|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on May 25, 2005 8:14:11 GMT -5
What is knowledge? Is it truth based or just information based? Is false information knowledge, and if so, then what is the value of knowledge if it has so much potential to be wrong? If nobody knows something that is, could that which is about that which is knowledge? Is some knowledge unattainable, and if it is, is it knowledge? Heh, I like that last one...
|
|
|
Post by Makku on May 25, 2005 16:22:02 GMT -5
Is false information knowledge? Absolutely. Just from the base meaning of the word, it is something that is known. Be it false or not. The value of "knowledge" is almost nil in today's world. Before, those of great learning were revered.
Also. Though it is false, I now have the knowledge that you are a female. *points to gender indicator in left column*
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on May 26, 2005 6:42:03 GMT -5
Forget todays world and it`s cliche representation; what is the value of knowledge? Why should we strive to seek it? I think everybody values knowledge, but most probably don`t realise it, until they attain knowledge that is beneficial to their position. He he he. I like your last line, cause it made me think of this next one which goes pretty nicely.
You think you know, but you have no idea.
Knowledge From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.
Knowledge is a term with many meanings depending on context, but is (as a rule) closely related to such concepts as meaning, information, instruction, communication, representation, learning and mental stimulus.
Knowledge is distinct from simple information. Both knowledge and information consist of true statements, but knowledge is information that has a purpose or use. Philosophers would describe this as information associated with intentionality. The study of knowledge is called epistemology.
A common definition of knowledge is that it consists of justified true belief. This definition derives from Plato's Theaetetus. It is considered to set out necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for some statement to count as knowledge.
What constitutes knowledge, certainty and truth are controversial issues. These issues are debated by philosophers, social scientists, and historians. Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote "On Certainty" - aphorisms on these concepts - exploring relationships between knowledge and certainty. A thread of his concern has become an entire field, the philosophy of action.
-----
Knowledge in philosophy and the problem of justification For most of philosophical history, "knowledge" was taken to mean a belief that was justified as true to an absolute certainty. Any less justified beliefs were called mere "probable opinion." Philosophers often define knowledge as a justified, true belief; the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge is called epistemology.
But how do we show that our beliefs are knowledge? Justification and evidence are both epistemic features of belief. They are, in other words, both qualities that indicate that the belief is true. We could try out other epistemic features in the definition of knowledge, if we wanted to. Instead of "justified true belief" or "true belief with evidence," we could say that knowledge is "rational true belief" or "warranted true belief." For our purposes, the differences between these different options don't matter. The whole point is that, to be knowledge, a belief has to have some positive epistemic feature; it can't be arbitrary or random or irrational. The Theory of justification deals with these issues in more detail.
A problem with defining knowledge is known as the "Gettier problem". The Gettier problem arises when we give certain kinds of counterexamples to the JTB (justified true belief) definition. A counterexample is a case where the definition applies, but the word defined doesn't; or a case where the word defined applies, but the definition doesn't. Gettier counterexamples are examples where the definition, justified, true belief applies; but one nevertheless still doesn't have knowledge, so the word "knowledge" doesn't apply in that case.
Externalist responses to the Gettier problem Gettier's article was published in 1963. Right after that, for a good decade or more, there was an enormous number of articles trying to supply the missing fourth condition of knowledge. The big project was to try to figure out the "X" in the equation, Knowledge = belief + truth + justification + X. Whenever someone proposed an answer, someone else would come up with a new counterexample to shoot down that definition.
Some of the proposed solutions involve factors external to the agent. These responses are therefore called externalism. For example, one externalist response to the Gettier problem is to say that the justified, true belief must be caused (in the right sort of way) by the relevant facts.
Sorry for this bit of reading, but it`s far easier to cut and paste this than have me explain it all retarded.
I need to take a dump.
^ ^ Thank you for that wonderful bit of information. I nearly threw up the lunch I was eating when I read that. -SK
|
|
|
Post by godsrighthand on May 29, 2005 14:19:40 GMT -5
I’ll take the retard view, information can be true or false. Knowledge of religion may be true or false. What is acknowledged to be knowledge is debatable dependent on the subject and the particular group of people debating it.
How ever most might agree that knowledge in most cases needs to made of provable facts or be independently confirmed to be proven valid. Personal observations are valid as knowledge as long as others can make the same observations for confirmation.
