Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

Just a little more on Kant, sense impressions, and empiricism, which I
happend to see in an article on strategic management that turned up in some
research I'm doing on a completely unrelated law paper about trade secrets (
J.C. Spender, *Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm*,
17 Strategic Management Journal 45-62 (1996)). This article is about moving
away from the positivist epistemology that underlies most contemporary
theories of the firm (and my current legal scholarship is about moving away
from the positivist empistemology that underlies most contemporary
intellectual property theory). Anyway, here's the bit about Kant:

As realists, we assume reality exists and is knowable. As empiricists, we
assume that our knowledge corresponds to reality. As rationalists, we
assume reality's structure is logical. All these positions neglect the
essence of the Kantian critique which is that our knowledge is constructed
from sense impressions and cannot, therefore, tell us anything about a
reality beyond those impressions. While Kant believed that our experience
was shaped by reality, our knowledge of it was based on a priori intuitions
and consequently delimited by the available categories of human
comprehension. Later philosophers, extending the position which Kant opened
up, argued that the basis of our interpretation of our experience is as
likely to be in the soft structures of subjective perception as it is in the
hard reality within which we presume we are contained.

Ibid. at p. 48

On 3/20/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To be honest, I'm not happy with the concept of "Knowledge", and the idea
> that you can KNOW something is right anyway. What does it mean? All it can
> mean is that a fact is determined to be true with probability 1.
>
> As a Bayesian, I would say that one has a prior probability (prior belief)
> that is then either reinforced or lessened in the list of evidence
> observed. I'm not sure what it is that Glenn wants to KNOW. To "know" that
> God exists is to be excused having faith. Glenn's observation that
> Christians seemed to be happy (I know of at least one Christian who has
> expressed suicidal thoughts to me so they clearly weren't happy), was an
> empirical observation that influenced his beliefs.
>
> For some reason (probably irrelevant) T.S. Eliot comes to mind:
>
> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
>
> (Ash Wednesday).
>
>
> Iain
> On 3/20/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > *You said what basis was there for becoming a christian. That isn't the
> > same as saying I KNOW it is right. One believes it is right--that is why it
> > is called faith.*
> >
> > Very fair point. OTOH, you didn't really KNOW that those Christians
> > were happy, either. The best you could really say is that it *seemed to
> > you* that they were happy, since happiness is the interior state of an
> > "other" to which you don't have access. Lots of people seem to be happy but
> > really aren't -- even lots of Christians. So you're still back to some
> > non-empirical foundational assumptions that, in this instance, supported
> > your belief that the happiness you seemed to be observing in these
> > Christians in some way really reflected their interior states.
> >
> >
> > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net > wrote:
> > >
> > > Iain wrote:
> > > >>Yes and I've read books on the evidence for the resurrection, and
> > > I've read atheist websites dissing the whole concept as a myth. At the end
> > > of the day you have to decide which one you're going to believe, and that
> > > belief is based on conviction and the work of the Holy Spirit, and not on
> > > empirical evidence alone, although it's true that empirical observations may
> > > incline one towards belief. <<<
> > >
> > > So have I read both sides, and that is why I tend to look for
> > > verification elsewhere than at the resurrection. And then I get criticized
> > > for doing so upon this list and told how I should rest it all at the cross,
> > > which as you note, one can read both sides of the issue. Maybe some others
> > > should read those atheist sites to see how epistemologically insecure their
> > > belief is.
> > >
> > > And to address the issue of this thread, one must distinguish what you
> > > asked from 'knowing'. You said what basis was there for becoming a
> > > christian. That isn't the same as saying I KNOW it is right. One believes it
> > > is right--that is why it is called faith.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > glenn
> > > They're Here: The Pathway Papers
> > > Foundation, Fall, and Flood
> > > Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> > >
> > > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > *From:* Iain Strachan [mailto: igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:01 AM
> > > *To:* Glenn Morton
> > > *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> > > *Subject:* Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For Iain, Merv, David Siemans, David W.
> > > >
> > > > Iain Strachan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>What empirical basis is there in the decision to become a
> > > > Christian? At the end of the day, one may see evidence that pulls you in
> > > > that direction, but the crucial deciding factor was (I always understood)
> > > > conviction by the Holy Spirit. How do you measure that empirically? How do
> > > > you measure a "leap of faith" empirically? <<<
> > > >
> > > > In my personal case, it was empirically obvious that the Christians
> > > > were happy, I wasn't and I wanted what they had.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. Yes, it's empirically
> > > obvious that Christians are happy, but that observation doesn't lead
> > > logically to the KNOWLEDGE that Christianity is true. People can be happy
> > > because of a self-delusion. In the end you had to make a step of faith (as
> > > did I) because you believed that the reason they were happy was because
> > > Christianity was true - that the difference it made in their lives wasn't
> > > just a placebo effect.
> > >
> > > Some will say that the empirical data for the resurrection is good
> > > enough for them, for indeed, with out that empirical claim of a risen Lord,
> > > Christianity would have been still borne.
> > >
> > >
> > > Iain
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 20 12:23:54 2007