[lit-ideas] Re: Understanding Why Newton Contributed To Human Knowledge With A False Theory

On Dec 1, 2007 11:22 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Knowledge is what is known. Like the related concepts truth, belief, and
> wisdom, there is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree,
> but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of
> knowledge.
>

Of the definitions cited in a previous message, "Knowledge is what is known"
is the one on which we all, I believe, could agree. The qualifying
statement, "Like the related concepts truth, belief, and wisdom, there is no
single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous
theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge." This statement
is one about which we all, I believe, could agree that it constitutes an
example of knowledge. Is say "I believe" deliberately, since given the
nature of our group it is not unlikely that someone will, indeed, say, "I
disagree."

The point toward which I am moving is the observation that to say "We know
X" is to claim that we can now agree to take X as given as a ground for
action or further deliberation. "I know X" is frequently, perhaps typically,
an assertion that "You should accept what I say," making X a ground on which
we can then proceed. The heart of the matter, then, in discussions of
knowing is the search for agreement.

At this point it is tempting to say that the history of philosophy is
demonstration of something Socrates discovered, that when we approach
conversations determined to challenge each other's assumptions, no agreement
and, thus, no knowing is possible. Descartes, for example, may convince
himself that by doubting everyone possible, he has at last reached a few
clear and self-evident ideas. But, at the end of the day, his "Cogito Ergo
Sum" is just another "I know X." If other philosophers disagree, and, yes,
indeed, they do, no knowledge has been achieved.

On the other hand, modest forms of knowledge are achieved all the time. "I'm
hungry," "Me, too," "Let's eat." The parties to the dialogue can say "We
know X=We are hungry." There is no disagreement. Knowledge is.

More consequential examples are ready to hand. Jefferson writes, "We hold
these truths to be self-evident...." Members of the Continental Congress
agree, agree so much, in fact, that, as one remarks, "We shall either hang
together or we will hang separately." There is no disagreement among them.
Among them knowledge is. George III and Lord North do disagree. From their
perspective, the knowledge implicit in the Founders' agreement is, at best,
a belief, and a hugely ill-founded belief at best. Thus, a war ensues. The
victors enshrine Jefferson's words.  Their knowledge has prevailed.

Is not, however, knowledge based on mere agreement a too fragile thing? Not
necessarily. Science is a glorious demonstration of how knowledge at time t1
(Copernicus says the earth revolves in circles around the Sun) can lead to
improvements at time t2 (Kepler demonstrates that the circles are ovals),
time t3 (Newton's theory of gravitation explains why the orbits are oval),
time t4 (Einstein's theory of relativity improves on Newton), etc. That both
the speed and position of elementary particles cannot be measured
simultaneously does not prevent the mathematics of quantum mechanics from
making predictions that work often enough for engineers to agree on them and
design all sorts of delightful gadgets.

The interesting topic turns out to be, as I suggested more intemperately in
earlier messages, how agreement is reached and how and why which ways of
reaching agreement, Biblical inspiration for example or scientific method,
turn out to be more reliable.

One conclusion, however, is sure. Oxford dons poring over their local
dialect of English and approaching their project in a spirit that requires
the constant challenge of assumptions  may produce all sorts of charming or
interesting comments. Knowledge they cannot be.

Cheers,

John


-- 
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/

Other related posts: