The Limitations Of Knowledge: How Do We Know, That What We Know Is Real And True?

The limitations of knowledge - how do we know what we think we know is really true? - is not an idea you'll hear from every scientist, but I believe it's an idea worth listening to. As philosophers and scientists alike are coming to agree, there's more to know, than can be known.

In a complicated and ambiguous word like "real", it can be so easy to be misled. There is so much information, so much to know. Of course, it's tempting to think, that by sheer knowledge, we can be certain of anything. In reality, our knowledge is limited, and we are fooled into believing, what we believe just because it confirms what we already believe.

We all have a feeling that we cannot, but know that what we know is true. But is it? Many things we think we know are actually false or they might be true, but not in the way we think they are.

The last thing to say about knowledge is: does what we know contain the complete reality? Of course not. Our understanding of reality is limited by misunderstandings and misconceptions, along with knowledge gaps and our prejudice. So if all knowledge are partial, many philosophers, have concluded that knowledge is impossible.

To some, knowledge is everything. Some assume that we know a lot, but the truth is we don't. And, in the process of all of our misguided assumptions, we end up with a world of certainties, where nothing really is certain.

The Pursuit Of Knowledge - From Faith To Science

Before we can begin to explore knowledge, we need to ask what exactly is it? What exactly are we trying to know?

The knowledge we have is what we call "material". It is made up of matter, the stuff that exists, that which can be perceived, that which things can be touched. Everything that exists, as Aristotle taught, has a formal and a material aspect. The form, the idea, the form of the thing, is what cannot be perceived, touched, or felt. The material is the substance, the stuff that makes up the form.

We also have a tendency to divide things into two categories: Things we can perceive, touch, and feel, and things we cannot. The former is our knowledge, the latter is our ignorance. This is a useful way to think about things, but it's not the only way. There are other ways to divide knowledge, but the two above are the most basic.

In a broad sense, we can divide knowledge into the things we know we know, and the things we don't. The former being the sum of all our "material" knowledge, the latter being our reliance on faith, intuition, and blind speculation.

We have an innate need to know. As human beings, there is a perpetual desire to understand the World around us. At the most basic level, we're curious. We want to know what's going on, why things are the way they are. We want to understand. This is our motivation for study, the desire to know.

Is Common Knowledge Still True And Real?

As discussed, there are many ways to divide knowledge. But, when it comes to the "common" knowledge that we all have, the two divisions above are probably the most basic. If you and I were to disagree on a matter of fact, there's a good chance that I am right and you are wrong. There are many things that you, as an individual, can know, believe to be true, that is simply not true.

Some things are common knowledge, because they are part of what it means to be human. Others are common, because they are assumed to be true by everyone. Many people believe, without question, that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Other people believe, that the World was created in seven days (although, some people believe, that there was a beginning and some people believe, that there wasn't).

Other beliefs have been debated so much, they have become, well, false, like the flat Earth theory and the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth. These ideas were once common, but are now considered laughable (although the former is still held by an important segment of the public).

The point is, there are many ideas that are common knowledge for a reason. Even though we know that those reasons are mistaken, there's a strong psychological need to hold onto the mistaken ideas. If you accept that belief, you're more likely to go along with it. You're more likely to behave in a way, that confirms the idea in your head.

It's not that the idea makes you happy. That's not the point. The point is, you're less likely to be critical of the idea in your thoughts. You're less likely to find a flaw in the thinking, a reason not to hold onto the idea.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean, that the two of you should believe the same things. It means that you should share the same level of skepticism towards conflicting claims. You should question whether the claim is true or not, not whether you agree with the person who made the claim.

So Why Is Skepticism Such A Valued Quality, While Faith Is Not?

One very good way to examine this is to consider the two sides of the "argument" for the existence of God. The side, that says "God exists" and the side that says "God does not exist".

On the God side of the argument, we have people who are, for lack of a better term, "holy". These are people, who claim to have knowledge of God and/or his will, or at the very least, an enlightened, intuitive grasp of what these things are. For whatever reason, they have decided that God either exists, or exists in a certain way, that favors their side of the argument.

On the non-God side of the argument, we have people, who are called "secular". They claim to know that God does not exist, and that all values and all meaning in life comes from human consciousness itself.

There are many problems with both positions. On the God side, you have those, who think that God is too cruel to allow things like sickness and natural disasters. Others feel that God isn't merciful and doesn't want to save all the "good people". Still others say, that God doesn't exist at all, or doesn't exist in the way that God is supposed to exist. On the secular side, you have people, who are either cynical and apathetic towards the World, or posit a World without values, meaning, or purpose.

Both of these positions seem rather extreme. It's not as if either God or secular humanism is a particularly attractive position to someone who doesn't hold it. If you accept God, then what are you willing to give up for his love?

If you go the secular route, then what exactly are you looking for in life? These are difficult questions to answer, and they can only be answered by the person answering them. It's not a black and white issue. It's a matter of finding the right balance. The problem comes when we try to force the issue.

Now, this is where the two divisions of our knowledge come into play. Many people claim, that there is a need for a "higher" authority and so they are willing to give up certain rights to a "higher" power. In this case, the rights, that are being ceded to this "higher" power are the power to question and the power to disagree.

With God comes the threat of eternal torment for eternal questioning of the existence of the sacred or holy. With secular humanism comes the threat of mockery and/or social ostracism for disagreeing with the sacred.

That's what we have to examine, but it would be another story.

Thanks for reading.

Lead image source: https://pxhere.com/en/photo/843810