|
A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
|
|
All men by nature desire to know. 1 The question of knowledge has stretched through endless ages. Scientists, philosophers, entrepreneurs, politicians, and even the common people have asked and given thought to this endless mystery of bewildering proportions. The question of knowledge was once posed exemplarily by an author. How did I come to know about the world and myself? What ought i to know? What would I like to know that I don’t? If I want to know about this or that, where can I get the clearest, best and latest information? And where did these other people about me get their ideas about things, which are sometimes so different from mine?2 Indeed, one can question what is knowledge ? How does one obtain knowledge ? Is the information we are receiving knowledge ? Let us answer the first of three questions. In Theaetetus, Plato defines knowledge as true belief, that has been justified or explained. 3 Taking to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, one must not only belief the true proposition, but have the means to justify the proposition. If not so, then the person has no knowledge. For example, Mr.A is a mathematician, whereas Mr.B is a waiter in a restaurant. Mr.A believes that 1 + 1 = 2, and he has a mathematical theory that proves so. Mr.B also believes that 1 + 1 = 2, but since he is no education, is unable to give a reason. Therefore, since Mr.A has a reason to believe that 1 + 1 = 2, he has knowledge. Whereas Mr.B, having no prove, is seen to have no knowledge. Now, one could condemn this definition as too weak, by pointing out the flaws of the definition. Firstly, what if the justification of the true belief is false. Does that make it so that the person who has true belief with a false justification has knowledge. Let us look at another example. Mr.C is a miser. He keeps his gold bars in a vault a 1000 square feet big. One day, he wishes to check on his gold. He opens the vault door and looks in. However, as the vault is immense, and the gold being farthest away, combined with Mr.C’s myopia, he cannot see the gold clearly. However, a golden glow from the general area where the gold should be can be spotted. Mr.C concludes the gold is safe. However, the golden glow is but a gold lightbulb. In actual fact, the gold has dropped onto the ground and is covered by a layer of dust. Mr.C had true belief his gold was safe. He ‘justified’ it when he spotted the golden glow. Yet he did not see the actual gold, making his justification false. Therefore, can we conclude that Mr.C had knowledge? From this example, it is obvious that Plato’s definition is weak and unusable. To amend it such that one cannot criticize the definition, the theories of infallibilism4 and indefeasibility5 must be introduced. However, one more problem still exists. How do we prove that the justification is both infallible and indefeasible. As such, the justifying the justification requires the theories of reliabilism6 and empiricism7. Therefore, Plato’s definition must be amended as such : Knowledge is justified true belief, where the justification of the true belief must be both infallible and indefeasible which then must be reliable ( as proven by the theories of reliabilism and empiricism). Now, let us look at knowledge claims. How do we know that claims such as “ all humans are mortal†or “ dinosaurs used to roam the Earth millions of years agoâ€. Let us take the latter as an example. Say that dinosaurs used to roam the Earth millions of years ago is a perfectly true belief. We justify it by showing prove, which are the bones of dinosaurs. One then might ask, how do we know that these bones belong to dinosaurs millions of years ago? We then justify the justification through the use of carbon-dating, which proves that the bones are millions of years ago. Once again, an individual may question, how do we know that these bones millions of years old belong to dinosaurs and not some mammal? These questions goes on, forever, bringing about the problem of infinite regress. According to this problem, a proposition requires a justification. However, any justification requires support, since nothing is true ‘just because’. This means that any proposition stated can be questioned, and its justification questioned over and over again, ad infinitum. However, in response to this problem, one can argue that the justification can go on indefinitely, meaning that reasons our always available even though the human mind has not consciously thought so. One only needs to bring up the relevant justifications when needed. This position is known as ‘ infinitism’ . 8 Another method of dealing with this problem is to believe that the justifications of justifications are mutually supporting each other. if infinitists believe that justifications and the indefinite number of them form up in a straight line, we can also say that mutually supporting justifications are like a diamond, which is a macromolecule with bonds joining and supporting each other ( carbon atoms ), forming a giant lattice that is the hardest structure in the world. As such, the problem of infinite regress can thus be avoided. From this, we can prove that these knowledge claims are true, and is knowledge as long as it is a true belief. If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy beliefs.9 Therefore, as future philosophers and the great minds of society, let us work together to contribute to the knowledge of our planet, and that our ideas and ideals lead us in the right direction, in hope of the betterment of the human society. --------------------------------- Copycats are damned to hell. Paraphrasers are just as bad. Readers are fine. Criticisms are better. -------------------------------------------- |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-13 08:01:28 |
