FD: The problem with this is that we all know bees exist.
There is no conflict with an allegory that, for purposes of a thought exercise, presume aspects of a world that does exist and aspects that do not. Let me apply your logic to the Allegory of the Cave, and we'll see whether you attack Plato with equal fervor. Please note whether I stray from your imposed rule that allegories must be free of things everyone knows in order to be free of bias.
Imagine prisoners who have been chained since childhood deep inside a cave. Not only are their limbs immobilized by the chains; their heads are chained as well so that their eyes are fixed on a wall.
Is this real? Or is it an assumption for the purposes of a thought exercise? Was Plato stupid compared to you and Terry? Let's find out.
Suppose a prisoner is released and compelled to stand up and turn around.
What MALARKEY! Everyone knows that muscles atrophy when constrained for long periods of time. "Their limbs were immobilized" since childhood and we are supposed to believe that one of them stood up and turned around? Who the heck wrote this tripe?
Do you get the point? If you have even average intellect, you are capable of imagining a different world than that which exists. The point of my allegory is not to prove that imaginary things exist, although each of you braniacs seems intent on shifting the intent to that end.
The POINT is that one person can have factually accurate knowledge not possessed by others and not demonstrably provable.
If you don't like that allegory, try this parable on for size:
Two friends are riding along in a car in the rural outskirts of a small town they've never been to before. They go through an intersection. The passenger says to the driver, "You just blew through that stop sign like it wasn't even there!" The driver responds, "What stop sign?" Now, obviously, there either was or was not a stop sign at that intersection.
Two weeks later, these friends are driving through the same town again and come to the same intersection. There is no stop sign. The driver feels validated, but the passenger asks the driver to stop. He carefully examines the ground where he had seen the stop sign and sees that it has been recently disturbed. "I swear there was a stop sign right here!" The driver laughs and says he knows how to settle it. They visit the county courthouse to check whether the county recently removed any stop signs at any intersections out that way in the past two weeks. They are assured that no one had removed any stop signs recently. The driver has a good laugh at his friend's expense.
About a month later, the former passenger is driving into the same town alone. He approaches the same intersection and there is now a blinking stop light at the intersection. He pulls into the nearest gasoline station, feeling confused, and asks the attendant whether there used to be a stop sign at that intersection. The attendant grins toothlessly and nods. "Yep. Keep it between us—and I'll deny I ever told you this—that sign's well hidden right now. Too many people been having accidents at that intersection and county hall was dragging its feet on it. So I dug up the sign to force 'em to do somethin' about it."
When he told his friend about it, his friend didn't believe him. The county officials would rather not know about it, it is embarrassing that a citizen thought taking the law into their own hands was the only way to protect the public's safety. The attendant obviously won't confirm it to a witness because it was illegal, even though he conscientiously deemed it necessary.
Did the passenger possess knowledge his friend did not have? Was it factual knowledge? Could he prove it? This is the entire crux, from beginning to end, of my point in the other analogy. If you stretch it further you are going beyond my intent. Since most seem determined to stretch the analogy further, I hope this one can be kept in the scope of its presentation.
Is it possible to have factually accurate knowledge that is not available to everyone and that cannot be demonstrably proven to anyone, or is Terry right?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
