stem cell's is the view of one who only experiences secondary knowledge. One can "know" how to paint like a master. One can read how to do so and "know" in a secondary way. Or one can truly KNOW, in which case they CAN paint like a master. Secondary "knowledge" clings to quotes; thus you have Christians constantly sighting scriptures while being "knowing" of nothing. In truly KNOWING the evidence is in results.
http://niggerwise.com On Nov 5, 11:31 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.- Hide > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
