We see what we want to see

[zenmaster]

Quote:You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being aware of the limits of one's knowledge has nothing to do with veracity of knowledge at all, just whether or not one genuinely perceives relavent knowledge is held. I contend that it's always possible to be aware of that case. That awareness is not even a skill to be learned, unless you consider honesty a skill.

So let me try if I get you... You're basically saying that we know if we have no relevant knowledge?

Yes. But it's entirely subjective of course. By relevancy, I mean perceived relevancy. As we have with one's own prompt to share one's own particular info.

How would you explain the situation where we have knowledge in one area that can be used in another yet we did not realize we could?

I don't mean relevancy in the sense of a particular application or appropriateness. I mean, for example, the person thinking what they know should be shared in some circumstance, for whatever reason. Then they begin to relate whatever knowledge in whatever form. Given that, what I contend is that they always can know if such knowledge is actually known or what is being related is disingenuous or if over reaching is required. By over reaching, I do not mean a tenuous connection was presented - I mean a personally unsupportable claim was made. Has nothing to do with intelligence or gender or personality.

Yet you seem to me to be demanding a specific format. You actually measure honesty by that format.

It has nothing do with the manner in which something is related. It is the capability to support what is related (again, in any manner). By capability, I don't mean any judgment of capability, I mean one's own awareness of what one understands one knows (perceived relevance) in whatever worldview one has.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

Yet it is extremely human to fall for those biases anyway.

Or maybe there is a limit of successful discourse due to perhaps the time/energy required vs the perceived benefit.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

I have learned a few things about the dynamics of discussion in the past 30 years both running and participating in electronic forums, such as this one, as well. One thing I've learned is that you can always count on people to be only as honest with you as they can be with themselves.

True Valid insight, but do you consider it relevant?

Yes. For example, because one tends to know when to stop asking for clarification.