The efficient method of knowledge acquisition (v1.0)

This essay is roughly in the realm of epistemology (closest I could find in philosophy). It describes the “algorithm” I use to acquire knowledge. Conversing with friends is not a knowledge acquisition exercise but an exercise in having fun or a social interaction!! These are not novel ideas but the synthesis is mine for my personal use. 

Information is strings of zeros and ones. Knowledge is information which is the closest you can get to the truth. How do you know if a result, finding, or statement is true? You do that by examining the source and method and judging your confidence in that. You are not going to independently ascertain it. You accept it if you accept the source and method used in arriving at it.

Logic has an extremely solid foundation, and you can accept a logical statement or reasoning. Science is based on the scientific method which is an extremely solid foundation, and you can accept that. Political science and economic science are also sciences and can be accepted. Math has an extremely solid foundation and can be accepted. Your senses and emotions feed you information directly and you can accept that. The sense input could be coupled with logical processing before a result emerges and you can accept that.

Almost all news sources are slanted, and you must make a real effort to find a source you are willing to read or view. You ascertain your level of confidence in that source by cross checking with other sources and formulating a long-term judgement. You may have to make allowances to compensate for any slant. I don’t do social media. I don’t do chatbots because I have no data to judge if what is returned is accurate so no trust at this time, but I do use it to fact check and make suggestions which I independently validate. I don’t do TV news except sometimes PBS. I do read Washington post, NY times, and Economist, but am on guard for slant that I must adjust for.

The best way to get the facts on government actions is to view senate/house floor proceedings, read summary of bills passed, read summary of judicial judgements passed, view government press conferences, view papers, etc. Similar approach can be taken for other organizations like the UN. It takes a lot of effort, and it is up to you how far you want to go this route instead of getting it from the news.

I have not really dug into the foundations and origins of religious texts to assess or establish trust in it as a source. 

When working, I interacted extensively at work and was a great team player. But for my blogs after I retired when I started my quest for knowledge, I generally don’t discuss or debate with anyone on knowledge I am trying to acquire but gather my data and judge my confidence in it independently. I do listen to views and opinions and beliefs because I am curious of what others think but rarely offer my own views or opinions or beliefs unless I have high confidence in it and with the source and method behind it. I am very selective in what I read, what I research, and what I expend effort on. I am efficient. Sometimes the comments and feedback on something I have written or said or something I have heard may cause my written words to be modified or my world view or opinions changed somewhat.

I would encourage everyone to examine what they think they know, and trace back the chain all the way down to see what the basis for their confidence in that knowledge is.

Now I will drill down from the broad statements above.

A religious figure performed a miracle. People witnessed it. Let us assume for the time being that experts verified that it really took place and is not a trick. You know of no solidly founded method to explain it. What do you do?

You don’t dismiss it because there is evidence to the contrary. You say the truth. You don’t have an explanation.

There are tons of things for which people don’t have explanations. Do you expend the time and energy to dig deeply into everyone? Why would you pick one to dig into and not another? The only efficient approach is to say, “I don’t know” and be perfectly content with that.

If however, you and/or others choose to seek out an explanation for the unknown, then theories are floated, possibilities are examined, logic tools like process of elimination, occums razor and reductio ad absurdum are used, etc. This is the normal creative process and how new discoveries are found, or new things are invented. However, hopefully there is a rigorous process like the scientific method before wider acceptance. 

I approached Vedanta that my sister is a student of, in the same way. It is nice to understand it. Curious. Vedanta is one of the few spirituality approaches that actually aims for understanding and knowing instead of believing. But there is huge effort to do so.  I don’t understand and know but others do, and I am happy for them and admire them. But what do I say about it? “I don’t know”.

Let us take another example. Multiverse and what was before the big bang and what is beyond the observable universe has a different answer. It is unknowable. No current method can give you an answer. However new science, if it emerges, could make it knowable. 

I am curious about a lot of things. I have time to look at only a few and that too not too deeply. It takes me more time because I strive for accuracy. One I was curious about was spirituality. 

In my spirituality essay, I examined strictly using science and logic what evidence there is or can be deduced that God exists or god’s nature. I wrote up what I uncovered and got some useful understandings. That is the end of the journey. I can go no further with the methods I use. So, I remain agnostic. I don’t know.

Here is that essay: https://jaykasi.blogspot.com/2023/11/wrapping-up-spirituality-probe.html

Religion, like any other domain of knowledge, must be evaluated using the same principles of source and method. Spirituality asks metaphysical questions; religion provides structured answers based on specific sources and traditions.

My view of religion differs from most. I have already said “I don’t know” about God. Others believe they do, but that confidence usually comes from relying on different sources and methods than I do — for example, Hindus rely on the Vedas and Upanishads as authoritative.

A shared, objective truth between two people is only possible when they use the same sources and the same methods of evaluation. If the sources and methods differ, the conclusions will naturally diverge.

From this perspective, it may not matter whether any religion is the objective “truth.” What matters is the value it provides to its followers, and the impact those followers have on society, both positive and negative.

Using this logic, people should feel free to choose whatever religion works for them. It is for their benefit. It is the truth they have arrived at using their chosen sources and methods.

I wrote blogs on all religions. But I focused on the core facts about the belief, traced its evolution over time and its impact on society. I treated the subject with the utmost respect. Religion is important to its believers. 

In all domains — science, politics, spirituality, or religion — the only efficient and honest approach is to trace every belief back to its sources and methods, and to accept the limits of what can be known.

Want to Read on?

Go to Main Hub