Rafael Correa dice que el supuesto video de las FARC es parte de una campaña desestabilizadora

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 20, 2009, 15:59:

capt_j says on Jul 20, 2009, 22:53:

Standard communist answer to any negative information or criticism, "It's all a sinister plot, to slander and destroy our beautiful peoples' revolution." Puke.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dolfi says on Jul 21, 2009, 01:25:

There is enough reason to mistrust this video whichcomes so convenient to Uribe and his american allies.

"Poco después de la aparición del vídeo, y mucho antes de la intervención del fiscal general colombiano, intervino en los medios el embajador de EEUU en Colombia, Wiliam Brownfield, destacando el valor del documento (que previamente había filtrado su embajada según todas las opiniones periodísticas) para que la opinión internacional valorara la maldad del presidente Correa, que 48 horas antes había hecho desmantelar la base de Manta en territorio ecuatoriano: la instalación militar estadounidense más importante en América Latina. ¿Por qué se mantuvo en secreto el video del Mono Jojoy y se esperó para difundirlo al día siguiente del intenso debate nacional e internacional que provocó el acuerdo Colombia-Estados Unidos para la instalación de cinco bases para sustituir a Manta? Un día después de que fuentes republicanas filtraran un documento declarando a Venezuela un Estado narcoterrorista.

Examinando el video de Jojoy se ve de entrada una sombra sobre su rostro mientras desgrana las ayudas a Correa, que impide ver el movimiento de sus labios . Es imposible no asociar el hecho a las circunstancias que rodearon a la Operación Jaque, en la que, con la participación de los medios técnicos estadounidenses, se liberó a un grupo importante de secuestrados en poder de las FARC, entre los que se incluía la ex candidata presidencial Ingrid Betancourt.

La inmersión en el sistema de comunicaciones de la guerrilla, logrado mediante la imitación de las voces de Jojoy y hasta las del propio jefe Alfonso Cano, logró confundir al grupo de guerrilleros que tenía los rehenes en su poder para que los trasladara hasta el lugar en donde esperaban los helicópteros de la Fuerza Aérea Colombiana, camuflados con insignias de la Cruz Roja."

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=88918

1 funny, 0 helpful.

JGD (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 21, 2009, 03:54:

pobrecito says on Jul 21, 2009, 03:59:

Only jorgediaz can trust a so manipulated video.
Or, if the video was true, only jorgegdiaz could trust Jojoy.
Jorgegdiaz must be FARC.

No mas Tasco66 !

1 funny, 0 helpful.

JGD (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 21, 2009, 04:10:

pobrecito says on Jul 21, 2009, 04:26:

jojoyrgegdiaz

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 21, 2009, 05:01:

Too funny to watch poor old dolfi and pobrecito desperately trying to save their sinking ship Correa...jajajajajaja Just made my day!

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 1 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 21, 2009, 05:31:

Pobre, why would the Farc want to destabilize their friend Correa? jajajajaja

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 1 helpful.

JGD (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 21, 2009, 07:43:

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 21, 2009, 07:53:

pobrecito says on Jul 21, 2009, 09:10:

1) The only evidence is that you are blindly uribist with dark glasses.

2) The pathetic one is your inability to consider other points of view than yours, in the same time you say that intelligent persons must consider all sides of an issue, what you never do.

3) If you consider yourself as intelligent, I am God the Father.

4) It is an honour for me to be in the same bag as Dolfi. It is better than to be in the same bag as tasco66, billyb and yourself.

No mas Tasco66 !

3 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 21, 2009, 09:17:

tasco66 says on Jul 21, 2009, 09:20:

"It is an honour for me to be in the same bag as Dolfi."

Just threw that bag in the garbage where it belongs…

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 1 helpful.

pobrecito says on Jul 21, 2009, 13:45:

No do not throw me in tasco !

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dolfi says on Jul 22, 2009, 00:56:

Tasco, do you really think anybody in the world takes people like you serious any more? Your country is bancrupt, you have a proven record of supporting fascist dictators in Lartinamerica for more than 50 years, and the continent is organizing itself independent from US imperialist interests. You' re a loser, face it.

