All Knowledge is Assumption, Assumption is Knowledge

[Speakpigeon]

all knowledge proceeds from assumption, but is not all assumption

Good, so maybe you could try to argue this point of view?
So, if you believe that all knowledge proceed from assumption, then you're saying that we start by assuming something, and then we somehow know something else. You have to say that we assume A and, somehow, from that assumption, we get to know B.
Or, if you prefer, we assume that p and somehow from that assumption we get to know that q. This is the most basic formulation of your claim. Unless you could propose an alternative one?

and it is what comes after assumption - how people arrive at conclusions - that can be judged, making not all knowledge equal

But what's the epistemological value of a conclusion, any conclusion, we arrive at if we start from not knowledge itself but from assumption? Isn't that like the perpetual movement machine where you get more out of it than you need to put into it? You see, it is very easy to assume anything at all. I can assume you're an AI bot. Or a Chinese spy. Or a cow with straw hat. How could you possibly decide between the infinity of theoretically conceivable assumptions if you don't start with knowledge to begin with?

so no assumption and knowledge are not one and the same

Good, we agree at least on that.

i believe you're making a fallacy of composition? assumptions are just a part of knowledge..

He is making a fool of himself by making claim he is not prepared to argue or even articulate properly.

So, how do you propose that we get to know anything we get to know through that process of assuming that p and then, somehow, getting to know that q?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I have a policy of not trying to make sense of nonsense.
Perhaps philately is more your thing than philosophy.

Chicken.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

all knowledge proceeds from assumption, but is not all assumption

I agree with this. But it is not easy to justify this. Particularly to those who adopt a naïve reality position.

Ah, good, you admit you're unable to argue your position.
For your information, I hold a view opposite to naive realism.

It seems obvious that we create a picture of the world, and a necessary prerequisite of creating a picture is an assumption upon where to start.

Oh my oh my but that's a kind of argument you're trying to articulate here!
OK, I agree we create some kind of picture of the world.
But me, I can conceive of a picture of the world without any assumption: a lens does that and does it well. And it's an apt metaphor since our very eyes include actual lenses.
OK, so my brain somehow creates a picture of the world somewhat like a lens does. So, where would be the assumption in here?
And don't you have, somehow, to actually know this picture if you are to understand the world on the basis of this picture?

I guess that naïve reality constitutes an assumption in itself, albeit a naïve one.

Not quite. And assumption is an act of the mind. To assume is to take for granted. Naive realism is nothing like an assumption. It's a belief. And most of the time, you don't even realise you have it. So, if it was an assumption, it would be literally an unconscious assumption and that's stretching things a bit. Rather, it's just our unconscious brain that makes sure you believe the map itself is the world.
What's difficult to explain?
EB

[Dontaskme]

And assumption is an act of the mind. To assume is to take for granted. Naive realism is nothing like an assumption. It's a belief.

Naive realism is a perception. A perception can be any thing imagined mentally.

A perception implies a perceiver where there is none...except as an assumed belief.

Knowledge is Mind activity ...all much a do about nothing...assumptions at best.

.

[Speakpigeon]

And assumption is an act of the mind. To assume is to take for granted. Naive realism is nothing like an assumption. It's a belief.

Naive realism is a perception

No.

Naive realism
(Philosophy) philosophy the doctrine that in perception of physical objects what is before the mind is the object itself and not a representation of it. Compare representationalism

EB

[Dontaskme]

Naive realism
(Philosophy) philosophy the doctrine that in perception of physical objects what is before the mind is the object itself and not a representation of it. Compare representationalism

The above is knowledge perceived.

A perception.

There’s no such thing as a physical object there except the perceived knowledge...a perception.

[Speakpigeon]

Gobbledegook.
EB

[A_Seagull]

Perhaps you should answer your own questions....

Sure.

I am merely pointing out that it's an insufficient strategy for somebody who keeps asking stupid questions like "What is X?".

They will keep getting stupid answers like "X is Y and Y is X".

Excellent answer!

There needs to be a pragmatic asp4ect to philosophy otherwise it is meaningless.

