Knowing

To run by again the old argument, how do we know what?

Most of the time we base our knowing on empirical evidence or encounter. If it is detectable to our senses and brain, then it must be credible.

Not so fast. One, our senses that feed our brain, it has been established thousands of years ago, do not record everything that is part of the world of experience. They are stimulated by whatever contact happens to be in tune with their receptor, and if it is not, then it will go likely unnoticed by our conscious. Our bodies do not detect everything that is detectable, we see know that we cannot see the x-ray realm, nor the infrared, etc. So empiricism does not guarantee we will feel we encounter every thing. And many of what we say we encounter is itself additionally made of many components we don't perceive. So we project assumed knowing on an unsecured object into our cache in the brain and try to rely on that.

A common example-a "ball". We see something rounded, spherical and closed curvature and we say we know it is a ball by those encountered characteristics. No doubt, we think, we know it is a ball. Are we so confident we thoroughly know the ball? We assume the exterior character is sufficient. But is it and is it thorough knowledge? In other words, the object is not complete. While viewing the object, can one describe it thoroughly by describing what is the inside composition and how it is arranged while viewing it from the outside? So it turns out that it is not well known, nor are girders, bricks, etc. Hence the theory is not totally reliable. If empirical knowledge were totally reliable, then we would know every thing by now with the aid of the technology added for input.