act of observing particles is enough to change them. This then begs the question: can we really know anything to be objectively true if everything we do passes through such imperfect filters as our senses? If the answer is no, then is there even a point in thinking about it?

What can we confidently say is objectively true and true independent of the human experience? How much can we confidently say is true and how much are we assuming is true for the sake of our collective sanity?

You seem to be saying we can't know anything unless we know everything.  That doesn't follow since the truth must be unified.

Any reasonable person knows our perceptions can fool us, and that we must therefore be cautious.  But any reasonable person can also get real things done in the real world without too many surprises.  It follows that our perceptions must have some basis in reality.

Also, you are ignoring the many observations we can make about what we are experiencing and thinking, qualified as such.

If you maintain that appearances aren't realities in ways which are nontrivial, then you have the burden of proof.

[chimp3]

We now (since Galileo) require instruments to measure reality.

[Deesse23]

How do we know what we know?

I dont know.

[Foxaèr]

You mean a process created by the human brain and performed by the human brain? It doesn't change the problem I outlined in the beginning of the OP

That's a problem between you and your brain, because my brain depends normally on empiricism.

Even then, an empiricist can accept one thing, and then 50 years when research develops and we realize that that one thing is false and a new thing is true, the empiricist was guilty of calling something a fact that wasn't. Not that I blame them, because I'd be in the same boat. If what we firmly think is true now is shown not to be in 50, 100, 150, etc. years... then that surely can't be objective knowledge or truth because we know it wasn't. So why call today's facts facts? 

That's the wonderful aspect of discernment between identifying as reasonable or religious. Despite the facts that back up my current empiricist view, my mind can always be changed when the proper evidence is provided. The same cannot be stated for those who are religious, for look how they attempt at altering science, intelligent design, in order to appease their biased religious views.

I suppose that's why we call very convincing scientific theories "Theories" regardless of the insane amount of evidence, but how many of us forget to be humble and assume what we think is true today is really, truly, objectively true?

Word salad.