[A_Seagull]

Naive realism
(Philosophy) philosophy the doctrine that in perception of physical objects what is before the mind is the object itself and not a representation of it. Compare representationalism

There’s no such thing as a physical object there except the perceived knowledge...a perception.

Correct.

[A_Seagull]

all knowledge proceeds from assumption, but is not all assumption

I agree with this. But it is not easy to justify this. Particularly to those who adopt a naïve reality position.

Ah, good, you admit you're unable to argue your position.
For your information, I hold a view opposite to naive realism.

It seems obvious that we create a picture of the world, and a necessary prerequisite of creating a picture is an assumption upon where to start.

Oh my oh my but that's a kind of argument you're trying to articulate here!
OK, I agree we create some kind of picture of the world.
But me, I can conceive of a picture of the world without any assumption: a lens does that and does it well. And it's an apt metaphor since our very eyes include actual lenses.
OK, so my brain somehow creates a picture of the world somewhat like a lens does. So, where would be the assumption in here?
And don't you have, somehow, to actually know this picture if you are to understand the world on the basis of this picture?

I guess that naïve reality constitutes an assumption in itself, albeit a naïve one.

Not quite. And assumption is an act of the mind. To assume is to take for granted. Naive realism is nothing like an assumption. It's a belief. And most of the time, you don't even realise you have it. So, if it was an assumption, it would be literally an unconscious assumption and that's stretching things a bit. Rather, it's just our unconscious brain that makes sure you believe the map itself is the world.
What's difficult to explain?
EB

If you don't understand the problem... don't worry about it. A problem is only a problem if you think it is a problem.

[11011]

pigeon,

But what's the epistemological value of a conclusion, any conclusion, we arrive at if we start from not knowledge itself but from assumption?

depending on what assumptions we choose, that will determine whether we are led to knowledge, but we don't know if we are on the correct path currently, until we receive some sort of confirmation, if.

so not all assumptions are equal, because the further we move from information to imagination (what occurs in our minds naturally vs what we intentionally think), the further we will get from the paths that will lead us to knowledge.

like falling down a cave in a mountain while sking, you are most likely to get out following one of the paths in the direction from where you fell, rather than one of those in a random direction. it is possible that a counter-intuitive path may led to your desired destination, but experience dictates you are better off not placing your bets randomly, as far as making predictions is concerned, and so your assumptions should be based on human experience, especially, epistemologically speaking, in the presence of a mind not intentionally thinking or forcing its own imaginations on the data or information coming in.

also assumptions based on experience/observation are just plain more useful, so even if we fail in our task of knowledge per se, at least we can better enjoy or maximize the ride; and since what we desire to know about relates to the world as it hits us with data, not the contents of our own mind, typically, we should start there, again choosing the path that seems logical (i.e. closer to the thing we're interested in) to our human experience sensibilities.

[Speakpigeon]

But what's the epistemological value of a conclusion, any conclusion, we arrive at if we start from not knowledge itself but from assumption?

depending on what assumptions we choose, that will determine whether we are led to knowledge, but we don't know if we are on the correct path currently, until we receive some sort of confirmation, if.

So, making an assumption doesn't in itself produce knowledge.

also assumptions based on experience/observation are just plain more useful,

Because experience and observations are not assumptions to begin with.
You don't assume an observation. You may choose to assume something from an observation. For example, you may assume that the Sun turns around the Earth from the visual observation that the Sun moves in the sky. So, here it's an instance of inferring an assumption from something you know, i.e. some observation.

so even if we fail in our task of knowledge per se

I was really asking you to provide an example of starting with an assumption not based on prior knowledge to arrive at new and actual knowledge. An example whereby we would somehow produce new knowledge merely by assuming things rather than starting from the prior knowledge provided by observation.

not the contents of our own mind, typically,

How could we possibly not start from the contents of our own mind?!

we should start there, again choosing the path that seems logical (i.e. closer to the thing we're interested in) to our human experience sensibilities.

