know=believe

[LinuxGal]

So you, personally, have verified each of these items through falsifiability testing? If so, please tell me about how falsifiability testing proceeded for the speed of light in a vacuum or for your drinking of a cyanide milkshake.

The speed of light can be measured any number of ways. In modern times, with lasers with Q-squelching and very fast digital clocks, you can do a simple time-of-flight measurement in an evacuated tube. In the 17th Century, they measured the difference between times in the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter (which do not vary) when the earth was close to them and when the earth was on the other side of the sun (16.67 light-minutes further away, it turns out). The cyanide milkshake one, well, that was verified by Eva Braun, I suppose, on April 30, 1945.

[Dravin]

The speed of light can be measured any number of ways. In modern times, with lasers with Q-squelching and very fast digital clocks, you can do a simple time-of-flight measurement in an evacuated tube. In the 17th Century, they measured the difference between times in the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter (which do not vary) when the earth was close to them and when the earth was on the other side of the sun (16.67 light-minutes further away, it turns out). The cyanide milkshake one, well, that was verified by Eva Braun, I suppose, on April 30, 1945.

You're missing Vort's question. He's asking about how you personally verified the speed of light and the deadly effects of cyanide.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Dravin

[LinuxGal]

You're missing Vort's question. He's asking about how you personally verified the speed of light and the deadly effects of cyanide.

I suppose one thing that makes humans different from the other animals is that we have the ability to communicate abstract concepts. So if you set the rules of the game to be that I must personally make all my verifications to make sure they are true, rather than accept the verification of two or more other human beings, you are asking me to operate on the level of a non-human animal. I will not accept those conditions.

[Dravin]

I suppose one thing that makes humans different from the other animals is that we have the ability to communicate abstract concepts. So if you set the rules of the game to be that I must personally make all my verifications to make sure they are true, rather than accept the verification of two or more other human beings, you are asking me to operate on the level of a non-human animal. I will not accept those conditions.

Well, he's not asking you to accept those conditions so that's good.

[Vort]

The speed of light can be measured any number of ways. In modern times, with lasers with Q-squelching and very fast digital clocks, you can do a simple time-of-flight measurement in an evacuated tube. In the 17th Century, they measured the difference between times in the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter (which do not vary) when the earth was close to them and when the earth was on the other side of the sun (16.67 light-minutes further away, it turns out). The cyanide milkshake one, well, that was verified by Eva Braun, I suppose, on April 30, 1945.

I don't much care about Eva Braun or different methods of measuring c. My question was: How have YOU PERSONALLY verified each of the mentioned items?

My guess is that you have not verified any of them. You have been taught that they are true, and you accept them as such. In that, you are no different from those who accept religious truths.

[Vort]

I suppose one thing that makes humans different from the other animals is that we have the ability to communicate abstract concepts. So if you set the rules of the game to be that I must personally make all my verifications to make sure they are true, rather than accept the verification of two or more other human beings, you are asking me to operate on the level of a non-human animal. I will not accept those conditions.

Then why do you require those conditions of those who claim religious knowledge? Why do you insist that they ought not to say they "know" such-and-such, when you blithely assert your "knowledge" of the existence of Antarctica or the number of solar planets or any of ten thousand other "facts" that you supposedly "know"?

[LinuxGal]

Then why do you require those conditions of those who claim religious knowledge? Why do you insist that they ought not to say they "know" such-and-such, when you blithely assert your "knowledge" of the existence of Antarctica or the number of solar planets or any of ten thousand other "facts" that you supposedly "know"?

Because religious knowledge is presented in such a way that no third party can make a verification. In the case of the speed of light, scientists publish the prints of their apparatus and the exact procedure they used to make the measurement, and any other person can use those prints to duplicate the experiment. But religious knowledge, more often then not, boils down to verification by emotion. One has an inner feeling or assurance that it is true. The truths are laid out there with no way for a dispassionate outsider to test them.

1 Thess. 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

[Vort]

Because religious knowledge is presented in such a way that no third party can make a verification.

• This is false. You should read Alma 30.

• Even if it were true, why is that relevant? Why should you co-opt usage of the word "know" such that you redefine it to mean "have knowledge of something which is presented in a way so as to allow third-party verification"? This is an absurd condition; for example, it would absolutely preclude the use of witnesses to a crime or in any legal proceeding, since there would be no possible way to achieve third-party verification.

  By your logic (if you care to call it that), a witness would never be allowed to testify that he "knew" anything about the case, even if he were an eyewitness. No third-party verification, you know.

Please quit dodging the central topic and instead address it: What we claim we "know" is, in almost every case, simply what we have been taught. Thus, there is no real difference between a physics student "knowing" the speed of light and a gospel student "knowing" gospel truths. The distinction is a false and dishonest one.

