How does Bertrand Russell differentiate between “knowledge by acquaintance” and “knowledge by description”? (Check out the footnote at bottom of p. 19)
Bertrand Russell differentiates between the two knowledges by saying that acquaintance is only 'raw feels' and that knowledge by description is 'knowing that'. Knowledge by acquaintance is when you know someone; you know how they are feeling by what they do. Knowledge by description is when you know that something is something. What I mean by that is like " I know that the sky is blue". In English these two different types of knowledge have the same word 'to know'. However in other languages it is easier to identify the difference because there are two separate words for each one. For example, in Latin the two words are scire and cognoscere.
How does Abel distinguish between “knowing how” and “knowing that”?
Able distinguishes between knowing how and knowing that by saying that knowing how is something that can not be easily expressed. You cannot tell someone how to breath or how it feels when your foot itches but you know how to do it and how it feels. Knowing that is when you know a fact or something like "I know if I drop something it will fall because of gravity".
What does he mean when he asks: “can knowing how theoretically always be reduced to knowing that? What is Abel’s answer? What do you think?
What he means is to ask if every type of knowing how knowledge can be explained through knowing that, for example: you can know how to ride a bike, and you can also know the physics that make it work. Able doesn't think that every type of knowing how knowledge can be reduced down to knowing that knowledge, and I agree with him. For example: you can know how water tastes but you can not know that water taste the way it dose with out experiencing it.
How does language become a problem of knowledge?
Language becomes a problem with knowledge because, for example: in the English language there is only one word for the word 'to know' while in others there is two to signify knowing that and knowing how. Also words like very, and highly. How can you accurately express how much those mean. Language tends to use words for estimation, which can throw off knowledge when trying to be communicated. Also language limits you to not being able to explain raw feels. For example: if you know how it feels to be in love, you cannot accurately describe this emotion to another person.
What do you think William James means when he says: “Life defies our phrases?”
I think William James is trying to say that our experiences help dictate to what we say and do and know. If we listen to a certain type of music we are able to make a statement on if we like it or not. If we have not heard that type of music, then there is no way we can comment on it.
What, according to Abel, is the difference between “experience” and “propositional knowledge”?
The difference between experience and propsitional knowledge is one id learned by doing and the other is learned from an outside source. For example an experience would be ridding a bike, and knowing hoe to ride it from that. The propositional knowledge here would be knowing the physics of how to make the bike move and why it does.
What are Abel’s Four Conditions for propositional knowledge? Where have we seen this before?
Abel’s four conditions for propositional Knowledge are as follows. His first one is about truth. You can know something because it is true. For example 3+3 = 6, and you can know this because it is true. The second is belife. In order to know something you have to believe it, you can not possibly say that you know the sky is blue but you don't believe it. You can however make the statement that you believe the sky is blue but do not know it. Belief is independent from knowing but knowing is not independent from belife. The third is that in order to have knowledge and or belife there must be a certain amount of justification to this knowledge. For example you can guess the numbers of a lottery ticket, and belive that they are right, and get them right, but you do not know the numbers. The fourth one is knowledge that has no evidence that could make your belife not true. For example, if you look at a clock you know that it is that time. We have heard this from the plationic knowledge that we learned about in class.
Why does he add a Fourth Condition?
He adds a Fourth Condition to show that some knowledge does not need evidence to be knowledge. You can know that it is a certian time without having the evidence that it is.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Based on our conversation in class, what is the point of the story: "The Mouse That Ate The Cheese?"
