“Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts”. Discuss this statement in relation to two areas of knowledge.
Knowledge is considered as familiarity with some issue, which includes facts. According to the classical definition of knowledge, there are three criteria that a statement must satisfy in order to be considered as knowledge: it must be true, justified and believed. What is considered as fact? The word itself derives from the Latin ‘factum’ which means something that is done. Facts are usually compared to truth, thus they must be explained. Facts need analyzing and explanation in order to attain knowledge, because knowledge is not just knowing a fact and not knowing the reason and cause. However facts do change over time, thus knowledge changes. As knowledge can be shifted and if we consider it as an organization of facts, to what extent can we say that facts that are changed over time are reliable?
Operation of facts and the thing about their constancy differ through different areas of knowledge. Let us consider history. The composition of history consists of bias of fact finding – all different from time to time. Powerful authorities of specific times tend to change the facts therefore knowledge that is considered as universal truth in shifted. The organization of facts is the base of knowledge. The famous Katyn Massacre is a good example of how facts were changed by the authorities. The term refers to the massacre In the Katyn forest in 1940 where a mass Polish execution was conducted by the Soviet secret police. About 22,000 Polish were executed. It was the Nazi government which announced the discovery of the mass grave in the Katyn forest in 1943. An investigation started about the massacre by...
... middle of paper ...
...entists.
To sum up, in our community of learners the knowledge that we have today consists of facts that are universally acknowledged and considered to be truth. The word fact that from Latin means something that is doe, when organized systematically forms knowledge, however it changes over time. Difference between facts can be seen in different areas of knowledge for example in history and natural sciences, where language and reasoning are used as tools of attaining knowledge. While language can be used as a manipulator of knowledge by taking advantage of it being the main source of attaining knowledge, reasoning is a logical justification of facts. Both of them can be changed as for in case of language another powerful authority may capture the power and in case of reasoning new type of facts or statements can be present that will lead to shifting the knowledge.
Facts are part of the truth, but not its whole. Fact is always limited; it’s a piece of information about something. Fact is a small division of truth as interpreted by an individual.
Throughout the book Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave many themes are developed relating to slavery. Such themes that are well developed include corruption, brutality, and knowledge. Perhaps the most important theme that was developed was knowledge and its power in everything. Frederick Douglass gained knowledge throughout his life, defying the laws surrounding slavery. Perhaps one of the most impressive things from the life of Frederick Douglass was the fact that, except for a few months at the beginning of his engagement with Mr. and Mrs. Auld, he was a self taught man who took it upon himself to expand his knowledge. Frederick Douglass discovered the power of knowledge and applied this to his life in many different stages. First, he discovered that knowledge is power. Second, he went out of his way to obtain all the knowledge he could. Third, he used that knowledge, that he had gained over years and years of self-taught, underground learning, and used it to run away from the brutal life of a slave. Finally, he used the knowledge he had gained to publicly speak against the institution of slavery and make it a point to earn the right of universal suffrage for all men. He presented many ideas, which we today, can see were very strong and moral convictions from his views as an abolitionist.
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...
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 goes beyond the regurgitation or memorization of facts, and knowledge claims can either be justified with experience or simply an understanding. Different areas of knowledge have different methods to either build or falsify knowledge, as the method of justification differs between these areas of knowledge. There are perspectives to support building facts around knowledge, while disagreeing with the neglect of facts that were previously held as knowledge. These perspectives collectively create opposition for the areas of knowledge, science and history. Both science and history are subject to changes in knowledge for facts may sometimes be discarded, built upon, or distorted to prove an opinion or theory. This does not necessarily mean that knowledge is always discarded and forgotten, but simply acknowledges that these areas of knowledge continue to build on the previous facts or opinions. Since both areas approach knowledge though different perspectives, the question that emerges is to what extent is society justified in establishing or discarding that which is defined as common knowledge.