Moreover, by Alma 30, things can indeed be verified. So the true distinction vanishes, unless you cling to a foolish and anal-retentive insistence that the current idea of a "scientific method" is the one and only way to establish knowledge -- a claim that no careful and thoughtful scientist would make.

[LinuxGal]

1. By your logic (if you care to call it that), a witness would never be allowed to testify that he "knew" anything about the case, even if he were an eyewitness. No third-party verification, you know.
   That is not my claim. My claim is that truth requires that something be verified, or at the minimum be verifiable in principle. For example, neutrinos are verified (barely) by observation.
   The red dress Cleopatra may have worn on her 20th birthday could have been verified, in principle, by those present at her birthday party. In that case, a third party verification was possible.
   Things can not exist if they are not verifiable, even in principle. A ball that is all red and all blue at the same time does not and can not exist because it is a self-contradiction and not verifiable, even in principle.
   Mormon.org outlines the procedure for verifying the Book of Mormon is true:
   God's method is simple: we read the Book of Mormon; we pray and ask Him to tell us that what we've read is true and He answers us through feelings of peace and assurance given by the Holy Ghost.
   This verification is a private phenomenon which is only verifiable by the person who has it. This is also why it can only be inferred that animals, who cannot speak, have awareness. We cannot have a direct experience of another person's interior mental state. So verification of the Book of Mormon, using LDS guidelines, is only possible for individuals. Third party verification is not possible, even in principle.

[Vort]

That is not my claim. My claim is that truth requires that something be verified, or at the minimum be verifiable in principle...This verification is a private phenomenon which is only verifiable by the person who has it. This is also why it can only be inferred that animals, who cannot speak, have awareness. We cannot have a direct experience of another person's interior mental state. So verification of the Book of Mormon, using LDS guidelines, is only possible for individuals. Third party verification is not possible, even in principle.

So what is your point? That it's impossible for the Book of Mormon to be true? I'm sure that not even you believe that fantastic leap of illogic.

Or are you saying that the Book of Mormon's verification process is, by its nature, personal and not public? The response to this is: Of course. But this does not keep it from being real, or from being verifiable for each individual.

So, then, back to the thread topic: Why should such personal verification somehow not qualify as "knowledge"?

(And you still avoid my central point: Your claim to "knowledge" is bogus if that knowledge must be personally verified. Simply saying that it can be verified is, of course, a monumental cop-out. Until you personally have verified it, you don't really "know" that it is so, do you?)

[LinuxGal]

So what is your point? That it's impossible for the Book of Mormon to be true?

If I reply to that question, I will be banned from this forum. It's better to go out on my own terms. So, adieu.

3 Nephi 18:32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

oops

[volgadon]

If I reply to that question, I will be banned from this forum. It's better to go out on my own terms. So, adieu.

3 Nephi 18:32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

oops

Leaving on your own terms is hardly the same thing as being cast out of our church buildings.

[Vort]

If I reply to that question, I will be banned from this forum. It's better to go out on my own terms. So, adieu.

3 Nephi 18:32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

oops

Still dancing around the central topic, I see. Pity.

[Just_A_Guy]

If I reply to that question, I will be banned from this forum. It's better to go out on my own terms. So, adieu.

3 Nephi 18:32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

oops

I, for one, am glad you're aware of that scripture; and I hope you'll feel free to drop by an LDS congregation anytime your schedule allows.

Please note, though, that Mormons have never interpreted that scripture as requiring us to accommodate someone who is being discourteous, deliberately disruptive, or disingenuous as to the true reasons for their presence. Neither the LDS Church, nor LDS.net (which has no official connection to the Church) is scripturally or morally obligated to provide a captive audience to any would-be religious recruiter who happens to wander in with a soapbox.

As has been explained repeatedly, this forum is here to explain our beliefs--not to debate them.

[Seminarysnoozer]

That is not my claim. My claim is that truth requires that something be verified, or at the minimum be verifiable in principle. For example, neutrinos are verified (barely) by observation.

This verification is a private phenomenon which is only verifiable by the person who has it. This is also why it can only be inferred that animals, who cannot speak, have awareness. We cannot have a direct experience of another person's interior mental state. So verification of the Book of Mormon, using LDS guidelines, is only possible for individuals. Third party verification is not possible, even in principle.

Have you ever had a headache? Are you sure?

If you answered yes to that question (or no for that matter) than what you answered is not true because that is something in which the verification is a private phenomenon only verifiable by the person who has it. So, under your definition of truth, whatever you answered to that first question, yes or no, it is not the truth.

[Vort]

Have you ever had a headache? Are you sure?

If you answered yes to that question (or no for that matter) than what you answered is not true because that is something in which the verification is a private phenomenon only verifiable by the person who has it. So, under your definition of truth, whatever you answered to that first question, yes or no, it is not the truth.