The point of the story "The Mouse That Ate The Cheese" is to show different types of knowing. Each Charecter in the story has thier own form of knowlege on whether or not the mouse ate the cheese. The only charecters that had true knowledeg that the mouse did infact ate the cheese was Adrian, Virgina, and Bill (and of course the mouse knew). Bill knew that the mouse ate the cheese through justification. He saw that the mouse ate the cheese, and he belived what he saw. " 'Well, have it your own way. I just know what i saw' ". Since he saw the mouse eat the cheese and he belived in the fact that he did see this happen, through justification he had knowledge of this event. Adrian and Virgina, however, did not see the mouse eat the cheese. They were told by Bill that the mouse ate the cheese. "Bill obviously wasn't joking, his story was plausible enough and she knew him well enough to accept this evidence as true". From knowledge by acquaintce Virgina ans Adrian know Bill well enough to know that he would not lie or joke about a mouse eating a picece of cheese. They too come to know that the mouse ate the cheese through justification, they were told by authority (Bill), a prior knowledge of the event (Bill), and it seemed reasonable enough of a story. The other two charecters Alice and George do not know that the mouse ate the cheese, however they do not have this knowledge for to very different reasons. Alice belived that the mouse ate the cheese but had no knowledge that this infact was true. It is not true because there is nothing independent from her belief, she can only believe that the cheese was not eaten, she can not know it. George does not believe or know that the cheese was eaten by the mouse. He had been told by pest exterminators that there were no mouse in his flat and he belived them. He refused to belive what Bill was saying about the mouse, and since he did not belive in the possibility of a mouse being in his flat, there is no way he can know it.
The point of the story "The Mouse That Ate The Cheese" is to show different types of knowing. Each Charecter in the story has thier own form of knowlege on whether or not the mouse ate the cheese. The only charecters that had true knowledeg that the mouse did infact ate the cheese was Adrian, Virgina, and Bill (and of course the mouse knew). Bill knew that the mouse ate the cheese through justification. He saw that the mouse ate the cheese, and he belived what he saw. " 'Well, have it your own way. I just know what i saw' ". Since he saw the mouse eat the cheese and he belived in the fact that he did see this happen, through justification he had knowledge of this event. Adrian and Virgina, however, did not see the mouse eat the cheese. They were told by Bill that the mouse ate the cheese. "Bill obviously wasn't joking, his story was plausible enough and she knew him well enough to accept this evidence as true". From knowledge by acquaintce Virgina ans Adrian know Bill well enough to know that he would not lie or joke about a mouse eating a picece of cheese. They too come to know that the mouse ate the cheese through justification, they were told by authority (Bill), a prior knowledge of the event (Bill), and it seemed reasonable enough of a story. The other two charecters Alice and George do not know that the mouse ate the cheese, however they do not have this knowledge for to very different reasons. Alice belived that the mouse ate the cheese but had no knowledge that this infact was true. It is not true because there is nothing independent from her belief, she can only believe that the cheese was not eaten, she can not know it. George does not believe or know that the cheese was eaten by the mouse. He had been told by pest exterminators that there were no mouse in his flat and he belived them. He refused to belive what Bill was saying about the mouse, and since he did not belive in the possibility of a mouse being in his flat, there is no way he can know it.
Monday, September 22, 2008
class notes
Academic Knowledge
Plato: Knowledge-had to be described & communicated = certainty
“Propositional” knowledge/Platonic knowledge/ knowledge by description
N Reasonable & Convincing
‘Flying pig example isn’t knowledge’
Formac statement of convincing knowledge
(Conditions for knowledge)
“Knowing that”
Test:
1. Justified
2. 
True
3. Belief= necessary but not sufficient.
Truth
1. Public-Dog has to be friendly to all
2. Independent-separate from belief
3. Eternal –but must be true now & forever
Empiricism/Experiential
See it
Induction
Smell
Hear
Touch
Taste
Rationalism
Instructed using a prior knowledge
‘Knowledge that came before’
Deduction
General theory =specific
Sunday, September 21, 2008
CORN
Tangy Honey Mustard Sauce:
Water, sugar, dijon mustard (distilled vinegar, mustard seed, salt, water, white wine, spices), corn syrup solids, honey, soybean oil, distilled vinegar, food starch-modified, egg yolks, contains 2% or less of the following: mustard seed, turmeric (color), spices, xanthan gum, salt, titanium dioxide, propylene glycol alginate, sodium benzoate (preservative), yellow 5, yellow 6.
