TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Knowledge is manufactured? From:Gause_Brian -at- emc -dot- com To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:11:59 -0400
I mean no offense to Lauren, but the existential theory of knowledge
(which I've studied before and rejected) is nonsense. As a philosopher
by education, I am compelled to respond. Surely you cannot believe this
argument and do not base your life on these principles...and for those
who do, bear with me a few moments...
To say "all knowledge is a first-person account of subjective
perceptions" reduces the power of reason to "a first-person
account"...which is uninformed and incorrect. This statement implies
that you can have knowledge of a false thing, which of course, cannot be
a valid definition for "knowledge". The implication of this invalid
statement means that we cannot build a theory of knowledge on this
To say "We call it knowledge when we can get another person to confirm
the contents of our heads by comparing our assessments" is also
incorrect. If I belief Mars is green, and can get someone else to
believe it, I've satisfied the requirements of this definition, yet you
still wouldn't call this "knowledge" or, for that matter, even "a true
statement". Knowledge isn't about getting someone else to confirm your
bogus thoughts, but about applying the rules of logical analysis.
The Existential theory of knowledge is a Straw Man argument intended to
confuse you. It is not "logically valid", and its conclusions are not
"true" in any sense of that word. It does not account for Psychology,
Neurobiology or anything we've learned about the brain over the past
century. Today, with tools like CAT scans and MRIs, researchers can
offer data that demonstrates the objective existence of a subjective
thought as it happens in your head. Because your brain activity can be
measured with scientific instruments, we have a tool, otherwise known as
objective evidence, showing that your subjective thought did, in fact,
exist. This gives new meaning to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am".
Knowledge is where "perception" meets "reason". The act of saying you
exist proves that you exist. It's really that simple.
If you want to believe that you can't prove things exist, and
specifically, that knowledge doesn't exist, you're welcome to believe
it...but you're handicapping your rational faculties before you even
Again, this is not aimed at you, Lauren, but as a general "slap-down" of
Existential theories of knowledge...which are just bogus and
When you base your beliefs on something other than "perception" and
"reason", you end up as confused as an Existentialist...in Philosophical
circles, existentialism is all but dead.
From: techwr-l-bounces+gause_brian=emc -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+gause_brian=emc -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of Lauren
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:51 PM
To: Gause, Brian; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: Knowledge is manufactured?
> From: Gause_Brian -at- emc -dot- com
> More specifically, "information" is a building block of "knowledge",
> which is the result of conscious analysis. And both can be transmitted
> as information...All talk generates information. It is only with the
> mental work in your head that you create knowledge.
> Both of these words are nonsense in the context of my title,
> though. My
> expertise transcends this distinction between information and
> I am a writer.
> Brian Gause
Well here's a theory of knowledge and existentialism.
How do you know what you know? All "knowledge" is a first-person
subjective perceptions. We call it "knowledge" when we can get another
person to confirm the contents of our heads by comparing our
If I say that I know that I exist, I can't prove it. I can say that I
believe that I exist and other people believe that I exist. The beliefs
other people, like my own beliefs are based on subjective perceptions.
can say that because we perceive someone else, then that person exists,
confirming our perceptions against the perceptions of others is not
because the comparison is still subjective. I can only prove that I
if somebody objectively says that I exist because I cannot get outside
myself to form that objective assessment. I can only objectively say
somebody else exists if I can form an objective perception. I cannot
an objective perception because I cannot get outside of myself.
I cannot prove that somebody else exists and no one can prove that I
I can only "know" something if I exist because we must exist to have
knowledge. I can't know if I exist, so I can't have knowledge.
Therefore, there is no knowledge, but, of course, I can write about it,
whatever *it* is.
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-