Knowledge, which is believed and justified as true, is usually supported by facts, believed to be true by the Ways of Knowing such as perception or reason. However, this claim may be limited by using the term “nothing more”, as knowledge may contain more than only organized facts. This essay will evaluate the claim in relation to Mathematics and History, involving Ways of Knowing such as reason and perception. As an IB student, studying is not only a process of memorizing knowledge provided, but also evaluating the process of generating knowledge of the subject studied. In relation to Mathematics, I will address that knowledge can be supported by concepts that cannot be perceived or are not necessarily a fact, and that the organization of facts can happen after the knowledge is generated. In contrast, I will look at how knowledge in History is difficult to be justified and therefore can be biased depending on who is organizing the facts.
Looking at my IB subjects, I suppose Mathematics is the best example demonstrating that knowledge is a “systematic organization of facts”. The development of mathematical knowledge must follow through logically, establishing according to other knowledge; when knowledge is justified then mathematicians use it as a fact to prove other knowledge that coheres within a logical system. For example, the Pythagorean theorem is justified supported by the fact that length of sides of a right-angled triangle follows the rule. The Cosine Rule is proved using the Pythagorean theorem, and the Cosine Rule is justified as knowledge . This is known as deductive reasoning, when knowledge is deductively inferred from the formal features of other pieces of knowledge (or systematically organized facts). To unders...
... middle of paper ...
...on distorted facts are not spotted. So, the boundary between belief and knowledge in History is ambiguous, the justification of claims as facts supporting knowledge can be inaccurate, indicating that what is systematically organised as fact and therefore knowledge may simply be a series of beliefs on wrong assumptions.
In conclusion, the generation of knowledge can depend on logical reasoning and theory rather than organization of facts, and does not necessarily need to be based on facts that can be perceived existing in reality. Or, what is believed as knowledge can be based on biased facts and therefore not necessarily systematically organized or true. Counter points to above arguments are mainly based on the ambiguity of defining knowledge and fact, but it is still too extreme to conclude that “knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts.”
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
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.
As it has been said previously, knowledge is one of Finnis’ seven basic goods that are intrinsically valuable, and is acquired by means of whatever process one must endure in order to obtain the truth about something. Though the value of knowledge varies subjectively, the objectivity of knowledge is relative and only adds to knowledge being self-evident. The core of what makes knowledge an underived principle encompasses not only the fact that it cannot be further deduced nor attributed to another principle in order to add to its validity, but also that its goodness is an antecedent to all skeptics’ counter-arguments, therefore invalidating any and all skeptical arguments.
Mathematics has become a very large part of society today. From the moment children learn the basic principles of math to the day those children become working members of society, everyone has used mathematics at one point in their life. The crucial time for learning mathematics is during the childhood years when the concepts and principles of mathematics can be processed more easily. However, this time in life is also when the point in a person’s life where information has to be broken down to the very basics, as children don’t have an advanced capacity to understand as adults do. Mathematics, an essential subject, must be taught in such a way that children can understand and remember.
I also learned that mathematics was more than merely an intellectual activity: it was a necessary tool for getting a grip on all sorts of problems in science and engineering. Without mathematics there is no progress. However, mathematics could also show its nasty face during periods in which problems that seemed so simple at first sight refused to be solved for a long time. Every math student will recognize these periods of frustration and helplessness.
The various areas of knowledge do not necessarily compete for each theory of truth. The standard segregation of truth theories into competing camps proceeds under the assumption, or pretense, that they are intended for primary truth bearers.
General ideas can be formed by the mind without the use of our senses or sensory organs. Senses are acquired at birth but, the essentials of knowledge, truth and being, is slowly and hardly gain through many years of education, experience, and reflection later on. We now know that we cannot get the essentials of knowledge, truth and being for perception itself. Therefore knowledge cannot be based on
Our first understanding of knowledge is in our childhood when we rely solely on our perception of what we believe to be true, to be actual. Perception is our first natural process of taking in information before we evaluate its justifiedness in our belief or nonbelief of its actuality. The commonly accepted definition of knowledge as, justified true belief, is based on the sources of knowledge. The importance of such sources of knowledge are heavily reliant on the role that memory itself plays in the meaning, scope and reliability of what we call justified true belief.
The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop. In major areas such as: scientific investigations, judicial examinations, historical assessments and many other field of knowledge, the value of creditable evidence are strongly advocated. While evidence is a strong factor in eliminating doubts of knowledge, different types of evidence can also affect the reliability of the truth claim which it supports. The fine line dividing valuable evidence and unreliable proof has since been drawn and debated over from the first schools of thoughts to today’s broad fields of knowledge. Likewise, I will also call upon my own experience and understanding to draw my own line in the grey vicinity of this spectrum.
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
Biases and presuppositions must be put aside to understand true historical
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
Burton, D. (2011). The History of Mathematics: An Introduction. (Seventh Ed.) New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
The history of math has become an important study, from ancient to modern times it has been fundamental to advances in science, engineering, and philosophy. Mathematics started with counting. In Babylonia mathematics developed from 2000B.C. A place value notation system had evolved over a lengthy time with a number base of 60. Number problems were studied from at least 1700B.C. Systems of linear equations were studied in the context of solving number problems.