CONTAINS: EGG.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Did any information in the book come as a surprise to you? If so, why do you think that specific piece of knowledge was kept from you? Does the producer of this knowledge have any responsibility? What is your responsibility as a knower?
I thought it was surprising that meat suppliers are trying to make it so they animals that they are raising eat corn. They are even using this practice on salmon, which are normally carnivorous animals. By doing this it probably saves money for the companies it self, corn being a much cheaper supply than another that would be needed to feed the animals. However by doing this it affecting the diet of the people who eat these animals. Besides the actually animal you ingest you are also getting nutrients from what the animal itself has eaten. If the animals by large amount of suppliers have only eaten corn then the people ingesting the animals are eating large amount of corn, changing their diet in a way that they are not aware of. If the animal was eating the foods that it would consume if it was not in captivity the humans consuming this animal would get these nutrients passes to them, bus since the animals are not eating this way, the humans are not receiving this. I feel like this specific information is kept from the public because if consumers were to know this, then they would most likely buy from meat suppliers that are not following this corn trend, causing the ones who do to lose massive amounts of business. The producer of this knowledge should have the responsibility to tell people what they are feeding their animals and how it affects their everyday diet. However that will not happen, for it would lead to them losing business. As a knower of this information I have the responsibility of sharing it with others, if I chose to do so.
I thought it was surprising that meat suppliers are trying to make it so they animals that they are raising eat corn. They are even using this practice on salmon, which are normally carnivorous animals. By doing this it probably saves money for the companies it self, corn being a much cheaper supply than another that would be needed to feed the animals. However by doing this it affecting the diet of the people who eat these animals. Besides the actually animal you ingest you are also getting nutrients from what the animal itself has eaten. If the animals by large amount of suppliers have only eaten corn then the people ingesting the animals are eating large amount of corn, changing their diet in a way that they are not aware of. If the animal was eating the foods that it would consume if it was not in captivity the humans consuming this animal would get these nutrients passes to them, bus since the animals are not eating this way, the humans are not receiving this. I feel like this specific information is kept from the public because if consumers were to know this, then they would most likely buy from meat suppliers that are not following this corn trend, causing the ones who do to lose massive amounts of business. The producer of this knowledge should have the responsibility to tell people what they are feeding their animals and how it affects their everyday diet. However that will not happen, for it would lead to them losing business. As a knower of this information I have the responsibility of sharing it with others, if I chose to do so.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
how do we know what we know?
"How do we Know what we Know? What evidence do you have to support your claim?"
We know what we know because of what we have been told, and because of what we have experianced. We learn what we know from the people who teach it to us. From birth we are taught how to live and to be succsefull in life and society. We go to school where we learn facts and history. We also learn what we known through experiance. We can taste a certain type of food and know what it taste like, and know that the next time you taste it it will have the same taste (unless it has gone bad or something to that account). From experiance you know that when you touch ice it wil be cold, and whenever you touch it again it will still be cold. We know what we know because we rely on the fact that the reality that we see is what is real. Some people question whether "reality" itself is just a very complex dream. But by beliving in the facts thats are told to us when we are young and learning, and when we are experiancing life we belive in the facts that what we know. There is no possible way to prove if every single thing that we know is actually true, but human nature is to belive in the reality that is infront of them. Yes people do question whether the reality that they see is true. However they know what they know by excepting facts that are taught to them.
We know what we know because of what we have been told, and because of what we have experianced. We learn what we know from the people who teach it to us. From birth we are taught how to live and to be succsefull in life and society. We go to school where we learn facts and history. We also learn what we known through experiance. We can taste a certain type of food and know what it taste like, and know that the next time you taste it it will have the same taste (unless it has gone bad or something to that account). From experiance you know that when you touch ice it wil be cold, and whenever you touch it again it will still be cold. We know what we know because we rely on the fact that the reality that we see is what is real. Some people question whether "reality" itself is just a very complex dream. But by beliving in the facts thats are told to us when we are young and learning, and when we are experiancing life we belive in the facts that what we know. There is no possible way to prove if every single thing that we know is actually true, but human nature is to belive in the reality that is infront of them. Yes people do question whether the reality that they see is true. However they know what they know by excepting facts that are taught to them.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Do Parents Matter?
