Ah. Sorry, I'm responding to a dozen different threads and I'm having trouble keeping all the context in my head.
I think your axiom #2 is almost certainly correct. But just because we can't know where all of the uncertainty lies doesn't mean we can't know where some of it does.
I think of models as maps—sure, we are able to map Earth with high accuracy (though still have numerous maps all useful for different things), but only because we are now able to be outside of it; this will never be true for the system that we are modeling using scientific method and that we ourselves are part of.
We will forever have many incomplete maps. Scientific method offers one such map, a product of a particular way of attending to the world, and while it is useful for some purposes I am not sure it is inherently better than other maps. It does not help that it tries (maybe not by design, but at least that’s how it seems to be playing out so far) to sidestep the fact that our minds are both map-creators and part of the territory.
> And why is it that you cannot link to what I ask for?
Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.
> Remember your claim above?
Yes. What does that have to do with anything? That wasn't a reply to you, that was a reply to /u/stroganoff, whereupon /u/stroganoff conceded the point.
> Because I don't have time to grovel through everything I've ever posted to find examples where I conceded a point.
Is that the only reason you are unable? Are you sure such examples exist?
>> Remember your claim above?
> Yes. What does that have to do with anything?
Why would you not know the answer to this? You know the answer to everything that's been presented to you, do you not? (Well, except for the substantial amount of questions that have been asked of you throughout these various conversations, by myself and others, that you have dodged. Or the cases where you have asserted that you possess knowledge, but are unwilling to respond to challenges to such claims.)
> So what is your point???
I believe it is possible that:
a) you are not perfectly rational.
b) you are conducting yourself in these internet conversations as if you are.
c) you do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge.
Do you believe that I may be on to something, at least possibly?
I try hard not to be wrong, but when I am, I have no problem admitting it.
> You know the answer to everything that's been presented to you, do you not?
So far.
> except for the substantial amount of questions that have been asked of you throughout these various conversations, by myself and others, that you have dodged
Like what?
> Or the cases where you have asserted that you possess knowledge, but are unwilling to respond to challenges to such claims.
Like what?
> you are not perfectly rational.
Of course I'm not. I never said otherwise. That's just ridiculous. No human is perfectly rational.
> you are conducting yourself in these internet conversations as if you are
Well, I try very hard to be as rational as I can be, and I think I'm getting better at it with practice. But I'm still not perfect, and I never will be.
> you do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge
Those are two topics that I have not yet addressed, so you cannot possibly have any basis for assessing my understanding or lack thereof. The fact that you think you have such a basis indicates that you are, at the very least, making some unwarranted assumptions.
(But I would wager (if we could find a way to adjudicate it) that my understanding of belief and knowledge is a lot deeper than you think.)
> Do you believe that I may be on to something, at least possibly?
No. I think that you once again have failed to do your homework. If you will recall, I smacked you down for that once before.
OK, fair enough. I will rephrase: I don't see any plausible mechanism by which you could know this, though I do concede that there are some possibilities. Maybe you have ESP. Maybe you have access to secret alien brain scanning technology. Maybe you hired a private investigator to suss out the depth of my understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge (though how he might have done this without my being aware of it remains a bit of a mystery). I have no idea. So yes, it's possible that you have some basis for believing that I "do not have a deep understanding of the subtle and complex differences between belief and knowledge". It's also possible that the earth is flat. But if you want me to take either possibility seriously then the burden is on you to explain it to me. Until you do that, the most plausible explanation I have for your behavior, and the one I am now going to start acting on, is that you are simply a troll.
Of course you know things I don't. Everyone over the age of 2 probably knows things I don't. Why would you even ask such a stupid question with such an obvious answer? And why did you phrase it in such a pretentious way? "Possess knowledge that you do not" -- who talks like that?
Does this have any affect on your belief that "so you cannot possibly have any basis for assessing my understanding or lack thereof" is a true statement?
What are you doing if not trolling? Do you think this is a competition? What do you think the prize is? You do realize there's no audience here, right? No one is paying attention to this thread any more.
Not sure what to call it....~"Analysis of the logical & epistemic cognitive performance of Humans on Internet Message Boards"? Something like that I guess. I try not to overthink it and just have fun, makes the whole thing much more optimal at this stage, in my estimation.
> Do you think this is a competition?
I very much think of it like that. A video game analogy ("world building" genres like Sim City, etc) is extremely fitting.
> What do you think the prize is?
At the grand scale: the well being of Humanity.
> You do realize there's no audience here, right?
I am not able to "realize" that, because I have had extremely different training than you.
> No one is paying attention to this thread any more.
It isn't possible for you to know this. Do you even realize that? Like seriously, are you joking when you make these comments or what?
EDIT: I noticed something:
>> Implicitly declaring victory again are we? And if not: what is it that you are doing?
You misspelled my username, and I did not actually concede the point. It was past midnight here at the time. I only corrected part of my comment, but I still do disagree with your point.
I think your axiom #2 is almost certainly correct. But just because we can't know where all of the uncertainty lies doesn't mean we can't know where some of it does.