2 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 22, 2009, 03:02:

dolfi
selforgaization like Venezuela no thanks. 20% of the violent acts were done by police officers, what´s the diference to falsos positivos? Nothing dead is dead. And Uribe is much better than Chavez.
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/06/02/pol_ava_el-aissami:-20-de-l_02A2...

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Zenda says on Jul 22, 2009, 12:29:

SO FARC supposedly gave money to Correas 2006 election campaign and now Correa supports FARC is meant to be the logical conclusion? wouldnt it be that FARC supported Correa?
some points -
1. the video could be faked or doctored, not unusual in the propaganda war going on here. Same with the supposed laptop documents found. Hardly could call Interpol a neutral witness here.
2. FARC could have provided funding anomonously. FARC may have decided that they would rather have a left government under Correa as a neighbour, rather than Alvaro Noboa in Power who was the biggest opposition to Correa (and who happens the richest man in Ecuador). Now this makes sense as well, just look at US funding of tyrannical regimes - they choose who is most beneficial to their interest, not that they fully support them (Sadam before the gulf war, the contras in Nic etc etc). It is quite possible that Correa or his govenrment members were not aware.
3. The money could have been taken by a fake represent of Correa´s goverment, - hey I represent Correa, give me cash - that would have been a cool scam.
4. Who knows what goes on on the Ecuadors border regions with Colombia, Ecuador doesnt have to worry about FARC incursions on its territory but paramilitary as well. Not so long ago Aguila Negra(?) entered an Ecuadorian border town armed and kdnapped someone. I wonder what sorts of agreements and trade offs go on between the gov, guerillas, paras and narcs to keep Ecuador out of the conflict.

Some things dont make sense here given that the Ecuadorian supposedly destroyed 180 FARC camps on its territory during the same year and that Ecuador spends alot of money and effort patrolling its border. It is interesting to note though that while Ecuador routine destroys FARC camps I dont remember hearing about any guerillas or paras captured or killed. But It doesnt seem likely to me the gov of Correa supports FARC, but time will tell as more info comes out here.

What I do know, living here in Ecuador and studying the different media articles against and for Correa, is there has been alot of propaganda going on to discredit Correa. For example, that was gonna drop the dollar for a new Ecuadorian currency (didn´t happen and probably will not in the near future), that the new constitution adopted by Ecuador (which has novel things like stating the right of nature to exist) supported abortion (which put the church against it - surprisingly enough not enough to get the people to vote against it) and lots of general articles which portray Correa another crazy dictator. When in fact Correa is very intelligent, a US and Belgium educated Economist, and an academic (former University professor).

Most of the propaganda coming out against Ecuador has been instigated by large multinationals and the upper classes in Ecuador. Opinion articles in Newspapers that champion the cause of the poor such as Washington Post and Wall Street Journal also surprisingly enough tend to attack Correa, or question the audacity of the poor campesinos affected by Toxic oil waste to sue Chevron.

Of course if Correa did knowingly take money from FARC it seriously undermines the legitimacy of his government. Just like any other government that, for its own interests (or the interests of it influential large corporations), supports another countrys gov, regime or group that oppresses its own people. That makes me think of one now, gee which could it be?

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 22, 2009, 16:07:

Zenda says on Jul 22, 2009, 18:13:

Yes thats possible, and like I said who knows what sort of agreements are made on the frontera to keep some sort of peace. But if the Ecuadorian military that patrol the border deliberately avoid contact with FARC within Ecuadorian territory I would think that this would easily be leaked and got public considering the amount of Soldiers there.

The negative attitude of Correa is not towards Colombia, they are considered brother countries by most of the people, but there is an obvious ideological conflict with Uribe. Also after Colombia decides to use its military to enter a sovereign nation and bomb part of Ecuadors territory it could be considered an act of warfare.

Correa is also suspicious of American intelligence infiltrating the Ecuadorian military and police. The most recent example when the US diplomat was kicked out. Ecuador decided to pick the Head of an Ecuadorian special police intelligence unit because in the past the embassy provided equipment in exchange for deciding who would be appointed, the Ecuadorian government was told by the embassy that if they didnt allow the embassy to pick the chief they would take back the equipment.

Obviously, the rise of popular socialist governments and movements in Latin America has always been seen as a threat to US and other multinational business interests. At least in the past it has been well documented the ways the US government has funded and supported the opposition and tried to undermine those against "their interests" thorughout latin America. So who knows to extent the effort to undermine the current Ecuadorian government. I wouldn´t discount the fabrication of this sort evidence either. Given the incredible amount of funding by the US to Colombia under the guise of the heavily criticised "plan colombia" who knows what sort of propaganda and intelligence tools Colombia has at its disposal to discredit Ecuadors government.

In any case, their needs to be further investigation to find out the truth of the matter.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 23, 2009, 12:26:

zenda thanks for the balanced and thorough approach. It's good to see some intelligent posts once in a while.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 23, 2009, 13:49:

pobrecito says on Jul 23, 2009, 14:32:

And makopp5 is balanced between Uribe and Jojoy ...

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 23, 2009, 14:34:

pobrecito says on Jul 23, 2009, 14:36:

You speak for yourself ?

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 23, 2009, 14:39:

pobrecito says on Jul 23, 2009, 14:45:

Amen !

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Zenda says on Jul 23, 2009, 17:37:

Makopp5 "The camps everytime were empty. Couldn´t it be that the Farc was reciving a call before the military came and they leave. All this sounds very eay and logical with the ideas from Chavez Correa and Farc. So why doubt?"
well I researched the news a little and found that since Correa has been president there has been FARC members captured by Ecuadorian military at least on these occasions.
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/20/eng20060220_244222.html
http://terranoticias.terra.es/nacional/articulo/ecuador_colombia_farc_...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7282723.stm
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/3178-ecuador-arrests-sus...
- Correa has been accused of receiving funds from FARC before, Alvaro Noboa, main opposition for president accused back in 2006 during the campaign, but did not provide the evidence: http://noticias.terra.com/articulo/html/act640248.htm
- Gutierrez, former Ecuadorian president has called for Correa to be arrested, but Gutierrez himself was accused of meeting with FARC and actually confirmed y captured FARC leader,
http://terranoticias.terra.es/internacional/articulo/farc_gutierrez_li...
Gutierrez was accused of breaking an "agreement" with FARC.
Definitely border military presence has been boosted under Correa, Ecuador supposedly has 7000 troops stationed along the border, Colombia has only 3000, despite receiving $500 in US military aid a year a having 400,000 in its armed forces. It supposedly costs Ecuador $100 million a year. There are also 135000 Colombian refugees fleeing the conflict Ecuador needs to deal with.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=337961&CategoryId=14089
I was wondering for what reason would Correa support FARC when the conflict is so costly to Ecuador?

0 funny, 1 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 23, 2009, 18:57:

billyb says on Jul 23, 2009, 19:20:

Correa was more offended that Colombia took out the terrorists on his territory than the fact that those terrorists had a permanent headquarters on his territory and moved around northern Ecuador like Pedro en su casa.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

pobrecito says on Jul 24, 2009, 15:25:

Amen ! Uribe has talked !

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 24, 2009, 15:40:

That's right, so you better listen mugrecito.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 24, 2009, 15:40:

pobrecito says on Jul 24, 2009, 15:44:

It is not because the majority is stupid that the minority must shut up .

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 24, 2009, 15:45:

Just the stupid minority, which you so well represent.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 24, 2009, 15:54:

romy says on Jul 24, 2009, 16:00:

leave it to Uribistas to bash democracies

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 24, 2009, 16:03:

pobrecito says on Jul 24, 2009, 17:18:

your democracy is for narcos and paracos

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 24, 2009, 17:19:

And romy, do you also think Cuba is a democracy? After all, they do have elections and your pal Castro does win them with a 99% majority (most impressive, considering half the people want to leave the island), and one doesn't necessarily have to be a complete fool to believe it is a democracy........

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 24, 2009, 17:21:

pobrecito says on Jul 24, 2009, 17:24:

Blablabla = makopp5

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pobrecito says on Jul 24, 2009, 17:25:

Cuba is more a democracy than Colombia.

No mas Tasco66 !

2 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 24, 2009, 17:28:

"Cuba is more a democracy than Colombia."

mugrecito, I said one doesn't have to be a complete fool to believe that, but it sure does help. Why do you insist on proving what an imbecile you are, over and over and over? You even make fellow left wingers, (that are not morons), like romy blanch at such an idiotic comment. You are the best argument anybody could make against you, please keep it up.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 24, 2009, 18:00:

billyb: Cuba wasn't mentioned...
makopp: I don't believe Venezuela has experienced Parapolitica, Yidispolitica, Farcpolitica, etc.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 24, 2009, 18:20:

romy
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/06/02/pol_ava_el-aissami:-20-de-l_02A2...
read this and we calculate how many pepole were killed by venezuelan policeofficers or state employees.
Venezuela is on of the most corrupt states much more than colombia

0 funny, 1 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 24, 2009, 23:07:

pobrecito says on Jul 25, 2009, 01:08:

No stupid but manipulated like the Germans with Hitler.

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 25, 2009, 01:32:

"billyb: Cuba wasn't mentioned..."

Yes romy, but i would still like to hear your opinion on whether Cuba is a true democracy, that shouldn't be so hard to answer. A yes or no would suffice.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 25, 2009, 01:43:

"makopp: I don't believe Venezuela has experienced Parapolitica, Yidispolitica, Farcpolitica, etc."

But do you deny that it has shut down, or is in the process of doing so, the free press and is arresting and/or accusing of false charges all opposition politicians? I really hope that you are not that dogmatic to believe that Chavez really believes in true democracy. Romy don't devalue your intellectual integrity. We won't even mention that Chavez led a failed armed coup against the democratically elected government of Venezuela because we know you deny deny that, do you?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Jul 25, 2009, 13:37:

I'm not even sure why you're asking me pointless questions. No, I don't think Cuba is a true democracy. And I don't follow Venezuelan politics. What I know is that Chavez was elected and nobody needed to be bribed or extorted to do so. also, I've read stuff on the limiting of freedom of the press that has been happening so no surprises there. Remember I've told you before that I rate Chavez very lowly, just above Uribe and Cano.
I guess you bought into 'there are no stupid questions'...

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 25, 2009, 13:42:

No stupid questions, just , sometimes, stupid answers.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pobrecito says on Jul 25, 2009, 14:15:

Stupid . Simply.

No mas Tasco66 !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 25, 2009, 14:20:

manINred says on Jul 25, 2009, 15:04:

Correa's hypothesis could be correct; it is not so far-fetched that an incriminating video could be created to destabilize his regime, especially given the extent to which Latin American regimes have been destabilized in the past. That being said, the alternative is also plausible.

Correa is very wishy washy. Does anyone remember after the border rucus that saw a huge blow to the FARC delivered by Colombian military breaching Ecaudorian sovereignty? Correa congratulated Uribe, and then, after Chavez's ignorant and paranoid attack on Uribe, switched his tune.

Ecuadorians have suffered enough under inept crackhead presidents over the past decade, and the jury is still out on Correa, but I hope they are not SOL yet again.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 25, 2009, 21:44:

"What I know is that Chavez was elected and nobody needed to be bribed or extorted to do so. "

And do you really know this? How do you know this? You are sure of this, but you don't follow Venezuelan politics? Kind of contradictory, no? And are you really that naive to believe this?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 26, 2009, 11:34:

Yes that is what I know, perhaps you can prove me wrong and then I'll know better. I can't possibly know what you know without you telling me, now can I? I guess I know because from I have read there has not been alterior evidence. I'm not sure of it as I have no primary sources in Venezuela. It's not contradictory to have knowledge of a situation without knowing everything there is to know about it. I don't believe I'm naiive, serious people have never called me naiive, whatever that's good for.
But again it's silliness that you have me deal with... I'm not sure what is so confusing that you ask me more stupid questions

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 26, 2009, 15:20:

So tell us how you know for sure that there were no bribes or extortion involved in Chaves elections? You seem to be the only one to believe that, oh yes and your little buddy mugrecito.

"I don't believe I'm naiive,:

You may not believe, but anybody giving a cursory look at your comments would know it.



"Yes that is what I know" and "I'm not sure of it as I have no primary sources in Venezuela"

You contradict yourself again in the same paragraph, do you drink too much when you are posting, or just have a hard time keeping up with the crap you make up?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Jul 26, 2009, 15:33:

I'm sorry I have no time to explain to you that knowledge is not absolute. But when you catch up academically perhaps we can have a discussion.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

makopp5 (☼Travelguide writer) says on Jul 26, 2009, 15:38:

billyb says on Jul 26, 2009, 16:08:

"I'm sorry I have no time to explain to you that knowledge is not absolute"

You either know something or you don't, I am sure that fine institution where you are studying would be happy to teach you the difference between actually knowing something to be true and fervently wishing it were so.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Jul 26, 2009, 17:55:

BB you are struggling like a fish out of water. I'll find you something to munch on don't worry, I won't let you down.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 26, 2009, 17:58:

A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition
P Compton, R Jansen - Knowledge acquisition, 1990

A philosophy of knowledge
This maintenance experience suggests that knowledge is not sometimes, but always given in
context and so can only be relied on to be true in that context. The best philosophical
foundation for this seems to be the philosophy of Karl Popper (Popper 1963). Popper
suggests that we can never prove a hypothesis, we can only disprove hypotheses. Obviously
we cannot disprove all alternate hypotheses, we may not even be able to formulate all the
alternatives. What we can only do is to disprove the limited number of likely alternatives.
We suggest that this explains the phenomenon in knowledge aquisition that knowledge, the
rules for reaching some conclusion, always seem to be context dependant. What the expert is
doing is identifying features in the data that enable one to conclude that a certain interpretation
is preferable to the small set of other likely interpretations, and of course the likely
alternatives depend on the context. This is quite different from reporting on how one reached
a given conclusion. These are not novel suggestions. It is well established in medicine for
example, that clinicians use hypothetico deductive methods, that they attempt to distinguish
between a small set of hypotheses (Griner 81). In earlier studies we have suggested that it is
precisely the hypothetico deductive approach which allows clinicians to deal with the errors
that occur in laboratory data. (Compton et al 86)
We would suggest that the knowledge that experts provide is essentially a justification of why
they are right, not the reasons they reached this right conclusion. This phenomenon is
familiar also in arguments. Arguments are always about showing how we are correct in
terms that will convince the other person. No one is ever wrong but the context in which one
is right changes during the argument! Similarly when an expert is explaining something, his
explanation varies depending on whether he is explaining it to a layperson, a novice or a peer.
If the expert was explaining, giving the "real" reasons, rather than justifying, they would
provide the most detail to the layperson, who knows nothing about the area and the least to a
peer, who knows a lot about the area. In fact the reverse happens, the layperson gets the
most superficial explanation, because generally it requires very little to justify that the expert's
hypothesis is better than the naive hypotheses of the lay person, while the fellow expert,
precisely because he is an expert, will require more rigor in the justification. It has been easy
to witness this phenomenon with GARVAN-ES1. If the knowledge engineer takes a difficult
case to two experts independently, he will get two fairly simple, but sometimes slightly
different rules, although each will apparently peform equally well in the expert system. If the
knowledge engineer then brings the experts together and asks which rule is right, a very
complex discussion is liable to ensue, as the experts (politely) attempt to prove to each other
that their rule is better, normally resolving the question, by agreeing that their rules apply in
different contexts and are complementary..
It seems to us that the proposition that the knowledge we communicate is a justification in a
context, not how we reached our conclusion, is universally true of all knowledge. Popper,
although his ideas are mainly applied to scientific knowledge, applied them to all knowledge
(Popper 1963). A baby makes hypotheses about the world, which are then tested against
experience and new hypotheses constructed, or the old ones modified, if the hypotheses are
seen to fail. This would seem to fit closely with Piaget's observations of development in
early childhood. (Piaget 1929 ). There have of course been additions to Popper's
falsification hypothesis. Kuhn has drawn attention to paradigm shifts in science, where
investigation shifts to new types of hypotheses for other reasons than the falsification of
earlier hypotheses.(Kuhn 1962) Lakatos (1978) points out how falsification of hypotheses
may result in riders being added to allow the major hypothesis to continue, although it
becomes very unwieldy. An example would be Ptolemy's addition of epicycles, when it was
found that planetary orbits were not circular, in order to maintain the primacy of circular
motion. These developments do not disagree with the essential proposition of interest here,
that the knowledge we communicate to each other is a justification of a judgement expressed
in a specific context. They will be considered briefly later.
This viewpoint has a number of consequences. If all knowledge is only true in a context,
then all knowledge is relative, it only exists in relation to other knowledge, there is no
absolute underlying knowledge on which the rest of knowledge is built. We can note that AI
does attempt to deal with the problems that flow from this. For example circumscription
(McCarthy 1980) is an attempt to deal with the exceptions to commonsense beliefs, that
always occur, but they are still seen as only exceptions, rather than as indicators of the
fundamental relativity of all knowledge.
How then can knowledge be in any sense true, our original question? Before attempting to
answer this we must consider the most common response to such suggestions; that is, that
underlying primitive knowledge is made up from sense data. On the contrary, it is clear that
what we perceive depends on the context in which the perception takes place. There are well
known examples such as when one wears glasses which invert the view seen. After a while
the inversion is corrected and the world is seen the right way up (Stratton 1897). A small
model of a distorted trapezoidal shaped room can be built, but with viewing apertures with
the appropriate prisms so that the room appears of appropriate proportions when viewed
through the prisms; the model table, windows doors etc all have their distortion corrected. If
one is asked to touch various parts of the model with a stick poked in from above, it is
difficult because one has a misleading view of the room. If one perseveres and learns to
touch the different objects easily, the true distorted shape of the room is seen although one is
still looking through the correcting prism.(Ames 1951, described by Bateson 1979) Clearly
one's expectation determines what one sees, i.e one's intellectual context determines the socalled
prime data of sense. "The Logic of Perception" by Lock (1980) is entirely devoted to
demonstrating in a formal way that the mind determines what one is able to perceive. Colour
perception provides another interesting example of the same phenomenon. There are a
number of tribal groups throughout the world who perceive fewer colours than Western man
(Treitel 1984). This is not due to any impairment of visual apparatus; Taylor (1984) records
how as a chemistry teacher in Nigeria, he found it very difficult to teach the use of litmus
paper, because students, saw red and blue litmus paper as the same colours. However after
much practise, they were able to distinguish the two, that is they were able to see red and blue
as different colours. McLuhan and Parker(1969) note that perspective, the vanishing
viewpoint, was introduced into art at a specific stage of history. Art prior to this time showed
great technical skill but no perspective. There was then a sudden change to use of
perspective. Since the artists surely had the ability to paint perspective, but didn't, perhaps
they didn't see things in perspective till perspective was discovered or created. In fact,
McLuhan and Parker's comments are much stronger and they would argue that there has been
a continuing change in our perception of space and time.
Sense data then cannot be viewed as providing the primitives out of which other knowledge
is built, because the sense data available to us is determined by our mind, by the knowledge
we have and the context that this provides for perception. It is possible to argue that the
chemical changes resulting from perception may be accumulated and recorded below
consciousness. Such data may exist but is clearly irrelevant if we are seeking for the expert's
knowledge, that is what the expert is conscious of and can reason about. We can also note
that an appeal to chemical storage of information as providing the primitives of knowledge is
contradictory in that it is based on ideas of chemical storage, which is itself part of
knowledge.
Although we have not used their arguments to support our position we can also note the
similarity of this viewpoint to some of modern physics, where the world that is discovered
through experiment, is determined by the knowledge we already have. The concrete realness
of space and time that common sense suggests, are our creation to express our experience,
rather than some absolute of reality in itself. (d'Espagnat 1983 for a restrained exposition of
these ideas).
The picture of knowledge that has emerged then is one where knowledge only has meaning in
relation to other knowledge. Any set of apparent primitives that one may find only have their
meaning in relation to other knowledge. It is interesting to note that the new knowledge
elicitation techniques, based on psychological rather than philosphical theory, treat
knowledge in this way and attempt to explore knowledge in terms of relationships. But we
are not back to a version of the physical symbol hypothesis whereby the set of relationships
