The truth of the existence of what we believe to exist is to be considered and thus evaluated for the truth of it's existence. For example, a psychiatrist can diagnose a person with bipolar disorder, but if we look at the evidence that exists in neurology, the study of the biology of the brain, it shows us that according to neurology there is no such thing as bipolar disorder.
We acquire the knowledge of the existence of things by making an observation of it's existence. If we didn't directly observe what we are to believe to exist, then we can attempt to identify if what we believe to exist can or cannot be observed by asking that question to ourselves. If we cannot observe it's existence to be true for ourselves, then we can believe in it's existence based on if it can or cannot be observed by others.
The Measurement of Existence in the Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge is therefore the idea of making an effort to examine the truth of the existence of what we are to believe to exist.
Our minds have access to observations made through our five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.
We
are therefore to accept the truths of our observations. The acceptance
of all other knowledge that is not made through our own observations is
based on belief which we accept by trust.
Access of the mind to truths of the existence of entities that cannot be observed in the physical realm is considered to be mysticism.
Mysticism - beliefs characterized by self-delusion.
Mysticism can be found everywhere from an individual that believes
they're a shaman that can predict the future to the establishment of
entire industries, professions, and subjects of study. We should be able
to recognize mysticism when we see it and separate it from what we
believe can possibly be accessed by the human mind.
- - - - - - - - - -
The following knowledge of the measurement of existence is defined as according to the classifications of knowledge in my model for the Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge that are shown below:
The Classifications of Knowledge
Indisputable Knowledge:
(Easily-Accepted)
- Observation-based Knowledge: Knowledge that was observed or can be observed.
- Scientific Knowledge: Knowledge that was drawn from experiments whose results can be replicated as according to the scientific method. The same exact results for the same experiment are observed, and therefore we can verify a natural occurrence that exists.
- Deduction-based Knowledge: Knowledge that was drawn by the deduction of all other possibilities.
- Story-based Knowledge:
Knowledge in the form of story-telling that we believe based on the authenticity of the evidence
that supports it and the implications that the evidence has on how it supports the
knowledge or based on the sources that provide us the information that
we are to believe.
- Speculation-based Knowledge: Knowledge that is based on speculation such as the estimations of number values.
- Pseudo-scientific Knowledge: Knowledge that was drawn using methods other than the scientific method.
- Statistical Knowledge: Knowledge based on statistical data which is vulnerable to fraud, miscounts, the variability of all the factors that go into how the study was conducted, as well as data manipulation techniques such as stopping the intake of data once a certain percentage has been reached.
The Measurement of Existence
in
The Theory of Acceptance of Knowledge
The following understandings of the measurement of existence of the different types of knowledge that exist in relation to what we are to accept as knowledge are analyzed:
[Indisputable Knowledge]
The Measurement of Existence
of
Observation-based Knowledge
A one-time or even multiple-time observation that ceases to be observable is distinguishable from consistent observation which proves the existence of a natural occurrence in the physical world. We must be careful of conclusions drawn based on observation-based knowledge.
For example: A cat that you see every day at the same spot for 3 weeks in a row does not necessarily mean that the cat will be there the next day.
Therefore, you cannot accurately predict future observations based on past observations when the factor for the prediction is inconsistent in it's existence such as all living beings. Living beings that are mobile can also inconsistently differentiate from their regular routine.
*There are cases when what was observable knowledge for yourself cannot be replicated and is therefore story-based knowledge for the recipients.
The Measurement of Existence
of
Deduction-based Knowledge
When we know that there are no other possibilities, we can conclude that the only possibility is what exists as indisputable knowledge.
Methods for deducting other possibilities in order to derive the only possibility left vary from scenario to scenario that we are to consider in our evaluation of all the possible cases of what can be true. We can deduct a possibility based on a factor that would make it impossible or wrong.
