If you mean simply that humans put it together, yes. Humans gathered together the information to construct a strong case for the earth orbiting the sun. The fact that it does is not a construct of humans tho. It did that long before we existed.https://twitter.com/colwight/status/970609479807987712 …
-
-
Knowledge and epistemology are by definition one and the same thing. I'll send you some readings.
-
This is where we are talking about different things then. I know what epistemology is - ways of discovering knowledge. I am referring to knowledge as the thing that is to be discovered whilst you are referring to the process of knowing.
-
Well if you refer to knowledge as the thing that is discovered you're in trouble. It's what I'd call the epistemic fallacy; the reduction of what is (ontology) to what is known (epistemology). What is taken as known at any point in time can always be wrong.
-
Yes, knowledge is always provisional. And there is always more to know. This is dealt with by openly acknowledging that we are limited in getting at truth.
-
Exactly, so we can't ever say that our socially constructed knowledge of the world is 100% right. And what makes it possibly wrong is that it's not identical to what is. What there is would still be as it even if we had no knowledge of it. That's why knowledge isn't what is.
-
See, we don't disagree except on the word. I'll use knowledge but accept that it is provisional and not necessarily or even probably identical to what is.
-
Well now we don't even disagree on the word. Now you're using knowledge as not synonymous of what is, you are acknowledging it (knowledge) is socially constructed. There's nothing to fear here. Knowledge can be socially constructed without destroying the world as it is.
-
No, I'm not. I'm acknowledging it as provisional. We know the earth orbits the sun.This knowledge remains provisional but It was not brought into being by society. It is constructed from methods formed by society of getting at what is which will always be imperfect. Will that do?
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Right. I think we could just accept that we are using words differently but don't actually disagree?
-
Well no, because you'd have to accept that what we say about words is also subject to truth criteria. So you can't just say "fascist" is someone who loves cats.
-
Huh? You could. Once you understand that 'fascist' means 'cat lover' to someone else, a perfectly coherent conversation about what it means to be a cat lover can happen. If you insist they really mean what you mean by fascist, just confusion will ensue.
-
However, this is unlikely to happen whilst using 'knowledge' to refer to facts is quite standard.
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.