Truth, Induction and Deduction

If deductive logic cannot be used to add information, only to analyze existing information; and, inductive reasoning can only deal with direct experience, how can we know anything true about the universe?

We can't, really, if to "know truth" is an ultimate understanding of how all things worked, including things considered to be paranormal. To know this stuff with our current epistemologies just isn't feasible.

What we can look at is how memory and cognition can enhance our survival, and at some periods in time, you'd probably -have- to be looking at this, and recognizing that knowing "things" gives you more of a chance to survive than not knowing "things."

At times like this, it becomes clear that while much (even some fundamental things) of the universe is "technically" unknowable at the time, observations that yield A=A for me as well as you have produced favorable results.

So I think while we can question the sound-ness of our knowing things, its the things we think we know that actually yield results that are worth investing our time and resources to.

I guess most of us would answer your question with, "well, we know this stuff because it works, and it works every time."

To question beyond this is going into the realm of consciousness, idealism and philosophy. Which are not knowable things. Anyone professing otherwise is probably wrong.

Sara Whitley wrote: To know this stuff with our current epistemologies just isn't feasible.

Is the problem with our epistemic agency? In other words, is the way we process knowledge the problem? Or is the problem with the universe?

Sara Whitley wrote:I guess most of us would answer your question with, "well, we know this stuff because it works, and it works every time."

To a pragmatist, the universe is practical. I think it's meaningless. I'd have to call myself an epistemic naturalist: "even epistemic claims are part of the universe, and they are a part of how our meaning-making machinery forms our thoughts".

Sara Whitley wrote:To question beyond this is going into the realm of consciousness, idealism and philosophy. Which are not knowable things. Anyone professing otherwise is probably wrong.

Everything we will ever experience will be within consciousness. We perceive things like matter and energy, but only in how they affect us, never in some kind of existence-in-itself.

Your question in the first response I find has the most "answerability," from my perspective. In one hundred years we've radically changed the quality of our lives and technology and our understanding of the cosmos and the world we live in. The past hundred years has been revolutionary in epistemology. If humans have been around for 200,000 years, why did it seem to take 199,900 years to start caring about knowing and getting our heads straight?

Clearly there has been something "wrong" with our natural epistemology processes!

The problem, if the problem can be defined as a "lack of total understanding of the universe and its ways," is definitely with the way we process knowledge. The human brain is capable of seeking and knowing truth, and learning facts in an effort to help solve problems. However, this higher cognitive function that we attribute to the essence of humanity is, in reality, only a side-show of the mammalian brain's evolution.

The brain evolved to "win," to survive. Knowing is a virtue when it helps that objective - but what if it hinders? What if knowing and understanding the "truth" actually makes your chances of survival lower?

Endless sources of evidence and probably your own anecdotal experiences point to the fact that humans will usually (not always, but usually) sacrifice being "correct" for having a greater chance of survival and happiness. So being "correct" is not actually the primary objective our minds have evolved for - being "correct" is only one of many tools that help us win. When it's helping us win, we strive to do it. When it's only getting in the way, we have a tendency to discard it.

This is why people will literally "choose" to believe the beliefs of their social groups even when confronted with conflicting evidence, if denouncing such beliefs would cause the individual to become shunned from the group. Because correctness and knowledge is only one of a multitude of means to achieve the brain's real objective - not the objective in and of itself.

This is probably the sole source of most of the barriers we have to learning and acquiring facts. There are a multitude of cognitive biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias that define these barriers. Problems in any epistemology approaches are probably going to be made out of these biases.

One thing I feel confident in saying is that the problem is not the universe - though I believe Niel Degrasse Tyson said it much better than I ever could, "the universe has no obligation to make sense to you."

Sara Whitley wrote:If humans have been around for 200,000 years, why did it seem to take 199,900 years to start caring about knowing and getting our heads straight?

Trial and error and error and error, the most elementary form of scientific thought, takes forever to work.

Sara Whitley wrote:Clearly there has been something "wrong" with our natural epistemology processes!

The ability to use the human mind as a tool for advancement (Reason) is a late development in history.

Sara Whitley wrote:The problem, if the problem can be defined as a "lack of total understanding of the universe and its ways," is definitely with the way we process knowledge.

That's a problem for metaphysics. Knowledge of causality, God, logic, space and time, the will, and the basic assumptions of the natural sciences seem incontestable. Until, of course, you get too close. From the microscope to the telescope, we all know nothing.

Sara Whitley wrote:However, this higher cognitive function that we attribute to the essence of humanity is, in reality, only a side-show of the mammalian brain's evolution.

Plato's cave, still relevant two thousand years later.

Sara Whitley wrote:What if knowing and understanding the "truth" actually makes your chances of survival lower?

People with mental illnesses often become far more religious and philosophical than those who never experienced a nervous breakdown. If mental illnesses cause an obsession with spiritual thoughts, it would be no wonder that day-to-day life for the mentally ill is so much more challenging.

Sara Whitley wrote: When it's only getting in the way, we have a tendency to discard it.

My aunt is a compulsive gambler. Reason would only get in her way.

Sara Whitley wrote:One thing I feel confident in saying is that the problem is not the universe - though I believe Niel Degrasse Tyson said it much better than I ever could, "the universe has no obligation to make sense to you."

If we discard all the discoveries of metaphysics, would we be better off? Let's say that, for all we know, causality is a fiction, logic is an illusion, God is a hallucination, and the will is a delusion. Just assume that Aristotle was never challenged in the modern world. Would trial-and-error (the scientific method) have taken us, sans philosophy, to where we are today? Is epistemic and metaphysical thought necessary to the evolution of our species? Or, does Reason only give us the appearance of meaning, inserted post hoc?

I would have said: "Read Karl Popper and you will know my stance on this."