SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (83874)7/15/2000 10:40:00 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Thanks, Bill, I seem to be better this morning, but I am still being a bit cautious. I will use this as an opportunity to elaborate:

According to the common use of the term, I know a lot of things: how to drive; the primary route to New York City from where I live; my life history; major elements of my wife's life history; the main events of the history of the century; and so on. Memory can be faulty; people can lie; objections can be raised about some of these things. But confidence is high, and even a mistake does not shake the sense of substantial knowledge, anymore than a mistaken calculation would lead me to believe I didn't know math.

Some of these things are more or less verifiable. But, for example, there are many things that have happened to me where I might be the only witness, or where my testimony might conflict with someone else's, so that the matter could not be settled. Suppose, for a moment, that I witnessed a murder, but there was no physical evidence sufficient to convict, and no one else to corroborate, and someone willing to offer an alibi. There is no way that I could prove that such- and- such had done it, and yet I know that he did, as well as I know anything that I experienced. It is right for the jury to acquit, but that does not make my testimony either false or opinion, only uncorroborated.

This, of course, has wider applications.........



To: Bill who wrote (83874)7/15/2000 12:38:42 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 108807
 
The problem with saying that someone with comparable experience will likely agree with one is that that sort of consensus does not suffice for the establishment of scientific "fact". It does not have the requisite experimental rigor. Thus, it is just means that several people can attest something and not have it proven, if any objection can be raised.