The accuracy of nowadays knowledge
Humans society functions mainly based on the common knowledge that most of us agree on. Most of time, people trust the knowledge they currently possess without much doubt. However, sometime the objective facts that we believe in may re-evaluated and redefined by the experience we progressively gained and discovery of new evidence from different perspectives. Hence, the question is raised, does all the knowledge we rely on at the present day credible?
In other word, will all the knowledge we all accepted today still be accepted in the near future or be discarded? A knowledge issue can thus elaborated from the previous questions: To what extent can the present knowledge in the areas of natural science and ethics be considered as a perpetually acceptable knowledge? In this essay, I will be focused on analyzing this question based on these two area of knowledge since the knowledge that they present offers more objective.
Knowledge in natural science is considered one of the most consistent and objective among all the knowledge in other area, since the facts (what we considered as facts from today's perspective) claimed by this area is extremely hard to argue against and highly evidence based. Most of people trust doubtlessly the knowledge from this area and believe that this is the truth of the universe. As a science student, I trust completely the fundamental laws in physics, chemistry and all the other natural science related topics due to the fact that they seems very reasonable to me, additionally I do not possess enough knowledge to doubt. However, I have already encountered the change of the knowledge that we have learnt as a fundamental truth. For example, in ...
... middle of paper ...
...considered as a perpetually acceptable knowledge in a enclosed society that people do not have variations of thoughts. Hence this knowledge in today's context, with the power of globalization, would change over time and some of them will be discarded.
In conclusion, the knowledge in natural science and in ethics can be considered as a perpetually acceptable knowledge under certain conditions, such as knowledge should remain consistent after enormous evaluations or in an enclosed society. Even though these two area provide knowledge that are considered more objective, not all of these knowledge can be perpetually acceptable, some have been proven wrong and thus discarded by human. Therefore, by following this pattern, the knowledge we believe are truth today may sometimes be discarded tomorrow. Then, to what extent human rely on the knowledge they possess?
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing some ad hoc auxiliary assumption, or re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. However, such a method either destroys or lowers its scientific status.” These criteria make it hard for pseudosciences such as astrology or dowsing to be considered science. There has also been large increases in the accuracy and use of technology is ensuring that there is more empirical evidence and proof that theories are being based on. Some may argue against the corrected ratio of falsified to accepted theories, but unless every theory in the history of science was to be measured that argument would be futile, and the above point would still
This paper will be covering what knowledge essentially is, the opinions and theories of J.L. Austin, Descartes, and Stroud, and how each compare to one another. Figuring out what knowledge is and how to assess it has been a discussion philosophers have been scratching their heads about for as long as philosophy has been around. These three philosophers try and describe and persuade others to look at knowledge in a different light; that light might be how a statement claiming knowledge is phrased, whether we know anything at all for we may be dreaming, or maybe you’re just a brain in a vat and don’t know anything about what you perceive the external world to be.
Knowledge is a fundamental component of being human. The ability to comprehend information, apply it to the future as well as understand the past, is remarkable. Without knowledge, there could be no critical thinking, empathy, or technological progress. This is an incredible ingredient of our makeup that touches every aspect of human life, and arguably the ingredient that makes us human. The great scholars and philosophers have understood this for thousands of years and have documented as such in their works. From the Biblical Genesis, which is said to represent the first humans, to popular fables, Homer’s Odyssey, and Dante’s Inferno, this message is made clear. Knowledge is the key construct that defines man
...nt limits methods in the output of knowledge. When it comes to the natural sciences it is not a matter of how it is perceived. Ethical judgments in science allow it to evolve and produce more knowledge. It is correct that in some cases they do not allow particular methods to be used therefore prolonging the production of knowledge however the limitations can also impose positive effects in the knowledge produced, such as the development of other methods. Once again this cannot be solved by knowledge as the negative effect of ethical judgment in science contributes to producing a positive effect as well. The main issue with this statement however is the definition of ethical judgements, as there is no clear answer to what it implies. This is because it varies between people due to society they live in, their culture, religion, personal experience and personal opinion.
...hat there is no clear way to prove it or disprove it yet with research we have today. More research in the field is required to learn whether or not the concept is true. It seems that this century old debate will continue on for who knows how many years.
Knowledge has always been a parameter through which human progress has been measured, Knowledge could be an aspect gained from a fact or a situation present. The production of knowledge relies on different ways of knowing, sense perception, emotion, reason and language. The production of knowledge differs from each human being leading to acquiring of personal knowledge and contributing to the shared knowledge. Society also plays a role in influencing the production of knowledge through various judgments that it passes on the manner in which knowledge is produced. Ethics is a set of principles which are morally right and are used to govern people’s actions and on the basis of that judgments are passed, rules made and norms are established. This leads us to the issue : to what extent does compromising ethical judgement lead to useful knowledge in natural science and arts.
...t find anything new. This description points out the hindrances on humans’ acquisition of knowledge because of our finite biological capacities.
Knowledge is something that can change day to day, which can be learned through both the natural and human sciences. Knowledge changes in the natural sciences when an experiment is conducted and more data has been gathered. Knowledge changes in human sciences when patterns are recognized in society and further tests have been conducted. Does our knowledge of things in the natural and human sciences change every day? I think that our knowledge grows everyday but does not necessarily change every day. The areas of knowledge that will be discussed in this essay are natural and human sciences. In History we can see that at one point something that was considered knowledge then transformed into different knowledge, especially in the natural sciences. However, in the past, due to lack of technology, it might have been more of a lack of knowledge that then turned into knowledge on the topic.
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Production of knowledge is generally seen in a positive light. However, when ethics and morality become involved in the process of production, judgements will undoubtedly be made that may seem to limit the availability of that knowledge. Ethical judgements are made by the combination of a knower, his or her standard of value, and the situation itself. In the field of the arts and natural sciences, ethics plays a crucial role in the extent one may possibly be allowed to go when discovering new knowledge. Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing that help guide knowers in making certain moral decisions.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
...feasibility' and 'Causal' theories, and knowledge as 'warranted true belief' require us to take a certain 'leap of faith' when considering the question of knowledge at times. In order to avoid scepticism, I hold that knowledge does not necessarily need to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition does not need to be true, it means that something we hold as knowledge is not one which is beyond reasonable doubt, but one which it wouldn't make sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.
We gain knowledge in through our ways of knowing which are mainly perception, reason and language. We use them to find knowledge because we justify our claims and beliefs by their use, thus, our evidences, because they get us closer to the truth. To accept something as knowledge, it must be considered true, one must believe it and there must be justification why the person knows it, therefore these ways of knowing aid in the process for our quest for knowledge. In conclusion, in order to obtain knowledge all of these three attributes have to be integrated in some type of way, and due to the changing nature of all three of them, knowledge is always changing and it is dynamic, leading to the fact that knowledge can be discarded. The questions b...
What is stated above happens around us all the time. Something might be proven today, but proven wrong tomorrow. Therefore I completely agree to this statement. But how do we accept something to be knowledge, and what makes one thing knowledge and the other thing just a theory? We can look at it from various aspects.
The major strength of science is that it has uncertainty and skepticism. Science never claims to be hundred percent accurate. There is always some degree of ambiguity and probability in science. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty in quantum mechanics is a good example of this. According to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty, we can never be sure of the position of the quantum particles. There is always a degree of fuzziness in nature and a fundamental limit to what we can understand about these particles and their behavior. We can only calculate the probability of the nature of the particle and ho...