Pim: Indeed. And you keep asking what science claims to know. What is
knows is
the observations and the hypotheses.
So in other words, according to your view, science doesn't really give
us knowledge about the world, rather it gives us knowledge about
ourselves - what we perceive and what we think about what we think we
perceive? After all, you did say that we each live in our own little
subejctive world, didn't you?
[snip]
Pim: Hmm. I would define (scientific) knowledge as our understanding of
the
world around us based upon observations, theories and hypotheses.
OK, I hate to do it but feel that I must - what exactly do you mean by
"understanding"? I can think of a few possible defintions. For
example, in asking you to clarify how you are using certain words, I am
hoping to "understand" what you are saying. Put another way, I am
seeking to arrive at your intended meaning; trying to conform my
thoughts to what it is that you are attempting to communicate.
In other contexts, when I profess to understand something like the
workings of a car motor or the mating practices of cockatiels, I am
claiming that I possess beliefs that accurately correspond to those
things; beliefs that are true about them. When two people have been
arguing and finally come to some resolution, we often say that they come
to a mutual understanding, by which we mean that they have agreed upon a
certain course of action or belief. According to the American Heritage
Dictionary, one possible definition of the verb "understand" is "to
accept (something) as agreed fact". Is THIS what you mean by the word?
If so, I fail to see how merely agreeing with so many others that a
particular belief is factual, increases our knowledge. In that case,
Christians understand that the world is the product God's creative act
because they have agreed that this is factual.
I'm also curious as to how you define knowledge in general (as opposed
to scientific knowledge).
I would appreciate it if you would clear this up for me. Thank you for
your patience.
Keith