↑ 8 References
- Concept-space: Our mental model that contains everything we think about. This would fall under the traditional idea of A priori thought. These are the mental frameworks we use to communicate with ourselves and others.
However, even if there is ambiguity or uncertainty in a given section of Concept-space, we should still seek to keep that Words are pointers to concept-space stable. This allows us to avoid the Fallacy of compression.
Deductive logic manages definitions where inductive logic manages observations. We can use deductive logic to explore the rest of our Concept-space for a given inductively attained belief. We can use the probability that our inductively attained belief is true to inform the deductively attained consequences of that belief. In turn, we can use those deductively attained consequences to provide an extension with which to further test our inductively attained belief. In a way, I guess this is science. Science is the systematic use of Full Logic.
When discussing a potentially difficult topic, it can be easy to have an idea be a poorly defined pointer to Concept-space. This is inevitable, and why we Use intentionally ambiguous naming to avoid restricting growing or uncertain ideas, for example.
“Internal representations that reliably correlate with states of the world, and that participate in inferences that tend to derive true implications from true premises, may be called knowledge.” (Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now)
^4de896
Another instance of Knowledge is testable prediction. Internal representations feels like Concept-space. The goal should be to align Map and Territory