0
0

How do you confirm you're learning? (self.askphilosophy)

endogenic が 投稿

全 39 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TychoCelchuuupolitical phil. 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (35子コメント)

You can explain things to someone who understands the topic, and they can tell you if you've gotten it right.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (34子コメント)

Not sure why this would be downvoted, it's arguably the only effective way. People with knowledge in the area you are trying to learn are the ones who can give you feedback and fill in the gaps of your knowledge, too!

[–]endogenic[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (33子コメント)

I down-voted it, because it obviously doesn't confirm it's possible for you to distinguish who really knows, from who does not when you, you know, don't know, while asserting people can and should. So how useful is it? Is it more than an demand to make a result without a way in a real problem? Philosophers ought to be the ones to bring this issue to.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Careful now, we'll start getting into an epistemic debate on knowing in the general sense, haha. Well, I would say that a good place to start would simply be to ask the person if they are familiar with a given work. If they have already read something, taken it in, or done work based on it; they will probably have a greater knowledge base than you.

If they do have experience in the given topic, I suppose the main thing one can do is take them at their word. Without some sort of title or degree basis to go on, that's all we can really have, no?

If all else fails, you can ask here and have one of the panelists test your knowledge.

[–]endogenic[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (21子コメント)

Without some sort of title or degree basis to go on, that's all we can really have, no?

LOL in other words, you don't know! I'm surprised at you.

Books, certificates, social validation, flair, consensus, and thoughts can never amount to being authorities on or origins of truths beyond exactly what they are. Words that prescribe answers but lack concrete matters cannot be confirmed, and deteriorate their user into a person who plays with words and teaches others to make new words. That kind of education is exactly what is making our society become darker.

Do you have any savings? If you really think you know the limits of knowledge and wisdom, let's have a bet. If you can correctly answer my one question, I'll give you 1 Bitcoin or 10 Monero. Meanwhile, if you can't answer my question, you have to give me 0.1 BTC or 1 XMR back. So, pretty much in your favor. Just one thing. I'm going to check your answer.

When you talk about what can be known, we have to understand the term, "truth" very correctly. So what does "truth" mean? What do you indicate by that term?

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Well, I won't dignify it with a bet. A bet needs an intermediary and your generous offer of a 10% return isn't something I'm interested in taking up. That said, I am perfectly willing to admit that I do not know what truth is in the general sense. I also don't believe you do and doubt you can give me an answer that would satisfy the most pedantic reader.

Truth, itself, seems to be a baseline value ascribed to things dependent on context. Truth of a statement about something in the material sense is true dependent on its corroboration with the specific instance. Truth in the logical sense is a binary value given to a statement in a way to demonstrate functionality. Then we get into the issue of epistemology and the limits of our own ability to directly equate experience with truth down to the most basic conscious level.

So yeah, I'm willing to say I don't know. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, but if you are able to give me an answer that you feel is satisfactory to truth in all contexts, I would be interested to hear it. As we said before, to confirm you have learnt a given subject, turn to those who claim to have greater experience.

So yeah, indulge me.

[–]endogenic[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (18子コメント)

A bet needs an intermediary and your generous offer of a 10% return isn't something I'm interested in taking up.

10% return? Return on…? You are being asked to put in nothing but your time. I think you misunderstood the terms. We only exchange money /after/ we see whether you can answer. If you can answer, the only thing that happens is I immediately transfer the money to you. if you cannot answer correctly, the only thing that happens is you transfer a much smaller amount to me instead.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

But why would I accept something like that if I believe it is impossible for me, or anyone, to give a truly satisfactory answer?

[–]endogenic[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

But why would I accept something like that if I believe it is impossible for me, or anyone, to give a truly satisfactory answer?

Because in the same breath you say as if you totally believe it that someone else like a teacher can help you confirm you're learning.

It might be ridiculous for someone to claim that they can give a satisfactory answer. But you know what? It's more ridiculous that people who claim to be interested in philosophy don't try to check their answer when such a person appears.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I would think myself heavily autistic (and I do not mean that in any demeaning way), if I was unable to seperate the possibility of fallibility in learning something from another. Learning anything comes with a level of fallibility, given the nature of language ambiguity.

Are you honestly incapable of saying somebody has not learnt something if they cannot, with universal, epistemic certainty know it is right? Is learning depedant on something being true?

As for:

Because in the same breath you say as if you totally believe it that someone else like a teacher can help you confirm you're learning.

It's not so much that I would take it on face value, it's that I wouldn't have reason to care. I'd take it as a margin for error in certainty, because the certainty isn't what is important. Having knowledge that gives effective ability for discourse in the given subject is what is important.

I suppose I am just capable of taking things with a grain of salt, without giving too much care to the absolute truths involved. If you can't, I am somewhat concerned for you.

[–]TychoCelchuuupolitical phil. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I down-voted it, because it obviously doesn't confirm it's possible for you to distinguish who really knows, from who does not when you, you know, don't know, while asserting people can and should.

One way is to look to universities, and the professors employed there, who typically know their stuff. So for instance if you want to confirm if you understand math, you can take a math class and see if you get an A or a B or a C or whatever. Other ways to tell who is an expert include looking at whether they have a PhD in the subject, whether they publish books and articles on the subject, etc.

[–]endogenic[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

So for instance if you want to confirm if you understand math, you can take a math class and see if you get an A or a B or a C or whatever.

So you have said "confirmation". What is a confirmation? What is the proof that your idea of sufficiency is the same as that of a real confirmation and that you can apply it when it counts? And how well can you apply it...?

Other ways to tell who is an expert include looking at whether they have a PhD in the subject, whether they publish books and articles on the subject, etc.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that, as you become the slave of the university-academic and religious machinery that will be known to the future mankind (who may be lucky enough to survive) as the two causes which led to the sudden destruction of mankind.

Thanks. Probably should have asked me if I wanted that, first, though. Maybe next time.

[–]TychoCelchuuupolitical phil. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

So you have said "confirmation". What is a confirmation? What is the proof that your idea of sufficiency is the same as that of a real confirmation and that you can apply it when it counts? And how well can you apply it...?

I'm not really sure what you're asking. When you asked your original question, I assumed you knew what the word "confirm" meant, because you used it in your question. If you're not sure what that word means, I would suggest not using the word, because you won't be able to understand answers to a question if you can't understand the question, and you can't understand the question if you don't understand one or more of the words in the question.

[–]endogenic[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm not really sure what you're asking. When you asked your original question, I assumed you knew what the word "confirm" meant, because you used it in your question. If you're not sure what that word means, I would suggest not using the word, because you won't be able to understand answers to a question if you can't understand the question, and you can't understand the question if you don't understand one or more of the words in the question.

You say all of that, but this wouldn't be an issue if you know what the word confirm really meant. You know, because you'd be able to be sure what I'm asking. I know what it means lol. If you want to use the word too then you should be ready to stand trial to prove your claim. You can't just use words and expect to make true statements without correctly understanding them.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If there is any "truth" in the nature of discussion, it's that language is the worst part about it. I would recommend you read some of Wittgenstein's work to understand the inherent ambiguity of language and how certainty in a conversation is futile.

[–]endogenic[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

how certainty in a conversation is futile.

Then you should disillusion yourself of the notion that you know that. In other words, I'm certain you're contradicting yourself.

[–]Tyler_Collinslogic, existentialism 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, not really. Much like any given measurement in physics, there comes with it a margin of error. I suppose you'll just have to take it with a grain of salt as to whether or not the image I attempt to conjure in your mind is the same I have in mine. The likelyhood of absolute likeness is very slim, but if the general outline of the idea is similar, it is effective to the outcome we are attempting to achieve.

As I said in the other comment, there is something truly wrong with a person who cannot accept the concept of truth fallibility in a given discourse.

[–]DivineSasa 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Depends on the subject. I dont remember who said it, but theres a saying like: If you can't explain a topic to someone else, you don't truly understand it yourself.

[–]endogenic[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you can't explain a topic to someone else, you don't truly understand it yourself.

Thanks for sharing. Heard this too. But leaves me with another question. How do you confirm how accurately, precisely, completely, and verifiably you can explain a topic to someone? (Is it possible in theory to explain things such that the "someone else" can confirm they have received accurate understanding?)

[–]ptrlixPragmatism, philosophy of language 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

One factor is the response of whomever you're explaining it to. If the responses are something like "Oh, I don't quite get it", then you haven't learned it very well. But if the responses are "That makes sense, thank you", then you got it. But this is assuming that the responsers have similar capacities to understand.

Trying to write it down also helps, I think. Sometimes you think that you've learned a topic very well, but if you can't really turn it into a well-written, well-articulated essay, then there still might be room for improvement.