2

It is justifiable to assert that certain knowledge could not be disseminated without the invention of writing. One could say that humanity needed the knowledge of writing before further knowledge could be explored. More recently this effect is even more conspicuous: we could hardly crunch the numbers from the LHC without computers.

Certain knowledge need be applied before further advances in theoretical knowledge can be made.

This seem to suggest that knowledge available for application (real knowledge, not theoretical) limits our possible knowledge, and the scope of our theoretical knowledge limits what we can do...

Question: Is there then a logical argument that what we do know is always less than what we can know?

Is our ontology necessarily incomplete?

  • No. I also think you have the wrong notion of certain knowledge. You did not state what you thought certain knowledge was clearly. To say x is certain means that the truth value could not be avoided. That is the truth value will never ever change regardless of human existence. It is certain that our Sun was present before humans walked the Earth. It is certain that all women are human beings. Certain knowledge can also be called OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. So the way you put this argument you would say the Sun didn't exist without some human writing it into existence? Are you sure? – Logikal Jan 17 at 20:37
  • our brain power is limited. Wouldn't it make sense that since we ourselves have limited brain power, that there is therefore a limit to our knowledge? When asked if he believed in God, Charles Darwin answered - A dog might as well contemplate the workings of a mind like Newton's [Issac Newton]; let each man believe what he can. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 18 at 5:33
  • @Logikal "certain", for sure... The sun needed to exist before humans(or other) could have visual knowledge of the world. – christo183 Jan 18 at 7:06
  • @SwamiVishwananda I'd say we have long since surpassed the limits of a single brain. But we are crafty in that we find ways, like computer modeling, field specialization etc. to break down potential knowledge into manageable portions. Also see: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/41995/33787 – christo183 Jan 18 at 7:34
  • So you would agree then that there could be objective knowledge before humans existed and there was objective knowledge before human writing correct? – Logikal Jan 18 at 12:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.