|
Well, I'm someone who gonna taking philosophy so, i might be wrong. First, I have to tell you that Aristotle said that what we know as knowledge now is not definately right. As we got more information from time to time, theories is being fixed from time to time. at everytime new information is being gathered and new knowledge as well when we understand it. the example given is not very good, i think. actually, does anyone really know why 1 + 1 = 2? and in some cases, like some economy theories 1+1 can be 3 or 5... and how about binery (it is the name?) where only 2 digits allowed 1 and 0. 1+1 then will be 10. Taking Plato is also not suggested. most people said plato only gather information and paraphrase... (still, I don't know if he really is or not) also, at that time when information, technology and ... well... everything is not like we have today.. so, I do think he is excellent. second, if those are only belief without proof, then how about knowledge today? just say "everything is made from molecules, from atoms, that consist of neutrons, protons, electrons" How can we really know that it is true? if we using that way of thinking, we will think that nothing is true... then after that what are u basing your thinking to? Third, and the most Important: What are you searching actually is Dasein. Desein is a German-word-made-by-Heidegger. hardly to understand. can't be translated. (most translator try to describe it as being, other as being-which-be. but these translation only confusing everyone) for the best result maybe you should Read "Sein und Zeit" and "Der Begriff Der Zeit"  |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by Promethius
on 2009-04-13 19:37:01
|
|
I think we may just have a mistaken view of knowledge, or at least have the mistaken idea that we can "know" stuff. For the record, I'm gonna define "knowledge" as "absolute truth". Not to be confusing with "belief". If you think you know something that turns out to be wrong, you obviously didn't know it. You only believed you knew it. People believe stuff all the time that's not true but they can also believe stuff that is true with or without proper justification. Yet, how can we calibrate our methods? We did not make the universe, so we have no idea as to the extent of how much knowledge there is to acquire or WHAT knowledge there is to acquire. Can we even know how much stuff there is to know? I say we can't because we are not the masters of the universe. We will never know for sure and as such will be unable to have proper justification. My argument is that we can't know. We can only believe. Thankfully, belief is enough to get us through life. But, in an absolutist sense, I don't believe we can ever know anything. |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-15 10:05:41 |
|
I agree on what Promethius said. Knowledge is an "absolute truth". But as of my perspective, knowledge is something that we humans created for thousands of years. In times that we are eager to make our live much more comfortable and to adapt to our environment. Knowledge is the product of our urge to learn through the years of our existence.  |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by pwntsohard
on 2009-04-20 20:34:14
|
|
Lemme give you my belief of what knowledge is: Knowledge are facts that act and are acted upon all beings. Knowledge can only be learned or gained by beings that are suppressed by the the boundaries of life because of the fear of non existence. This fear of inability of learning without existence causes beings to be distorted and distracted with worldly things to ensure survival and therefore this drive gives beings analytical powers to think of principles that define and act on us to live. This is what we call knowledge. The capacity of knowledge does exist wherever beings are bounded to life. Beings can only learn knowledge because they exist to survive. This incapability of resisting the infinite powers of time stops beings that are bounded by life to learn the Truth. Basically what i confusingly just said was that knowledge is information that all beings use for life. Now the next big question is... What is life? The only reason we do not know for sure of what is "knowledge" is the way we apply knowledge. We attach Truths with worldly matters such as life which are not purely objective things. In my way of thinking 500 99% percents and one 100% when averaged does not average to 100%. Science experiments are objective but still performed in worldly attachments the only reason we can define it as knowledge is the reason math adds up. And i Detest when people say Math is just made up numbers by people. I would say though you are right promethius about that there are no facts that are 100% true in the world because we are bound by life and unable communicate to the living after seeing the light after the tunnel. (Im pretty sure knowledge and truths are two different things if thats the case) I do know though that Chuck Norris will Make the Light come To him. That my friend, is 100% FACT.