LinuxGal long ago gave up engaging in reasoned discourse on this matter. She's a True Believer, and nothing will shake her from her firm conviction.

[MarginOfError]

For what it's worth, LinuxGal, I understand your point and for the most part, I agree with you. I think the phrase "I know" is probably over-used in our testimonies. But I may be sensitive to that phrase because I was raised in a culture where we were coached to say "I know." As in, "Don't say 'I believe,' say 'I know.' When you say 'I believe' it sounds like you have some doubts." In retrospect, it felt like we were being coached on how to bear testimony in a manner that would have the greatest PR effect.

I've become very comfortable with the phrase "I believe," even if it does imply the existence of some doubt. But isn't that the point? Can faith and belief exist without doubt? If faith is the "evidence of things not seen" how can we ever be completely sure of their veracity? Then again, those thoughts might be a product of my training in statistics--a field in which everything is characterized (and even quantified) by the doubt surrounding it.

Some other random thoughts on the topic:

Some have brought up Alma's seed. If we do an experiment on a seed, and it grows, then the claim is that we know that the seed will grow. The caveat to this experiment is that we only know that particular seed grew. The experiment gives us some information from which we may conclude that the next seed will grow, but we don't actually know until we plant the next seed and start over. But not every seed will grow, so the best we can do whenever we plant a new seed is believe that it will grow. Each seed becomes an experiment of faith. Every time we succeed, however, we develop more confidence in the process.

Likewise, we can gain knowledge of gospel principles one at a time. But when LinuxGal develops a testimony of a principle, that testimony isn't necessarily transferrable to me. I still need to perform my own experiment. In this sense, the results can be independently verified, but we still don't know if any given experiment will succeed.

Last random thought on knowledge and faith:

I find a different analogy to be a more effective illustration. Take the following statement--

x* 0 = 0

Most people will claim that they know this is true. I would posit that relatively few people actually know that statement is true. They have been taught that it is true, and they have observed consistent results in the world around them that give them complete confidence that it is true, but they can't actually prove that it is true.

That's typically where I draw the line between faith and knowledge; if you can demonstrate proof to others that something is true, then you know it. If you can't demonstrate proof to someone else, then it is faith.

That's my own interpretation, though, and I don't get my panties in a bunch when people say that they know something is true. I reserve my ranting for when someone gets all high-and-mighty because someone else only "believes" something to be true.

[Vort]

That's my own interpretation, though, and I don't get my panties in a bunch when people say that they know something is true. I reserve my ranting for when someone gets all high-and-mighty because someone else only "believes" something to be true.

Personally, I get more offended when the Knowledge Nazis see fit to ridicule and mock their betters for daring to say they "know" something that the KNs are only too sure they merely "believe".

[Traveler]

For what it's worth, LinuxGal, I understand your point and for the most part, I agree with you. I think the phrase "I know" is probably over-used in our testimonies. But I may be sensitive to that phrase because I was raised in a culture where we were coached to say "I know." As in, "Don't say 'I believe,' say 'I know.' When you say 'I believe' it sounds like you have some doubts." In retrospect, it felt like we were being coached on how to bear testimony in a manner that would have the greatest PR effect.

I've become very comfortable with the phrase "I believe," even if it does imply the existence of some doubt. But isn't that the point? Can faith and belief exist without doubt? If faith is the "evidence of things not seen" how can we ever be completely sure of their veracity? Then again, those thoughts might be a product of my training in statistics--a field in which everything is characterized (and even quantified) by the doubt surrounding it.

Some other random thoughts on the topic:

Some have brought up Alma's seed. If we do an experiment on a seed, and it grows, then the claim is that we know that the seed will grow. The caveat to this experiment is that we only know that particular seed grew. The experiment gives us some information from which we may conclude that the next seed will grow, but we don't actually know until we plant the next seed and start over. But not every seed will grow, so the best we can do whenever we plant a new seed is believe that it will grow. Each seed becomes an experiment of faith. Every time we succeed, however, we develop more confidence in the process.

Likewise, we can gain knowledge of gospel principles one at a time. But when LinuxGal develops a testimony of a principle, that testimony isn't necessarily transferrable to me. I still need to perform my own experiment. In this sense, the results can be independently verified, but we still don't know if any given experiment will succeed.

Last random thought on knowledge and faith:

I find a different analogy to be a more effective illustration. Take the following statement--

x* 0 = 0

Most people will claim that they know this is true. I would posit that relatively few people actually know that statement is true. They have been taught that it is true, and they have observed consistent results in the world around them that give them complete confidence that it is true, but they can't actually prove that it is true.

