In order to establish an understanding of the world, we rely on ways of knowing to organize and establish information. Each of the ways of knowing play a role in the information an individual deems as true and takes as knowledge. This process creates differences in the knowledge accepted by individuals and also creates discrepancies in knowledge. We need to understand how the ways of knowing may limit our perspective, our ability to interpret information, and the pursuit of knowledge, looking specifically at science as an area of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is determined by our ability to use the ways of knowing as tools in order to establish truth. Pursuing knowledge is being able to justify one’s beliefs with true information. However the issue becomes the differences between individuals’ justification and determining information as true. The idea of only having a hammer and fitting problems to the available tools is consistent with how we use the ways of knowing as tools. People will rely on one way of knowing more than the others because it is a stronger justification for them. In some cases people may use one of the ways of knowing that other people would not consider, consistent with fitting the problem to the tool. Many people would prefer to rely on logic and reason to determine truth. The concrete facts legitimize information and provide justification for ideas. Especially in an area of knowledge like science, people rely heavily on logic and demand the presentation of evidence to support claims. We associate science with a process that specifically aims to find truth. I, personally, lean towards the scientific process as a valid way of seeking truth. I value logic as a way of knowing above the other ways of kn... ... middle of paper ... ...e a stronger justification and means of pursuing knowledge. However, ideally we should utilize all of the ways of knowing to reach a justified belief based off of true information. Each of the ways of knowing contribute to the pursuit of knowledge and have separate implications of relying too heavily on a single tool. This approach to finding knowledge may be impractical under certain circumstances, such as when there is limited information or a situation requiring quick judgments or decisions. Individuals are only capable of establishing truth for themselves based on their own justifications and ways of knowing; there is never one truth to any situation. Not one of the ways of knowing is a stronger justification than any of the others and they each play a role in the pursuit of knowledge. By adjusting the problem to fit the tool we are not truly seeking knowledge.
We as humans tend to have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. We look for knowledge about everybody and everything that surrounds us in our day-to-day life. Sadly though, we must accept that in the grand scheme of life we (as a society) tend to put pleasure above our quest for knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge tends to take time and energy, two things we call invaluable, and it also shows us things that might depress us. Contrastingly, ignorance takes no time and energy.
For a student trustful of today's scientific prowess, the realization that science cannot prove anything came as a surprise to me in high school science class last year. Indeed, a skepticist would say that finding real truth is never possible given the chaotic nature of our world. Such a worldview is among the several interconnected themes in Jonathan Coe's The Winshaw Legacy.
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...
Scientists have greatly taken todays advantage to make what once was research, factual evidence. To be a scientist takes great creativity and intelligence, and today’s scientists even past scientists had to rely on their hypothesis as a form to make a new discovery. John M Barry, the author of The Great Influenza explains how scientific reasoning. Barry compares scientific reasoning as very important, that a scientists works “…May break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding.” This idea of his, compares what a scientists work may be with what it actually is.
A skeptic is described as someone who “is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence.” To evaluate this approach, it is valuable to examine the ways in which ethics and the human sciences require evidence and experience in order to validate knowledge. By exploring how we are able to understand something more clearly by obtaining clear evidence and experience, as well as determining the validity of our moral codes, which aid us in our decision making process, a conclusion can be drawn as to just how we can validate knowledge.
First of all, I demonstrate that epistemology is the study of all that encompasses knowledge. Furthermore, I support the traditional epistemological concept of justified true belief by arguing that this model is largely relied on in the expectations of current empirical data.
What we assume is knowledge in society is only what we have been told or been persuaded to believe by other high powers and dominant economical, intellectual or even political positions. For example, what proof do we have that the earth is round? We might not have actually seen it for ourselves or figured it out on our own, but it is what we have been taught to believe. “This idea simplifies what the earth actually is, and that such statements trick us into thinking that we truly understand that Earth’s shape, when really, there are many place...
...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.
“The whole point of knowledge is to produce both meaning and purpose in our personal lives. To what extend do you agree with this statement?” To effectively answer that question, we must first differentiate between meaning and purpose in life and define knowledge. Firstly, knowledge is justified true belief (Organization, 2013). The meaning of life can be defined as the reason for the creation of one’s life, whereas the purpose of life can be defined as an individual’s mission during their life. One’s purpose and meaning in life may be mainly based on personal knowledge, the gained knowledge through experience and personal involvement (Organization, 2013). By examining the human sciences and religious knowledge systems, knowledge might
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
...r it becomes to discard. The fact that there is the possibility of knowledge getting discarded suggests that perhaps it should not have been accepted in the first place. This begs the question: is knowledge accepted too easily? More often than not, one requires an adequate amount of evidence and facts to accept something as true. However, sometimes there is no evidence and it is impossible to prove something true, yet it is still accepted as knowledge, as is in the case of many theories. This occurs mostly in the sciences, because many times it is difficult to substantiate scientific knowledge. In order to avoid this never-ending cycle of accepting and discarding knowledge, perhaps the standard of accepting knowledge as true should be raised. But sometimes when something is proven false, it leads to finding the truth, so maybe the standard should remain where it is.
After considering all the described points in this paper, it can be rightly said that there is a considerable difference between science and other types of knowledge.
The quest for knowledge and learning has been occuring since the creation of mankind. Ever since the serpent in the Garden of Eden tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, promising she would wise as the gods, man has been battling with this endless pursuit. Some men want wisdom so that they may be able to live a good and righteous life. Other men want only the power that knowledge can bring them, to use it for their own sinful purposes.
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.
Truth and beliefs contribute in building the knowledge of a person. Cogent reasons for the beliefs convert the beliefs into knowledge. However, sometimes the beliefs are actually assumption, so they may be wrong. Truth is the facts known from different sources. Something can be considered as knowledge, only if it is true. The word epistemology refers to studying the source of knowledge. The epistemology helps in understanding the process of development of knowledge, sources of knowledge and makes distinctions between belief and actual truth. I critically examined and analyzed the origin and the process of acquiring the knowledge for the two essays I wrote earlier. One essay, an analytical one, was written on the subject of increasing prison population and improper justice system. The second essay was written on the subject of human resource management. To develop the knowledge and understanding I demonstrated in the essays, I had to search for resources, rationalize the information gained and evaluate it in conjunction with my personal beliefs.