Monday, February 23, 2009

Knowing Anything

In all of the discussions I have had as a result of this blog and all of the other philosophical discussions I have had over the last few years there is one phrase which never fails to bug the hell out of me.

“Well, you can’t really know anything.”

People always feel very clever when they roll this one out. It is, they feel a knockout blow to any declarative statement, logical progression or even simple list of facts. “You can’t really know anything.” That’s it. They win.

This phrase, and other’s like it (“Everything is subjective.” “You can’t disprove the existence of God.” etc.) are not conversation starters but rather conversation enders.

Of course, on some level, they’re right.

Are we incredibly limited creatures who’s only ability to understand the world around us is through the conduit of our own narrow senses? Yes. Is it possible that those senses are lying to us? Yes. Are we subjective creatures who perceive reality through the filter of our background, desires and prejudices? Yes. Is it possible that our perception of reality is entirely manufactured? Yes.

We could be locked in a chemical coma with our brains hot-wired, as in The Matrix, or lying in a padded cell in a mental institution. It is even possible that we don’t exist at all.

In fact, once you start going down this road absolutely anything is possible.

And that’s the problem.

If you can’t really know anything, then the sun could rise in the north tomorrow. Pigs could fly and fire could freeze. How could we survive in a world where we can’t know anything?

I’m not saying that ideas like this should never be discussed. Any idea which forces us to rethink our perceptions and preconceptions is a useful tool. Asking the question “Can we really know anything?” is the beginning of a wonderful conversation. Although in my opinion a much more interesting conversation can be had by asking, as my friend, Mike Hoover, does, “How do we know what we know?” There is a lot of mileage and introspection to be got out of that one.

However stating that nothing can be known is in my opinion both irresponsible and even dangerous.

Here’s why:

1. It’s not scientific. Disprovability, is in many ways a more, important, scientific criteria than provability. People often say, “You can’t disprove the existence of God.” Which is true, but so what? As Bertrand Russell used to say. “You also can’t disprove the existence of a flying, invisible, spaghetti monster.” In fact, there are an infinite number of things which I cannot disprove. Science is interested in those things which could be disproved. I could disprove evolution right now. All I have to do is find a porcupine that gives birth to a cactus. However, there is no experiment on earth, or mathematical equation I can produce, or even logical argument I can create to disprove the existence of God or the spaghetti monsters or anything else. If the same statement can be used to argue for or against anything, it has no scientific value.

2. It’s Lazy. Anyone can say it, at any time. It requires no work, no education. There is no research involved or years of labor. It requires no intelligence or discipline. It is, in my opinion, the last argument of a lazy mind and represents, the desire to close, not only the eyes of the speaker, but the eyes of the world.

3. It isn’t useful. And this is really the big one. “You can’t really know anything.” Puts us back in the caves without even a fire to keep us warm.

Imagine two primitive men back in the ice age. One says, “I don’t know why those wooly mammoths come back to the same watering hole every year but I know that they do, so let’s set a trap.” The other says,”Well you can’t really know anything.” Which one of them is more likely to feed his family? Which one of them is more likely to learn why the mammoths return each year? Which one of them will pass that knowledge onto his children and, more importantly, the knowledge that you can, in fact, know some things? In short, which one of them will survive and grow and which one of them will remain stagnant and probably die?

Try saying “You can’t really know anything.” the next time you fly in airplane, drive across a bridge or go to the pharmacy to pick up your antibiotics. Those things, and many others were created by people who believed that knowledge was something that could be gained and used for the betterment of themselves and the rest of the human race.

“You can’t really know anything.” Has the wonderful advantage of sounding, smart, cynical, and superior all at once but it is, in my opinion, a very clever dead end. We can’t know everything. That’s true. The pursuit of knowledge, however, begins with the idea that we can know some things and that knowledge, itself, is worth pursuing.

Labels: , , , , ,

7 Comments:

Blogger Parvenue said...

If you start the discussion with the definition of "know", then it avoids the traps you mention.

If we define knowing as the

"ability to understand the world around us is through the conduit of our own senses", we're there.

If you define it as somehow bigger than that, you're venturing into the Twilight Zone.


YES. and knowing means what we are able to

9:23 AM  
Blogger yaya said...

Steve,

I'd point you toward the latest issue of Scientific American, in which a discussion of quantum mechanics and its implications for non-locality and special relativity give formal definitions of this 'knowability' you address.

"Furthermore, the standard approach to understanding quantum physics, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation—proclaimed by the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr early last century and handed down from professor to student for generations—insists that it is not that we do not know the facts about the individual particles' exact locations; it is that there simply aren't any such facts. To ask after the position of a single particle would be as meaningless as, say, asking after the marital status of the number five. The problem is not epistemological (about what we know) but ontological (about what is)."

The semantic truths we wrangle over are less compelling to me than the inherent nature of the universe at all scales. Those who cop out with "you can't really know anything" are vaguely referencing Bohr (or Schrodinger or Heisenberg) in that true states can't necessarily be measured, so we're left with subjective truths. But we can crank the resolution on that down to a more exact proposition, in the light of recent discoveries about the fundamental fabric of space time.

So next time somebody throws blanket subjectivity in your face, just laugh and tell them that non-localized phenomena, and in particular the entanglement of matter at quantum scales, means that more can be known than their half-baked answer promises. Hope this helps.

DW

9:40 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

Thanks Yaya,

I'll check out the article.

11:42 AM  
Blogger Coopervoice said...

Thank you Steve and thank you yaya. Both of you expressed what I am consitutionally unable to express in a civilized manner, due to my snobby, elitist Cal Berkeley impatience with stupid people who obviously can't keep up with an intelligent conversation and so feel compelled to dumb it down with "Well, you really can't know anything."

While Steve and yaya expressed my exact sentiments in gentlemanly tones and erudite diction, I instead would have simply asked for a hanging at dawn without a trial.

9:16 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Thanks wendy. I know your Berkeley pain.

6:27 PM  
Blogger Coopervoice said...

Thanks, Steve. It's good to know you're not alone.

9:32 AM  
Blogger Urban Barbarian said...

It seems odd to me that almost every entry in your journal centers around your inert need to challenge faith in a higher power.

You may want to ask yourself why you feel a need to dispel faith in others?

If there is a theory behind "no creator" then what created that first spark of evolution? What created that which sparked? And so on...

It cannot be answered.

I think this journey of yours centers around your intellectual ego and your very deep disdain for faith in a god you cannot fathom.

Just my opinion.

To say that men that argue against your precepts are backwards is backwards in it of itself. There are hundred or thousands of examples of men and women of faith that have far exceeded your intellect and worth in this lifetime and countless lifetimes before you existed.

You're a bright man but don't get too caught up in your own head, friend. The truth is, we don't know much... And what little we do know suggests that we are but ants at the foot of mountains that reach the sky.

2:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home