In the process of determining the deduction of all the possibilities when it comes to story-based knowledge, speculation-based knowledge, or pseudo-scientific knowledge, we can label the factors of the possibilities as "highly unlikely" or "somewhat unlikely" as an example of making evaluations of knowledge that we know to be disputable as it cannot be directly observed. In cases when we are to rely on the likeliness of the factors involved in the possible outcomes, we should come to understand the truth of the existence of the multiple possibilities. In cases when we are forced to reach a judgment, a decision will be formed based on a well-informed basis for making the judgment. The factors that we are to consider in the evaluations for all the possibilities and the deduction thereof are to be made by observations. Knowledge that was not obtained by observation deserves an examination of it's own. Observation-based knowledge and deduction-based knowledge are to be separated from any story-based knowledge, speculation-based knowledge, or pseudo-scientific knowledge which we are to consider with the label of likeliness.
In the cases where we cannot deduct to a single possibility left, we must accept the truth of the existence of the multiple possibilities and can measure the truth of each possibility as far as to it's likeliness.
[Questionable Knowledge]
The Measurement of Existence
of
Story-based Knowledge
Story-based knowledge is based on belief and an educated mind would accept story-based knowledge based on:
- The authenticity of the evidence that supports the information that we receive.
- The implications the evidence has on how it supports the information that we receive.
- The sources that inform us of what we are to believe.
Story -based knowledge can include the historical knowledge of the timeline of planet earth, ancient and modern history, facts that we believe were observed by others, stories of personal accounts, as well as any other information that is received in the form of story-telling.
The Measurement of Existence
of
Speculation-based Knowledge
Speculation-based knowledge appears as knowledge that we are being asked to accept when the basis for forming the speculation may not have a strong backing of evidence. There can be many cases when we can be misled by speculation-based knowledge such as the estimation of number values when it is not being acknowledged as a speculation or an estimation.
An examination into the true value of speculation-based knowledge raises questions. For example, if we were asked to give a number value for the date of an ancient archaeological artifact, but we have no method for an exact date measurement and only have enough knowledge to form an educated guess at best, then we would most likely use an estimation for the dating of the archaeological item to represent it's age, whether the estimate is accurate or not.
The most important questions to ask when examining for the true existence of speculation-based knowledge is:
- What method did you use to make the estimation?
- What evidence did you use as a basis to form the speculation?
We can raise our awareness to recognize speculation-based knowledge which can be useful in the examination of the truth of things. We can also give speculation-based knowledge, such as the estimation of number values, serious consideration by seeking to understand the method that was used to draw the estimation and the evidence that was used to form the speculation.
The Measurement of Existence
of
Pseudo-scientific Knowledge
Pseudo-scientific knowledge can guide or mislead us into believing in the existence of a trend or a phenomenon that may or may not really exist. There are some notable uses for pseudo-scientific knowledge, such as making estimations of populations to keep track of stats such as population growth and migration as well as determining a chance percentage for a risk factor such as the survival percentage of mountain bikers which can help us make the decision of if we want to partake in this extreme sport. The most important factors that go into the consideration of the results of a pseudo-scientific study are in how the study was conducted. After careful consideration is made on how the study was conducted, we are to gain an understanding of the vulnerabilities to errors that the factors could have possibly had during the course of the experiment. The vast majority of pseudo-science today is based on statistical data whose results cannot be replicated. It is a common practice to use a measurement of a fraction of the population to represent the statistics of an entire population. The problem with statistical knowledge is just like you can come up with a study to measure the percentage of wins on lottery machines, your results will never be accurate because you will never be able to measure all the other machines.
Statistical data is vulnerable to fraud, miscounts, the variability of all the factors that go into how the study was conducted, as well as data manipulation techniques such as stopping the intake of data as soon as a certain percentage has been reached.
For these reasons, we must always be careful of conclusions drawn from statistical data and we must always consider all the factors that went into how the study was conducted in our examination of the true value of pseudo-scientific knowledge.
I underlined true value because a pseudo-scientific study will never yield the truth and is only worthy to a degree. What is the true value of the pseudo-scientific study? And does it add up to the conclusion that is being given to us?
Are opinions considered the truth?
