I agree. To "know" is to have verification...IF one wants to relate that knowledge to the outside world. However, a schitzo might "know" there are bugs on their skin or that they have knowledge of archeological evidence of a lost world. It is their knowledge. But like I said, at that point it is just a subjective account hhof "experience", "senses", whatever. So, I agree, "know" must have an objective standard in order to relate it to the outside world and be of any use. That is like you said, "verification". By the way, "know" in the context in wihch I used that word came from Orn.
On Nov 5, 11:03 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<Does the theory OF Natualism claim to "know" everything or are they > making the claim that the things (most things) we thought were correct > are found to be either impossible or improbable given our current > scientific progress and knowledge? >> > > You will have to define what is meant by "know". > > "Know" (to me) implies verification which is a naturalistic concept. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
