The Truth And The Knowledge Graph

[Draconis Chaser]

I appologize if something like this exists in another topic, I apparently couldn't find it...

So, I rewatched the Knowledge Graph video and for the most part it makes sense. I realize that most of the stuff in there is based on various believes and very little on actual facts. And I also realise that to know the full truth, one has to get rid of the Graph completely.

What I don't understand, however, is what is on the very periphery.
Is it what we experience on day to day basis? Are our empirical observations raw facts? How do we know?

I struggled with this for quite a while, especially while studying things that I could not experience for myself. "Is it even worth studying if there is a possibility of it not being true?", is what I thought.
Then I read a post somewhere saying  that we will never know for certain, until the knowledge proves itself aka, manifests itself in some way in real world, be that experiment or some  practical use. That resonated with me, but still, I think there should be more to it than just practicality.

And so, I would be most grateful If you would share your oppinions and suggestions on the subject. 

Thank you in advance and have a great day!     

  

[99th_monkey]

it comes down to the way your knowledge works. or.. as you  come to know things.... i guess. the things on the periphery are "raw" perceptions.. basically. things you perceive before they get interpreted and meaning applied. for the most parts its below the radar unconsciously. You can develop awareness of it... think of the periphery as like a force field of your knowledge. little glancing blows get deflected and forgotten while the bigger stuff can get through and assimilated.   

[Draconis Chaser]

@Pinocchio

Thank you for your reply!

I think (like Leo said, actually) that in order to get rid of the bias of human point of view, we have to get rid of the "human" part, that is to brak the mold completely. And that's cool. But does not come easily. In the meantime, I have to rely on the closest thing I have to truth, which is the lining of the grapf. 

Still, it bugs me that we can't say that even those are 100% true...

As far as practicality goes, yes, it is imortant, but not exclusive. I like to think that my job as a scientist/curious human being/consciousness is to discover the Truth. And if it happens to have a practical side that we can use, great! If not, still great! The truth is the ultimate goal here. 

I often say that to people and am always, without exception, ridiculed and labeled as a "philosopher" (which is now an insult apparently). I find it cute, in a "ya'll don't know what you are missing, people!" kinda way...

Still, I'm glad there are more likeminded pople out there!

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Pinocchio said:

 

 

I love that you said that. Somehow everyone seems to think that truth has to be practical, and if it's practical it has to be true. That's one reason why science is worshipped. If it works, it must be true, right? Wrong. Truth and practicality are entirely different considerations. And moreover, maybe just maybe, there's nothing practical about truth at all. But the general attitude seems to be, if it's not practical then who cares.

 

Good to see those rare exceptions.

 

Amen. I always have trouble explaining to people how I both appreciate and see science as limited ,ultimately unable to determine real truth and perhaps not the only tool or even the best for knowing reality.  The internet is so nice that it allows such niche and iconoclastic perspectives to congregate.