That's typically where I draw the line between faith and knowledge; if you can demonstrate proof to others that something is true, then you know it. If you can't demonstrate proof to someone else, then it is faith.

That's my own interpretation, though, and I don't get my panties in a bunch when people say that they know something is true. I reserve my ranting for when someone gets all high-and-mighty because someone else only "believes" something to be true.

I like your train of thought. There is, however, a caveat. In the theory of mathematics, logic is very well defined and the constructs can be utilized by anyone to come to the same conclusions. However, to the hard core math theorist the logic employed does not have to relate to anything “real”. This has long been the great divide between engineers and mathematicians. The mathematician claiming that the engineers often use unproven logic – and the engineers remind the mathematician that the bridge has stood for over a hundred years as proof the logic was sound.

One of the interesting problems is the mapping between the “theoretical” concepts and the “real world” applications. It is in this mapping that most arguments are raised – especially in politics and religion. It is very common to accuse one’s critics of certain errors in logic that in reality one “overlooks” in order maintain support of their arguments. Something I call selective application of logic.

I do not mind that a person has employed logic to help then decipher what it is they think they know. What does bother me is when someone attempts to use logic against their critics and then abandons that very logic to justify their constructs. I have not talked to many who at some level employs logic as a reason for what they believe and think they know; that when their logic is shown to be flawed will rethink their position. Many in the religious world do nothing more than return to the drawing board until they can manufacture a new logical argument (often more flawed than their previous argument – except for the singular point where their old arguments fell apart) rather than examine their conclusion. Or they just give up all-together and say something like – I believe something different than you – so you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe.

The Traveler

[Sicily510]

how about this formula "I believe" - "what I was taught" = "I know now" divided by longsuffering and multiplied by our saviors atonement = eternal happiness (Heavenly Father).

[Dove]

Please excuse me for coming into the conversation so late.

I haven't read all the responses, so I hope I'm not repeating what's already been said.

Honestly, for me, I don't know a great deal of different things in the gospel. I go a great deal on faith and believing. I've even felt chastened when I said that I only "believed" that Jesus Christ was our Savior and Redeemer. Ironically, this was done by those who emphatically declared that they "knew" He was. Ironic, because, to me, their actions were not supportive of their claim. Meaning, I felt they were not following Him by how they were treating me.

Actions sure do speak louder than words in declaring our testimonies a lot of the time...

[Seminarysnoozer]

I've become very comfortable with the phrase "I believe," even if it does imply the existence of some doubt. But isn't that the point? Can faith and belief exist without doubt? If faith is the "evidence of things not seen" how can we ever be completely sure of their veracity? Then again, those thoughts might be a product of my training in statistics--a field in which everything is characterized (and even quantified) by the doubt surrounding it.

I think doubt and being comfortable with not knowing everything are not the same. If one knows the limits of their knowledge they do not have to have doubt about the parts they know. I can safely say, for example, that I do not know everything. Or should I say that I "doubt" that I do not know everything? .... get my point? or maybe you will doubt that you get my point?

I don't know how to mine and refine metal, make plastic, build electronic boards and yet I am perfectly comfortable using this computer. We do not have to know everything about everything to have enough knowledge to complete the tasks that are in front of us.

The thing that I am always perplexed about, that comes up often on this forum is the overwhelming drive and anxiety people express about obtaining complete understanding about things in this life. I really do not think that is one of the major goals in this life. Yes, we are supposed to seek after things of good report etc. but realistically speaking having a goal of complete understanding about anything while in this state of mortality is an unrealistic goal and puts the heart set on things that turn to dust and away from true treasures. Be comfortable with this thorn in the flesh because we cannot get rid of it while here. (BTW, I am not speaking directly to you MarginofError)

[bay2boy]

I know that I'm happy and at peace when I am being faithful to the commandments. I also know I am not happy in sin. What else is there?

[Traveler]

I know that I'm happy and at peace when I am being faithful to the commandments. I also know I am not happy in sin. What else is there?

Are you kidding me? There is an entire universe of stuff out there. I am the kind that likes to know "things". But I do agree - when I am spiritually in tune and learning "stuff" it is a lot easier to be happy, especially learning about stuff that is a "benefit" to continuing life.

I guess I am not just happy for me - I like to "know" the universe is evolving in a manner to benefit the "most good" for the most possible.

The Traveler

[mrmarklin]

Does know equal believe in LDS culture?

No it doesn't.

Certain members know the gospel is true due to personal revelation they have received. That goes way beyond belief.

When I was on my mission an apostle visited our group in Cochabamba Bolivia (ca. 1969). He stated that he "had never heard a voice, never seen a vision" but knew the gospel was true, and that God lived. His name: Gordon B Hinckley.

I think his level of knowledge must have improved in subsequent years.:)

Edited June 20, 2012 by mrmarklin