Sure, but the question was whether knowledge can at all be inferred from knowledge-free assumptions, as people here seem to believe, and without being able to argue their view.
EB

[11011]

you assume what an observation MEANS which is what you're doing. you've already decided (assumed) that observation = knowledge.

i am saying strictly speaking, that is what is in line with the goals of epistemology, we cannot know currently that we know anything. we do not yet have any way to confirm that what we 'know' is in fact knowledge about something that 'actually' exists. we just don't.

but that doesn't mean we give up on the pursuit of knowledge, or answering the questions within epistemology, because in not knowing whether what we know is knowledge, we also don't know whether we'll know in the future, and we know, that once questions of philosophy in the past have over the centuries entered the purview of new methods and subsequently been answered, so instead of trying to answer the questions of epistemology now which have yet been answered, definitively, we should be patient, focusing instead on choosing our approach or path based on various considerations so that the future can answer the questions of epistemology.

and that is what is of epistemological significance here - into what path should we allocate our intellectual and other resources, which bears the highest probability of yielding the truth of this universe and of knowledge in general for future generations to come?

incidentally, i also regard experience, observation, learning as sources of knowledge, but these mere tentatively and based largely on subjective utility as well as predictive power. in other words, apart from practical considerations remote to epistemology, i believe humans are more likely to find knowledge - the truth about knowledge - using as their starting point the most patterned thing in our conscious awareness - the 'unanimously observed universe'. so the data field currently dealt with by science. this does not reflect my ontological or epistemological beliefs concerning the true nature of reality or knowledge, or rather it is not my intention for that to be the case, rather i simply believe that humans, in this treacherous journey in search of truth on the matter at hand, will fair better, given their limitations, pursuing a path that is patterned versus chaotic or apparently random.

if everything is content of the mind, then the difference here is the nature of those contents - those which constitute 'objective worldly observations' have the characteristic of following a pattern; while other contents of the mind do not; therefore, while we may not be able to escape the 'filter' of the mind obstructing our vision of the truth, in our blindness we should choose the path that is patterned mental content, or rather focus our resources, since humans are more adept at dealing with patterns.

and so that is the relevant question, issue, and stage we are at now, choosing the path to the answer, and justifying it, rather than trying to force an answer, at least as far as strict epistemology is concerned; practically of course, we should accept a tentative ontology and epistemology for our own purposes, that is dealing with the immediate concerns before us generally, outside of philosophy.

[Speakpigeon]

you assume what an observation MEANS which is what you're doing. you've already decided (assumed) that observation = knowledge.

???
I think you misunderstood what I said. Here it is again:

Because experience and observations are not assumptions to begin with.
You don't assume an observation. You may choose to assume something from an observation. For example, you may assume that the Sun turns around the Earth from the visual observation that the Sun moves in the sky. So, here it's an instance of inferring an assumption from something you know, i.e. some observation.

That I actually see the Sun moving in the sky does NOT mean I know that the Sun is moving in the sky. OK?
However, if I actually see the Sun moving in the sky, how is it not an instance of me knowing that I SEE the Sun moving in the sky?!
Or am I supposed to ignore that I see the Sun moving in the sky even when I actually see the Sun moving in the sky?!
Please clarify.
EB

[11011]

before i read your post i just want to clarify something. you're probably confused at this point based on what i said earlier, so let me clarify:

all knowledge currently is based on assumption (precisely because we don't know), pending a different kind of confirmation that definitively answer the questions of epistemology.

and how do we know we don't know? because if you think about it the essence of knowledge is confirmation, that is what separates it from other thought. knowledge is 'confirmed thought' - the 'actuality' of the thought is confirmed and becomes therefore knowledge as oppose to speculation or some other sort of thinking or mental content. even if, by chance, we've nailed it in one of our current paradigms, that is we already hold the real knowledge about the universe, that our representation, our 'picture' actually does reflect the actuality of the circumstance, because there is no way for us currently to confirm this it would still not constitute knowledge.

knowledge is not a guessing game. it can not be realized by chance. and this where the question of can we know? comes in.

if we can't, that is if no 'different sort of confirmation' will ever come, then the truth about knowledge is that it doesn't exist. however, how can we possibly know that such a sort of confirmation will never come? moreover, what form will this confirmation take such that it is authentic?

and that is the nature of epistemology as a discipline.