The Perfect Knowledge Fallacy
This fallacy comes up quite often in the gulch and in any epistemological discussion. It has come up recently again in the gulch with someone thinking they have found the ultimate objection to Objectivism.
The perfect knowledge fallacy is common among religionists, but also Kant and the German counter enlightenment as well as Hume and the Scottish counter-enlightenment. The argument is that if you do not know one thing, then you do not know anything. The tactic of these people is to say since you do not know x, then you can't know anything.
This argument is based on a false definition of knowledge. They will argue that a man 3000 years ago who thought the Earth was flat had no knowledge. Note however if you are building a small house, even today, we assume the Earth is flat and this is fine. This does not mean we do not have knowledge. Knowledge like mathematical equations has bounds or regions in which it is valid. Knowledge is information (facts and concepts) that are accurate within the accuracy necessary for the question being posed and within the region the question is being asked. Note, we still don't know the mechanism for how gravity works, that does not mean that we do not have knowledge about gravity. There are also open questions about mass and inertia, not to mention question about calculus. This does not mean we do not have knowledge.
I have to admit that the perfect knowledge fallacy usually sneaks up on me and it takes a while to see that this is the other person's argument. However, it is used quite a bit so it is worth remembering.
The perfect knowledge fallacy is common among religionists, but also Kant and the German counter enlightenment as well as Hume and the Scottish counter-enlightenment. The argument is that if you do not know one thing, then you do not know anything. The tactic of these people is to say since you do not know x, then you can't know anything.
This argument is based on a false definition of knowledge. They will argue that a man 3000 years ago who thought the Earth was flat had no knowledge. Note however if you are building a small house, even today, we assume the Earth is flat and this is fine. This does not mean we do not have knowledge. Knowledge like mathematical equations has bounds or regions in which it is valid. Knowledge is information (facts and concepts) that are accurate within the accuracy necessary for the question being posed and within the region the question is being asked. Note, we still don't know the mechanism for how gravity works, that does not mean that we do not have knowledge about gravity. There are also open questions about mass and inertia, not to mention question about calculus. This does not mean we do not have knowledge.
I have to admit that the perfect knowledge fallacy usually sneaks up on me and it takes a while to see that this is the other person's argument. However, it is used quite a bit so it is worth remembering.
