Procedural Knowledge versus Propositional Knowledge

What can we say about knowledge? Well first of all we have to try to identify what knowledge is or what type of knowledge there is. I believe we can identify it in three ways propositional knowledge, procedural knowledge or know-how, and personal knowledge. Propositional knowledge is the knowing of facts and truths about something or learned knowledge. For example, I can know that two plus two is four, I cannot know that two plus two is five because that is not known it doesn’t exist. Also, take an example of building an engine one must be taught or have learned to build the engine to have knowledge in building it.

Procedural knowledge is a lot like propositional knowledge in the sense that you have to take the knowledge you have learned and apply it. Without actually applying propositional knowledge you can’t have Procedural knowledge. Take the engine building knowledge from before you don’t really know how to build an engine without actually doing it. You can learn and read all about it without actually knowing how to apply it. It’s not claiming that you know about it, but you actually possess the skills involved with doing it. Lastly, personal knowledge, in this sense is to do with being familiar with something. In order to know someone, one must have met that person, In order to know love, one must have experienced it. The word “know” is being used to refer to knowledge by acquaintance.

To put this into standard premises, we could say that knowledge is, “If I know P then P is true and I believe P,” but there is a problem because I can believe I will win the lotto but I cannot prove it. We can modify it by saying, “If I know P then P is true and I truly believe P.” By putting truly there means the belief has to be based on ...

... middle of paper ...

...t of him in which there was no reality, but it was merely a projection that the demon put in his mind. He also believed in the dream argument how do we know we are in reality and not dreaming? We have good reason that both of these arguments are not the case involving our reality but how can one really know? The strong thing about the evil demon argument is that no one can say we are not possessed by demons; the unfortunate reality is it is not scientifically sound or logical to think that way. With the dream argument, it does not to be substantially strong. You can find many mistakes and counter examples that would support, otherwise, like lucid dreamers and shared experiences. It seems that modern day philosophers have found some way to breakdown both arguments making them appear weak. Again the issue comes up, as how does one truly know, in the sense of a belief?