Logic vs language.

[erislover]

So from your perspective, what is the difference between “learning” and “acquiring knowledge”?

The declaration of knowledge. I can learn false things just as well as true ones.

Knowledge, in the sense of natural language, is the simultanous formation of a set of symbols that have useful correlation with some shared external reality, or at least some predictably recurring perception of an external reality, and of the rules/tools by which and in which those symbols function.
…
Do you accept my proffered definition of knowledge in the context of natural language and, if so, do you see it as having applicability to other forms of knowledge?

It is a fine informal architecture. But you’ve got a lot of terms there that need clarifying to actually be applied. This is where your—distaste?—for clarity and formality will come back in play no matter how much you’d like to avoid it.

It reduces the significance of your so-called God Postulate.

Nah. It just pretends it doesn’t have to be there until you try and actually make a large theory that details what knowledge is, says if there are different types, and how we go about learning it, and if any differences exist between learning false things versus learning true ones, and when we can decide on whether something can be considered false or true (or, if you prefer, what level of confidence we ascribe to the proposition), and, in short, all the stuff you wanted to avoid.

[TVAA]

Here’s a very basic and deceptively simple question: How is the concept of truth related to the concept of knowledge?

[DSeid]

Not all that basic, methinks.

Depends.

Within a particular logic system truth can be defined and knowledge can be defined as awareness of that truth.

Outside of such systems, and their initial definitions, truth is more ephemeral. Most of us accept that there is some “truth”, some external reality that exists independent of our perceptions, but we really have only our perceptions of that reality to go on. So knowledge, as I already offered up, is the creation of the symbols and the systems that correlate with some predictably recurring perceptions of the truth … it may not be truth itself, but our perceptions are our best possible surrogate for the actual reality. Part of forming knowledge is the attempt to get closer to truth (by extending our perceptual ability with tools and measurement, for example, and by forming better metaphors, for another) with varying degrees of confidence.

[Liberal]

Nicely said, DSeid.

[Iamthat]

For all we know our perceptions are the reality and , in day to day life, they are. Whatever reality we imagine they are the reflection of is also part of our perceived reality, and therefore knowledge acquired through perceptions may have nothing to do with the truth ( if truth is transcendent)

We don’t know what >>perceptions<< mirror, if anything, so a better metaphor may takes us further away from any truth. Knowledge may be the antithesis of truth, since we don’t know what truth is.