The Student Room Group

Can you give an example of a piece of knowledge that does not rely on assumptions?

Bet you can't :wink:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Without bringing the tired old Descartian doubt in to it, please, anyone who replies.

I know that I feel like I'm typing this.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 2
So what?
Reply 3
Original post by gjd800
So what?

What are you talking about? A question is not knowledge. It might sometimes feature or imply some related piece of knowledge but the question itself is not knowledge.
Original post by JasmineMonsoon
Bet you can't :wink:

That if I drop my cup of tea it will fall downwards rather than upwards?
Original post by harrysbar
That if I drop my cup of tea it will fall downwards rather than upwards?

Only on earth. Making assumptions of gravity, and just because it has done it before doesn't mean it would again.

What if you dropped it onto a trampoline at the same height? What if you dropped it onto a desk at same height? What if you dropped it by waving your arm in the air and it flies upwards
Original post by JasmineMonsoon
Bet you can't :wink:

Donald trump is the president. What's the assumption in that? I can't think of any
Original post by harrysbar
That if I drop my cup of tea it will fall downwards rather than upwards?


Basing that on an assumption in science that what has happened before will happen again. 😅That natural occurrences will continue to happen as they have forever. Also, I should have specified not observations conclusions. The conclusion as the other user said is the explanation of gravity, and the way gravity works as we have described it (the warping of space and time) is an assumption that only satisfies the evidence we have now
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by tashkent46
Only on earth. Making assumptions of gravity, and just because it has done it before doesn't mean it would again.

What if you dropped it onto a trampoline at the same height? What if you dropped it onto a desk at same height? What if you dropped it by waving your arm in the air and it flies upwards

That whatever I say, some smartarse will contradict it?
That when I die, if my body is buried in the ground, it will rot?
Reply 9
Original post by JasmineMonsoon
Bet you can't :wink:

1 + 1 = 2 ?
Original post by harrysbar
That whatever I say, some smartarse will contradict it?
That when I die, if my body is buried in the ground, it will rot?

What if the person who responds isn't a smartarse? What if they don't respond at all? What if your body having been buried in the ground doesn't rot due to some persevering soil, biology or maybe some kind of body anti rotting feature like the Egyptians and lots of people do.

That your body will rot rests on fundamental assumptions of soil and biology.
Original post by tashkent46
What if the person who responds isn't a smartarse? What if they don't respond at all? What if your body having been buried in the ground doesn't rot due to some persevering soil, biology or maybe some kind of body anti rotting feature like the Egyptians and lots of people do.

That your body will rot rests on fundamental assumptions of soil and biology.

But a smartarse did respond and you just proved it.

And my body will rot without preservatives etc.
Original post by Xhail
1 + 1 = 2 ?

Ah this is an interesting one. The German philosopher immanuel kant believed mathematics was synthetic a posteriori, which means mathematics is not inherently true or false or right or wrong but requires empirical evidence.

How do you know 1+1 is two? You could put two blocks near each other and count them. The act of counting itself is analytic, you can conclude from making general observations a number which isn't in the question. For example we have two 1s but not a 2. But is it knowledge? Does it really tell us anything about the world? Does it not make certain numerical assumptions. It seems to me that simple sums like that also rest on fundamental assumptions we make about arithmetic.
The speed of light c is a constant, independent of the relative motion of the source
Original post by harrysbar
But a smartarse did respond and you just proved it.

And my body will rot without preservatives etc.

Your subjective belief that I'm a smartarse wouldn't count as knowledge and I could have simply not responded. And that your body will rot is still based on assumptions of decay.
Original post by tashkent46
Your subjective belief that I'm a smartarse wouldn't count as knowledge and I could have simply not responded. And that your body will rot is still based on assumptions of decay.

But you had to respond because a smartarse can't help their nature
Reply 16
Original post by tashkent46
Ah this is an interesting one. The German philosopher immanuel kant believed mathematics was synthetic a posteriori, which means mathematics is not inherently true or false or right or wrong but requires empirical evidence.

How do you know 1+1 is two? You could put two blocks near each other and count them. The act of counting itself is analytic, you can conclude from making general observations a number which isn't in the question. For example we have two 1s but not a 2. But is it knowledge? Does it really tell us anything about the world? Does it not make certain numerical assumptions. It seems to me that simple sums like that also rest on fundamental assumptions we make about arithmetic.

Makes sense boss :smile:
Original post by harrysbar
But you had to respond because a smartarse can't help their nature

It's a thread about question I answered if that upsets you go elsewhere lol
That we can perceive what’s around us and make assumptions about it.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by tashkent46
It's a thread about question I answered if that upsets you go elsewhere lol

I'm not upset, I'm enjoying it

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending