In the sense that there wouldn't be anyone to know it, yes. There'd be no knowers. , no possessors of knowledge. This is a semantic thing. When we say we seek knowledge, it is not humans knowing things that we seek but the right answer to a thing.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @colwight
The knowledge itself - the right answer to a thing eg, water is H2O - is not socially constructed. Nor is the knower - an intelligent ape. The process of obtaining this knowledge and framing of it is dependent on society & the methods it formulates for knowing & relating this.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @colwight
This is what is at the crux of the disagreement. We all agree that the acquisition of knowledge is dependent on developments of human methods like science in society. We disagree on whether there is objective knowledge/truth/facts and whether we can get at them at all reliably.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No you see this is what leaves you right open to a postmodernist critique. You have to distinguish knowledge (a human product) from the world (which may be a human product (society)). But knowledge of the world is socially constructed. This means any knowledge claim could...1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight @HPluckrose
.....be wrong. You have to distinguish how we know things, from what things there are. But we can only know what things there are through our descriptions of them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
Absolutely. I don't disagree with that. Distinguishing how we know things from what things there are is absolutely the point. Knowledge is the product tho, not the epistemology, surely?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @colwight
Right. I think we could just accept that we are using words differently but don't actually disagree?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
However, this is unlikely to happen whilst using 'knowledge' to refer to facts is quite standard.
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.