Knowledge: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Scepticism: elaborating)
imported>Nick Gardner
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
Secondly, knowledge is said to differ from belief because we believe many things when we do not really know them.<ref>Some philosophers are even capable of saying that we can have knowledge of a fact without believing it.  Cf. Colin Radford, "Knowledge--By Examples." (complete reference needed).</ref>
Secondly, knowledge is said to differ from belief because we believe many things when we do not really know them.<ref>Some philosophers are even capable of saying that we can have knowledge of a fact without believing it.  Cf. Colin Radford, "Knowledge--By Examples." (complete reference needed).</ref>


==Scepticism==
<!--
A fundamental debate among philosophers concerning knowledge is about whether having knowledge, in the sense of justified true belief, is possible. According to a philosophical theory known as "scepticism" it is not. Its adherents argue  that we cannot know that our perceptions are not the product of  manipulations of our brains by some unrecognized agent or agent-like factor. Because we cannot ever know that, we cannot know anything.
 
Even if ponderous bodies truly rotate around the planet Jupiter, we cannot know that because, hypothetically, some common molecular substances in our environment alter our perceptions and our responses to them.
 
Nevertheless, what we take for knowledge has enabled our species to thrive for some 200,000 years, though ignorance has ever plaqued us.
 
==To know==
==To know==


Line 34: Line 28:


[More to come....]
[More to come....]
 
-->


==Notes==
==Notes==
<references/>
<references/>
<br><hr>
<br><hr>

Revision as of 17:07, 10 December 2010

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Knowledge, is, on one common philosophical account, justified, and true belief. If you believe that ponderous bodies rotate around the planet Jupiter, and can justify that belief with convincing evidence based on astronomical observations—experience—and your observations are reproducible and invulnerable to alternative explanations, and ponderous bodies truly rotate around Jupiter, you can claim the knowledge that your belief expresses.

However, 'knowledge' is very often used in a looser way to refer to any form of truth or belief, a whole body of truth or a whole system of belief. For "knowledge" in this latter sense, see world view, ideology, and religion.

In a more restricted and philosophical sense, knowledge is the central topic of the philosophical subdiscipline of epistemology. A good place to begin with this topic is by explaining why most philosophers do distinguish between knowledge on one hand and both truth and belief on the other hand.

Firstly, knowledge is said to differ from truth for the simple reason that not all truths are known; in other words, there are undiscovered truths. Some people (including some philosophers) are apt to respond to this by asking, "What sort of thing is an undiscovered truth?" This is an ontological issue, however, and most of us will probably be satisfied if we simply give examples. For instance, the second law of thermodynamics was already true prior to its being discovered in the 19th century.

Secondly, knowledge is said to differ from belief because we believe many things when we do not really know them.[1]


Notes

  1. Some philosophers are even capable of saying that we can have knowledge of a fact without believing it. Cf. Colin Radford, "Knowledge--By Examples." (complete reference needed).