How would Gladwell respond to the identity question from August 27th? How would Levitt and Dubner respond?
I feel like Gladwell would respond to the identity question from august 27 by saying that we are our location. Gladwell talks mostly about how peers are what influences a person’s identity, and who they truly are. Gladwell mentions that a child who is born in poverty and in a place in which is full of poverty the child is more likely to be suitable to trouble and likely hood of dropping out of school. Where you live has a lot to do with the type of people you are going to encounter, according to Gladwell. Using the example that if a child is raised in a poor neighbor hood or environment the child is more likely to get in to trouble can also be an affection of the peers that the child would meet in this location. If what Gladwell is saying is true than a child being raised in that type of environment would be influenced by his or her peers of that environment. Making a child it's location. I feel that Levitt and Dubner would respond by saying that we are our family. They seem to believe that is our genes that make us who we are. If we have intelligent parents then we are most likely going to be intelligent. According to them our personality, and ultimately who we are comes from our family, the genes that have been passed down. They believe that when the parent is younger, and setting up patterns in their life on how they handle situations is what affects the child. Not whether or not they listen to Mozart in the womb or not. I do agree with this. i belive that our genes make up a huge part of who we are, but the rest that cannot be decided by genes alone is based on your peers. The people who you hang out with tend to be like you. There is no way that you can possibly interact with someone your own age and not be influenced by thier actions. Whether or not they influnece you not to be like them or not to do something or to be like them they are still influencing you, therefore becoming a part of who you are. I belive that parents do not have as much influence on a child or person as much as thier peers do. A parent is around thier child a significantly less amount of time than they are with thier friends, leaving more time for them to be influenced by them. For example high school cliques are not formed by parents telling them to fit into a certain sterio type, they are made and fit into by the influence of thier friends and how they present them selves.
I feel like Gladwell would respond to the identity question from august 27 by saying that we are our location. Gladwell talks mostly about how peers are what influences a person’s identity, and who they truly are. Gladwell mentions that a child who is born in poverty and in a place in which is full of poverty the child is more likely to be suitable to trouble and likely hood of dropping out of school. Where you live has a lot to do with the type of people you are going to encounter, according to Gladwell. Using the example that if a child is raised in a poor neighbor hood or environment the child is more likely to get in to trouble can also be an affection of the peers that the child would meet in this location. If what Gladwell is saying is true than a child being raised in that type of environment would be influenced by his or her peers of that environment. Making a child it's location. I feel that Levitt and Dubner would respond by saying that we are our family. They seem to believe that is our genes that make us who we are. If we have intelligent parents then we are most likely going to be intelligent. According to them our personality, and ultimately who we are comes from our family, the genes that have been passed down. They believe that when the parent is younger, and setting up patterns in their life on how they handle situations is what affects the child. Not whether or not they listen to Mozart in the womb or not. I do agree with this. i belive that our genes make up a huge part of who we are, but the rest that cannot be decided by genes alone is based on your peers. The people who you hang out with tend to be like you. There is no way that you can possibly interact with someone your own age and not be influenced by thier actions. Whether or not they influnece you not to be like them or not to do something or to be like them they are still influencing you, therefore becoming a part of who you are. I belive that parents do not have as much influence on a child or person as much as thier peers do. A parent is around thier child a significantly less amount of time than they are with thier friends, leaving more time for them to be influenced by them. For example high school cliques are not formed by parents telling them to fit into a certain sterio type, they are made and fit into by the influence of thier friends and how they present them selves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