Information or said knowledge of religions is taken on faith, this is a theory or hypotheses not fact. Therefor I do not count it as knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by MaladyMortality on Jun 13, 2005 3:09:58 GMT -5
I pose a question, instead of going off your guys tangent. What /use/ is knowledge if it changes. One day scientists claim, and they prove these claims with fact, that eggs may be harmful to your health. The next day they claim that eggs may help stop cancer.(the focus isnt the egg, because i dont know if it can hurt you or not, or help reduce chance of cancer for that matter) I give you another point to consider. Makku states. Makku- Also. Though it is false, I now have the knowledge that you are a female. *points to gender indicator in left column* But now your gender indicator says you are male[be it true or not ]
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Jun 22, 2005 9:43:16 GMT -5
Well, I think we seek knowledge to find ultimate knowledge (which I`m sure few would dispute). I don`t believe knowledge is false information, although I believe false information is knowable, and it is knowable as truth, though falsely. Feel me?
Knowledge has to be of something, and that something is information. Information can be either true or false (and discovered or not), but all information we know and can know is knowledge. So there will be knowledge that is false, but in identifying false knowledge, we can come closer to the truth (and so in identifying true knowledge, we can eliminate the false).
(On a sidenote, I`m aware of the contradiction in the first and second paragraph regarding false information, but I believe in sharing ALL relevant ideas, information and knowledge in order to prevail over falsity. Whatever I write, I believe in its greatness and worth and share it regardless of error and embarressment).
With regard to where I left off in the second paragraph, I think this applies both for ultimate knowledge of physical and real information and subjective knowledge of ideas (for lack of knowledge of better terms). For example, I believe in relation to objective truth, one idea can be mathematically more sound than another, as if the two ideas have a certain percentage of truth and relevence to them. In the same light, I believe righteousness and unrighteousness ultimately could be measured by a certain infalliable criteria, its exact specifics unknown to me (and so I learn). Again to drive it home, in a war between two territories both fighting for the good of their people, one lands actions may be more just than the other, and an equation could divide what they both seek between them equally. However, all this about math is my own belief, and I could very well be wrong. It`s just the way I think.
Makku had the knowledge that I was female (when my sex said female - I should slap whoever changed that). But his knowledge was false, because I`m a man. Although he thought he knew, he only did just that; THINK HE KNEW. When in actual fact, what he thought he knew was wrong.
Another example is Earth being flat. Earth was never flat, so even though people accepted that as truth, they were wrong and so was their knowledge. Earth is round. It`s a proven fact. I`ll be amazed to find that it`s another shape. And even if we find out it is (say if we acknowledge other dimensions through which it is more beneficial to see our universe), then we`re only stepping closer to the truth aren`t we? This is the benefit of knowledge; it brings us closer to truth.
Knowledge may change, but the ultimate truth may not (and I think will not, but who am I but human).
|
|
|
Post by godsrighthand on Jun 22, 2005 11:54:25 GMT -5
I think that ultimate knowledge is a mistaken concept.
Its like proving infinity or religious deities exist. It is instinctual for humans to seek knowledge, to know all that is knowable would make us cease to be humans emotionally.
I don't attend school anymore however I enjoy what knowledge I get now through other means. Educational programming, news, etc. So I still have a instinct to learn when I don't have to learn anymore. Either for self fulfillment or for self advancement we will not change this and still remain the same in our fundamental psychology
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Jun 23, 2005 6:21:47 GMT -5
And what of mathematics? How is ultimate knowledge anything like proving infinity or deities exist? One could say those quests have no conclusive evidence, whereas math (a math equation) is it`s own evidence.
1 + 1 = 2.
1 = 1.
And what of Makkus mistake? Am I not ultimately male? Are you not ultimately male?
Maybe we`ve had a miscommunication.
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Jun 23, 2005 17:25:05 GMT -5
*Rolls eyes*
Makku, this is the Knowledge Thread. I use ultimately because that`s exactly what I mean. There was no previous statement on this thread talking about infinate knowledge or any combination of the words knowledge and infinate.
Ultimately, as in after all falsehoods are cleared up, I`m male, 1 = 1 and a circle is completely round. In this way I use the phrase ultimate knowledge to mean the truth.
Maybe you`ve had a miscommunication -___-
|
|
|
Post by Makku on Jun 23, 2005 21:21:59 GMT -5
Actually, yes. XDDD Wrong thread. That's a first for me.
|
|
|
Post by Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch on Jun 24, 2005 7:21:48 GMT -5
Be ashamed. BE VERY ASHAMED!!!
|
|