(K.1) Nothing can be known by
humans with absolutely certainty.
(K.2) Observation is the ultimate source of all knowledge that
we can acquire but is always subject to error.
(K.3) Being based on observation, the systematic
processes of natural philosophy we call science results
in the least amount of eerror, uncertainty and false
knowledge.
(K.4) Some knowledge may be absolutely true but
because of the uncertainty of observations, we
can never know that it is. Lack of proof of uncertainty is
not proof of certainty.
(K.5) The brain is capable of producing new knowledge by thought and
reasoning from knowledge previously
acquired by observation but, because of the uncertainly of
those observation, this new knowledge derived
from thought and reasoning also inherently possesses uncertainty.
(K.6) Knowledge acquired from scientific observations is
sufficiently certain to be used to produce the technology that
humans use in their daily lives. Examples include computers, agriculture,
medicine, manufacturing, bridge building, automobiles, and telephones.
(K.7) Technical knowledge can also be produced
directly from the laws of nature by the method of trial
and error without use of either prior knowledge or
the scientific method. The wheel is an important example.
(K.8) The laws of nature are
absolute and true but our knowledge of
them always contain a certain amount of uncertainty resulting
from the possibility of errors in our
“observations of the effects they
cause.
(K.9) Belief is not knowledge even
if that believed to be true is, in fact, true.
Knowledge is absolute and must be acquired through
the experience of observations of the material
world. Belief is a nimbus of the
mind lacking a foundation of knowledge.
(K.10) Humans are born with awareness of their environment but with
little if any knowledge of it. Only when exposed to their environment
outside the womb does the newborn begin to associate effect with
cause through objective sensory input
as the brain undergoes an explosive growth of neurons. When born
the baby experiences a wave of sensations as the effect of
the cause of inputs of sensory data for the fives senses. It
does not know what causes them. As an example, you might hear a
sound that you do not recognize and is out of sight. You have no knowledge
of what caused the sound. You are have awareness of
the sensation of an auditory input. But had you experienced
the sound as the effect of the cause of a trombone
being played and remembered it, you would have had knowledge
that the sound was that of a trombone being played. But suppose you had
knowledge of the sound of a trombone being played but could
not observe the source of the sound. Was it a trombone being played or was
it recording of the sound of a trombone being played? Until you observe
the sauce of the sound of the trombone you have no knowledge of
which it is.
So it is that knowledge begins with the
ability to create memory of specific sensory inputs to
the brain. In this case it was that of a specific pattern
of vibrations in the air that produced objective sound
that result in no conscious meaning. But them you experience the
simultaneous sensory inputs of the sound of
specific pattern of vibrations and the sight of a specific pattern
of light for which the brain establishes a cause and
effect relationship in memory as knowledge. We learn that
a trombone causes the effect of that sound and
store it in memory as subjective knowledge.
But knowledge can only be true when the association
between cause and effect are true and the perception
of both of them are true. Otherwise the result is false knowledge. Unfortunately,
the brain is prone to creating error of both association and perception,
giving rise to uncertainty in all human knowledge.
Knowledge is the foundation upon which logic
is founded. The association between cause
as premise and effect are
the logical framework of the knowledge we acquire from the experience
of observation. The brain subsequent uses the associated logic
in the mental
process of reasoning to reach conclusions which may serve
as premises for subsequent logical assumptions. Of
course, if the knowledge used as a premise of logic
is false, then all subsequent reasoning will be in error. And
because knowledge always has some finite amount of uncertainty,
logical reasoning based on knowledge will always have a
finite amount of uncertainty associated with it.
Consider the previous example of the sound coming from behind the building. We
could make the following logical argument:
(1) I hear the sound of a trombone.
(2) I hear the sound coming from behind the building.
(3) Therefore I know there is a trombone
behind the building.
But the argument is (a) the sound is not that of a trombone and but that
of a euphonium and/or (b) a recording of a trombone is not being
played behind the building. The logic is valid but
the premise is not. Indeed, there existed a certain probability that
neither the sound was that of a trombone nor that a trombone was actually being
played. Only the correct observation of a trombone
being played behind the building would validate the argument.
(K.11) We live our lives in a sea of uncertainty that has no shoreline.
(K)Knowledge is the reflection of the objective material world in the mind that was acquired from observations and stored in the brain as subjective memory of those observations. Because observations are subject to errors of perception, knowledge is always subject to uncertainty. All knowledge must be learned.