of the whole knowledge structure provide the foundation for knowledge. On the contrary our
argument has been that any knowledge structure that is elicited is itself always provided in a
context and cannot be guaranteed not to change when the context changes, and we note again
Shaw's observation of the different knowledge structures experts have of the same reality.
(Shaw 88)
What then is knowledge, how can we communicate knowledge if it is all relative, what can it
mean to judge that something is true? The most satisfactory theory seems to be that of
Lonergan (1959) who in some 900 pages describes the concept of insight, and its role in the
different kinds of knowledge. Essentially the act of insight is our act of recognition that
something does make sense. The physical symbol hypothesis viewpoint sees only
knowledge. Insight is the act whereby we perceive that this knowledge makes sense of
reality, expresses some intelligibility in reality. Lonergan specifically chose the word
'insight' to express, the excitement, the flash of discovery. Archimedes "Eureka!" was
because he discovered a theory that made sense of reality. Once the theory was expressed,
one could examine its logical structure, and express it in terms of a physical symbols,
relations and logic, but first of all a theory had to be created and the soundness of its
semantics as well as its logic recognised in the act of insight. Some of the earlier discussion
may have seemed to align us with Kant, and with his more idealist followers, that knowledge
and sensation are something internal with a tenuous or non-existent connection to reality.
Lonergan's approach is descended from the realism of the Scholastics, a realism divorced
from the essentially naive realism of rationalism. We are directly and ontologically in touch
with reality in insight, but our expression of this is intrinsically different from reality;
knowledge and perception never contain what is known. We never fully grasp and express
and contain in our knowledge the intelligibility of reality, which of course leads back to
Popper's hypothesis. Knowledge never expresses reality but we progress in knowledge,
through disproving hypotheses in the unending search to express insight truly. We use our
knowledge to try and express insight, but it is also part of the insight process, because the
building of the knowledge is part of the process of seeing the intelligibility in reality.
Communication of knowledge can then have a two fold function. We can use it as a
justification, to show that out of the alternative hypotheses, ours is the best. Or we can use it
to try and convey insight, to enable the other person to recognise, even partially and
Compton and Jansen "A philosophical basis for knowledge acquisition" 9/17
differently, the intelligibility we have seen. As we know the worst kind of conversations are
where people are trying to show each other they are right and the best kind are where they are
genuinely trying to see and enable each other to see their respective insights. Insight can of
course often be expressed very badly and rigorous debate, scientific or otherwise, is
necessary to see whether the hypothesis used to express the insight is wrong on some other
ground. This does not mean the insight is wrong, but the expression of the insight is
contradicted by the knowledge which expresses other insights. Even if the way the new
insight is expressed seems perfect, it is by definition an hypothesis to be eventually
supplanted by a "less wrong" or perhaps more interesting hypothesis.
We do then build up a body of knowledge, a knowledge structure. The trouble with this
structure, is that it does not get its value because it is assembled from more primitive, more
true, elements. It get its value because the various hypotheses that express the various
insights don't conflict, they are consistent and coherent. But they are only consistent and
coherent, as far down as they have been checked, and they have only been checked as far as
demanded by the interaction of the various hypotheses, and the insights they express. As
these change and develop the knowledge structure changes. There is no doubt there is a
knowledge structure, but it gets its validity from the consistency and coherence of the
structure, not from the elements that make it up. The structure of course also gets its validity,
from how well it expresses insight and retains contact with insight. If the expressed
knowledge is taken as the truth, disconnected from insight, the body of knowledge rapidly
becomes corrupt. The weird aberrations that arise in philosophies, religions, civilisations if
they lose their grounding insights attest to this phenomenon.
We can also note that insight is not something that happens automatically and uniformly. An
expert can probably be defined as someone whose technical knowledge cannot be faulted and
whose decisions will meet with the approval of his peer group and those who would seek his
opinion. But there are also 'experts' in every discipline who are lateral thinkers, who are able
to propose solutions for completely novel situations. At the other end of the scale are those
who have no insight and attempt to apply textbook reasoning with disasterous results.
Lonergan treats in detail the factors involved in insight.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 26, 2009, 20:31:

I'll be impressed when you actually write something of your own, but in the mean time you'll have to content yourself on copying and pasting other people's thought's. Don't worry though, with some life experience you'll be able come up with some ideas of your own. And then maybe you can defend something you post. Just try not to contradict yourself in the same paragraph.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Jul 27, 2009, 00:42:

It's not my area of expertise so I resorted to the experts on the subject as my one liner was not enough to convince you. I was merely providing you a chance to be educated on a subject that you are lacking in and unfortunately you belittle my efforts. Are you not able to counter the argument? ad hominem is so convenient...

2 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 27, 2009, 06:19:

Romy, the problem is that your only area of expertise is copy and paste.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Jul 27, 2009, 07:42:

That's not the case. I gave you a statement that you didn't believe, so I provided you with the backing evidence from the expert viewpoint. You can then decide if you think you know more on the subject than those guys that are peer reviewed. Don't confuse my involvement in this, I was trying to help.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 27, 2009, 07:51:

Try as you might to squirm out of it romy, the original argument was that you said that you KNEW for a fact that Chavez won the election with out bribes or extortion, then in the same paragraph you said you didn't know for sure, as Venezuela was another subject that wasn't your area of expertise, so I pointed that discrepency out to you and asked how you would know it for a fact then. That is how we got to your 3 mile long copy and paste job, whose whole and only objective was to divert attention from your original statement, which you knew you couldn't defend. Does this sound a little more familiar to you now?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

romy says on Jul 27, 2009, 08:31:

I see where you completely misinterpreted. I did not say I "KNEW for a fact", I just said it's what I knew... I'm sorry your comprehension is not up to par

1 funny, 0 helpful.

Zenda says on Jul 27, 2009, 08:46:

Well anyway back to the original topic... the plot thickens.
On Ecuadorian tv last night broadcasts were paused for a routine propaganda spot for the government. The government dismissed the video as being obviously manipulated and edited, although the copy they were given was supposedly in its original form. The video showed the FARC speaker with a scarf around his neck then suddenly it is not there. Also the video shows his face illuminated at times and then will suddenly be very dark in shadow. They dismissed it as a montage. Supposedly "MonoJojoy" (sounds like a thai hooker lol) was also on the his deathbed the time the video was supposedly made but according to the speech was meant to be in good health.
The Ecuadorian gov also mentioned that the emails supposedly found on Reyes´ laptop did not exist, they were in Word format. They also mention that in the video part of it FARC says how Colombia has fabricated evidence on the computer against countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela, something not shown by the Colombian gov.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/epa/article/ALeqM5jI0q1O08gi1LkmqvPNO...
from July 7 2008 - about the Reyes computer
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18120
Seems there may be more than a simplistic explanation to what is going on here

0 funny, 1 helpful.

manINred says on Jul 27, 2009, 09:05:

Do the means always justify the end?

Pinochet did not have any altruistic goals in mind when he slaughtered thousands of innocent people; Chile's success in this day and age hinges on much more than just Pinochet, so it is actually quite astounding that one would write "Chile does not know how to publicly thank Pinochet", unless the run-on is "because they do not know which of his bollocks to crush first".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 27, 2009, 09:06:

"I did not say I "KNEW for a fact", I just said it's what I knew"

So when you say you know something, you don't neccessarily mean you know it? How is one supposed to trust what you say then?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 27, 2009, 09:43:

BB: Read it as... What I know is not the ultimate truth in the world, otherwise call me God

or take it from socrates “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

or Voltaire “The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing”

or if feeling a little flakier from Van Gogh “For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.”

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 27, 2009, 09:53:

I'll let you slide for now.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

1 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 28, 2009, 12:26:

don't fool yourself, ad hominem is a worthless argument

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Zenda says on Jul 29, 2009, 11:55:

FARC has publicly denied that they provided funds to the election campaign for Correa, and that the video has been manipulated -
"4. Como nueva cortina de humo y buscando agredir al señor presidente del Ecuador Rafael Correa, Washington y Bogotá manipularon un video de las FARC sacando de su contexto el documento. Tajantemente negamos haber entregado dinero a ninguna campaña electoral de ningún país vecino".
http://anncol.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225...
Tomorrow there is meant to be another video, the original??
http://www.confirmado.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&a...
Regarding the files on Reyes laptop - according to this article:
"While Interpol said in a report that the computers belonged to Reyes, the international policy agency also found that new files had been created and destroyed after the laptops were captured"
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=340208&CategoryId=12393

So there could be two things going on here.
1. First FARC could be lying and protecting their "friend" Correa. But if FARC wanted to support Correa secretly why did they publicly congratulate Correa when he first won the election in 2006?
or
2. There is a campaign to discredit the Ecuadorian and any other left leaning/socialist latin government by Colombia with possible US intelligence support.
Which one people choose here will depend on what they want to believe.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 29, 2009, 12:03:

I'll go with option #1, and as far as option #2 is concerned, Ecuador and Correa have no need for outsiders to lead a campaign to discredit them, they are doing quite nicely discrediting themselves without any help.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.