Is knowlege infallible?

Very interesting…

Much like man who is fallible with knowledge being a mirror extension of man I would say that knowledge is indeed fallible.

So then how do we explain all the things we know?

Assumptions guided by elaborate metaphysical delusions.

So when I clap my hands and I know I hear a sound it’s because of an elaborate metaphysical delusion?

No that is just a physical stimulation.

Truth is only as true as the statement made about it and what you mean by it.

I understand that that’s a good functional explanation of what happens which leads to the sound I hear when I clap my hands. But I want to know how I’m supposed to defend the knowlege that I am in fact hearing it.

You can’t really because there are no facts in the cosmos only interpretations.

Somthing current humanity has problems with in their linear form of thinking.

So you’re saying that I can’t know that I hear a sound when I clap my hands…because there are no facts in the cosmos? What the hell does that even mean? The cosmos? You’re telling me that when I clap my hands I don’t know that there’s going to be a clapping sound? Or that I can’t know that I’m hearing it as a result of my hands coming together?

Perhaps metaphysical delusions = reality? Maybe it becomes real by default if everything we precieve is not real. Those things still have a form and an order to them.

I do think that I have real knowlege that I hear a sound when I clap my hands. Whether or not the best possible explanation I can give of my knowlege of that fact passes the test of skepticism is another story.

Anything through your own expiriences is real and true but anything outside of yourself being lead by another person is untrue.

Ultimately you can only trust your own senses of being.

So if I tell you that when you clap your hands that you’ll hear a sound, you can’t just beleive me?

Why should I believe you?

Wouldn’t I be better in finding explanations if I found out things for myself?

:slight_smile:

No offence Smears but there is only a couple of people I trust in my life and, they are me, myself and I. :stuck_out_tongue:

So clap your own hand and hear for yourself. Then I’m gonna try and convince you that you don’t know that you just heard the sound of your hands clapping by pointing to uneliminated possibilities by which there remains general uncertainty about the foundations of all assertions.

The point of this thread really wasn’t to make this whole hand clapping example. Everyone knows the flaws of skepticism. My real concern was trying to get a general consensus as to what might be proper criteria for throwing it out in various contexts. Obviously in religion it goes out more quickly than in science, but eventually everyone becomes a system builder, even if they’re just defending skepticism. I wanna know where we draw the line.

building a system on a foundation of nothing works everytime it is tried…

-Imp

I think I agree with that. Let me wake up more and think about it though.

Yes. I’m awake and I agree IMP.
Joker, have you tried the hand clapping thing? When you do, I want you to tell me how I knew for sure you would hear the sound of them coming together.

:sunglasses: