I KNOW I have a ticket to the concert

There are two distinctly different core assumptions about knowledge and truth. One possibility is that information I have about an object is not knowledge about the object unless the knowledge is valid and represents what is true about the object. The second option is that the object itself is true or not regardless of the knowledge (amount and "validity") I have about the object. You may think at first glance that this distinction is trivial and not worth much thought. YET, the impact of which of the two core assumptions you embrace has a profound impact on how you think, feel and act. It is a core assumption that comes b4Worldview. It is why I have spent so much time thinking and blogging about this topic.

The first option is held by most mainstream philosophers. The focus for this core assumption is on the validity of the "argument" about the object. Truth about an object is dependent on how smart or capable the arguer is in convincing others the knowledge as true. While inference is necessary for all judgments about an object, there is no single judge for what makes one inference better than another. So two arguers often disagree on whether the knowledge is valid or not. This forms the basis for relativism and practical decision making. Any argument about he truth of an object is limited to a finite set of observable evidence. While abstract or non-material evidence is sometimes acknowledged and found interesting, anyone who must rely on or trust unobservable evidence (faith) is considered ignorant and weak by others with this core assumption of knowledge and truth.

The second core assumption option is held by anyone who believes foremost that all objects have an originator, someone who designed and built the object. Truth then is established as a set of attributes of the object by the one who is the authority of the object,  In other words, there is an authority that is responsible for the object's existence. For us to know what is true about the object involves inference, but the inference is focused on evidence that the originator is trustworthy.  This requires examining both physical and relational (faith) evidence to reach the conclusion that we know the originator of the object well enough to trust the knowledge about the object we are given. The knowledge of the originator trumps the knowledge about the object as the basis for truth about the object.

Let's look at an example from each core assumption.

Suppose we obtain a ticket to a concert. In the first option for core assumption, we do not know we have a ticket to the concert unless or until we validate it is not a false ticket. We certainly look at the physical evidence, such as does it show the right date, ticket price, venue of the concert. This tells us we didn't make a mistake and purchase the wrong ticket. BUT, is it a fake or counterfeit ticket. What physical evidence do we have? If we bought it from what we believe to be a legitimate ticket agent, then we may believe that it is not a fake. Therefore, we in fact DO have knowledge that we have a ticket to the concert. Notice our inference focuses on attributes of the ticket, but includes more then physical evidence. We must also trust that the ticket agent is trustworthy. So, while those who have this core assumption may "feel like" faith is not part of their inference, relational evidence is just as important as the physical evidence of the ticket in trusting the ticket is true. However, we still could get to the concert and find that it is a counterfeit and not be allowed in. There is always risk that our knowledge is not true  regardless of how valid our inference is that the knowledge is true.

In the second option for core assumption we should validate the physical evidence as a minimum to make sure we did not make a mistake. However, getting to know the originator of the ticket, not who gave it to us or who we bought it from, is what establishes the evidence that the ticket is not a counterfeit. The ticket is either authentic and a true ticket to the concert or it is not. Only the originator of the ticket knows for sure. So our trust in the validity of the ticket may depend on the knowledge we have inferred about the ticket. However, the truth about the ticket does not depend on our knowledge, but the attributes of the ticket as determined by its creator.

Why does it matter which core assumption you have about knowledge and truth?

The danger or risk in option one is that we can easily confuse the relationship between knowledge and truth. If we think information is not knowledge unless it passes a "test" made by an observer of the object, then we eventually reverse the order of what influences what. Instead knowledge being tested against truth, we tend to believe that truth about an object is the knowledge that the observer has inferred about the object. This is the source of relative truth, which is subject to all the flaws of human bias and bounded rationality that encapsulates human inference.

The danger or risk of option two core assumption is that we trust an originator that is not trustworthy. Resolving the trustworthiness of someone is a very different heuristic than resolving the trustworthiness of our own rational argument - where we honor physical evidence and discount faith. Knowing evidence about the originator relies heavily on relational evidence that is not physical in nature, such as love, character, and testimonies of others. Inference is required, but the evidence we trust is very different. Thus, we can have knowledge of an object that is not true, but the object is still true. Our rational process is one in which we seek a relationship with the originator and rely on what he/she says about the object as our basis for truth. This is what absolute truth means.

Do you find it interesting that it is easy for people to accept the assumption that every material, visible object has an originator who knows the most about the object's true attributes, but struggle to accept the assumption that every abstract or non-material object does also? 

If you would like to move to the second option for core assumptions about knowledge and truth, try this - when you are faced with what is true about an object - so your thoughts, feelings and actions align with truth - ask this, "who is the originator of the object?" Pondering the question may offer you insights you have never had.

One interesting issue arises in this discussion that is worth noting. Some people "know in their heart" that truth must be absolute and not dependent on observers arguments about an object. However, they can struggle with knowing who the originator is and knowing him/her well enough to trust them. So, in these cases people want to know and find what is true about an argument without trusting themselves, but they are swayed by an appeal of core assumption option one where faith is equated with ignorance and weakness. This tension leaves them with dissonance in what they feel and what they think.

The core assumption each of us believe is both beneath a lot of our consciousness and a vital contributor to success in life. This is one of the most fascinating aspect of humanity that any of us could ever examine and probe. It is not TRIVIAL and is worth pondering .....