Jason
|
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-22 02:22:32
|
|
1+1=2 is neither a fact nor knowledge. It is a theorem, a supposition that the whole construct of mathematics is build on. Therefore it cannot be proven wrong or false. It does not matter wherever or not it is true as long as the construct build upon it is logic and conclusive. But if you would say that mathematics is knowledge, you also had to assume that knowledge does not have to be wrong or false. It simply had to be logic. So the endless questions consisting of "what is the sense of life", "does a god exists" and "is there one true knowledge" would be meaningless. |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-22 06:27:46 |
|
@ jason:what is fact?can u explain it? why a fact is taken as something true? @ Biertrix:Why 1+1=2? |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-22 07:00:52 |
|
@Schaz: Well 1+1=2 is a theorem just like Biertrix said, but it is a fact... let us take example from our real world... if you have an orange and then your father (or someone) give you another one... there you got two orange in your hand. based on that human tries to make everything in the world become like what they think... remember that human have the wants to know everything... and to make them looks clever, they tries to make everything as if under their control, and that they can know what happens after something happens. Like humans now know that if we heat up an ice then the ice will melt... and there is even a mathematical theorem to know how long does it takes until the ice melt... Or maybe we could take the Big-Bang theorem... maybe we didn't know is it real or it is not. But people takes it just by seeing some proof that is get into logic. Then the evolution theorem... though that we lost the missing link... some people still believe on it just because some animals do evolve...(though I didn't agreed with this theorem too.....^~^) and fact well... speaking that humans have ego... humans will always think what they see as fact. But it doesn't stop there. a Fact could be called a true fact if it was accepted universally. Just like in court where there will be need more than one witness and one proof to make a case become clear. Another example is when people sees UFO, it doesn't suddenly become a fact that Aliens with the same or higher IQ live out there because there is only few people sees it. Another example could be taken if you are an archeologist. you may not see the event at the past with your own eyes. But you can always ask for anybody's eyes which may could become different as the human ego works again. from all of the evidences and all oral evidence you might come up to something that includes all and get into our logic and you'll get the true fact which could be accepted internationally. well that's all I could bring up now...^-^ 
 |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-22 07:07:37 |
|
@ Faiz: It's answer how 1+1=2 but not why... and the black hole is a hypothesis (find out a thread in physics where karasu and gendou talking about that...) and... oh.... most people got wrong perseption when they heard or talking about evolution theory.... make sure you have the right idea about that...^^ |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-22 07:45:15 (edited 2009-04-22 07:49:19)
|
|
@schaz As I said, a theoreme (or postulate) is simply an assumption. Some guy in the past laid foundation to the theorie of numbers simply by assuming that 1 plus 1 equals 2. It is a definition that most likely came out of the blue, so it is still pointless to ask for a why. (try googling "Axiom") And in order to understand the whole complex of mathematics we have to accept this. Same goes for economics and binary calculations. So the example 1+1=2 is not really fitting for the question "What is knowledge" but it is for a slightly different reason from what you mentioned. (By the way...binary and economical arithmetic operations are both based on different theoremes, so they do not contradict 1+1=2) @Faiz I would be very cautious with the theorie, that humankind takes everything that it sees for a fact. Nowadays Scientits are using the principles of both rationalism and empirism, which means that every obervation cannot be taken as a fact as long as it is not be proven to appear in a foreseeable pattern(empirism). Not till then they try to find an answer to this phenomen based on the existing knowledge or other assumptions. This long process of research is nothing like simply taking an observation for a fact. This goes for the Big-Bang-theory as well as Darwin's theory of evolution. Saying that they took for a fact what they saw would be an ignorance regarding the hard work they put in both observing and finding out patterns in order to find a common solution to the problem. |
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-22 07:47:18 (edited 2009-04-22 08:02:52)
|
|
@Schaz:Oh...^~^ hehe... I'll be careful (with theorem) next time... well why 1+1=2 because human wants to explain what will happen if a thing was added by another same thing. Just like What I've said that humans have an ego to know things and feel as if they controls everything. While by knowing something just by hearing the situation before it happens could makes humans feel as if their ego was filled. just like people from the old times (even now) trust fortunes teller... just to satisfies their ego... though it was out of logic way... so that's why human makes 1+1=2 in math. @Biertrix (gee... I'm so bad at this...T~T) but well the observation did concluded with a fact that they (scientist) see and it will became a knowledge as soon as it was accepted world widely... (right?)
|
|
Re: A debate on knowledge. What is it ?.
Link |
by
on 2009-04-29 05:10:28 (edited 2009-04-29 05:11:08)
|
|
@Biertrix: Axiom, in english or deutsch? And... Good points... you're smart. true, I see now that to asking it is pointless... @Faiz: Good exxplanation^^ btw I found this. "http://theflatearthsociety.org" sorry, the link is error |