(q), his belief that he sees a barn, isn’t justified, though. Therefore, Dom cannot know (q). The internalism of my account is obvious. What’s required for justification of (q) is different for Henry and Dom because of each’s belief about the kind of environment he is in. It is the belief about the environment and not the environment that matters. In other words, two people could be in the exact same circumstances but what required for justification would be different because of the beliefs they have. Causal accounts of knowledge can’t account for why Henry is justified for (q), but Dom is not. My account is not a causal account; as is shown in the Dom variation above, my account has no problem accounting for the different justifications required for Dom and for Henry.
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Our knowledge is indeed an interpretation of our experiences and facts that we have learned or acquired throughout life. Nonetheless, it is impossible to have a full knowledge of everything or to, at least, try to know everything because knowledge is so broad and extensive that it makes this task quite impossible. Therefore, we store our knowledge in structures so we can navigate through it. It is important to have in mind that there is not absolute knowledge because the acquisition of it is also biased by our different ways of knowing such as emotion and reason. Thus, this statement is to a large extent true that our knowledge is a collection of scraps and those new fragments that are found can alter our entire design of our knowledge. For example in natural sciences, theories and laws of physics, biology, and chemistry can modify the way that we explain natural and artificial events because our world is in constant change, so does technology, which leads scientists and researchers to new finding, this might complement the knowledge that we already know or it might also change it drastically. Furthermore, in history new archeological findings can contradict and ultimately alter our formal conception of the events that have happened in the past. On the other hand, this statement can be somehow not truth, in a small extent, because regardless of new findings, these, so called, new information can be limited to the public thus not leading to an open overview of the subject. For instance, in history, new archeological findings are limited to the public thus they are not fully aware of the situation and past events that might have happened. While, in natural sciences is different because the issue relies on the people who keep believ...
“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” The pursuit of any given knowledge may or may not change over time if contradictions are stated and proved. While looking at the pursuit of knowledge, the perception that focalizes on the specific subject can be seen as reliable or unreliable due to bias or reason. Knowledge is also different in different fields of study. The use of reason will define certain things for an eternity, while others are made out of emotion. The time period of the relating to the acquiring of the “modern” knowledge could impact the resolution, appointing the fact that history has its own way of forming new concepts to old ideas. In connection to the history aspect, the perception of ideas during that time period will affect future references to the said concept.
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
Truth is essentially divided into two main types of truth. There is empirical truth that is what is observed, what can be tangibly learned from observation. For an example we look at, Starbucks makes coffee and other hot beverages. This is a form of empirical truth, which is what is observed. Other than the empirical truth, there is truth. Truth is defined by us, by our beliefs, experiences, observations. This is the problem that there is with the nature of truth, because our experiences, and beliefs may differ from someone else giving them different truth. There are several theories on truth, and they are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. In this paper, we will be focusing on the Correspondence Theory and the Coherence Theory ( insert citation, IEP website).
In philosophy, an objective fact means a “truth that remains true everywhere, regardless of the situation, and is independent from human bias or emotions”. Whereas, a subjective fact is one that is “only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places, or for certain people”. If you rely on your own experiences and culture to understand something, it is generally considered to be subjective knowledge, as it brings the involvement circumstantial situations. It is not impossible to attain objective knowledge, however, because of the ways our knowledge is gained.
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...
Knowledge allows you to prove your facts. It’s the awareness one has about things. Imaginations, at times, can be uncertain. Knowledge leads us to imagination. We can imagine, only if we know. Knowledge is through your hard work and experience. One should not compare two different poles together.
“There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths.” Said by Alfred North Whitehead. In this essay explore the issue in both natural science and history, leading to a conclusion of there is no perfect knowledge in natural science and history. Our picture of the world is always an explanation and we can never be sure that our understanding is true. It is true that knowledge have been accepted as truth can be discarded. As we search down into details with ever more accurate measurements, we constantly find new evidences that contradict our accepted knowledge. A new theory developed base on the new information that explained the phenomena in a more accurate way. But the previous research was always constructed a step in the continuous ladder of knowledge.