Everything in our world is at a constant change over time. In knowledge, change is also the constant and we evolve around these changes. Let me define some key words in this essay. The word "discarded" in the context of this essay might not really mean erased, however; it might mean that it is no longer useful. It is no longer useful because "some" are completely discarded because of new theories. The implication is that knowledge claims are "replaced" or "evolved", as old theories are constantly being evolved by new theories. Peter Ducker states, “Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes.” Another key word: Accepted. Knowledge has to be approved by someone in order for the knowledge claims to be "justified true belief", which Plato defines it. Therefore, this research question is implying that knowledge which was accepted as justified true belief can sometimes be discarded tomorrow because knowledge claims can be improved or replaced by new ones. Thus, in this essay, I will explore the extent to which this claim appertains to natural science, history and ethics. I will also consider how the dynamics of these disciplines are affected by external factors.
First of all, the "once" "accepted" might have had errors or replaced by new theories. However, on the other hand it would also mean that they are completely discarded because the old theories are simply assimilated into new theories. The knowledge issues that I have come up with through the question are: How does accepted knowledge change over time, to what extent is knowledge temporary and what factors affect the accepting or discarding of knowledge. One may say for science and ethics, there is a reasonably solid body of knowledge, and ...
... middle of paper ...
...ome.” Hence, scientific knowledge changes because we discover new things as we go along as it is always on the move (Science Knowledge).
To conclude, knowledge does change over time. No matter whether it derives from the original knowledge, it is evident that ‘sometimes’ they are discarded due to replacement of new theories. New details are added and sometimes, new areas open up. Therefore, even if a body of knowledge were eventually improved on, it would remain valid for most circumstances.
Works Cited
"Evolutionary ethics: Can values change." -- Calman 30 (4): 366. 17 November 2013 .
"Philosophy." Quora. 15 November 2013 .
"Science Knowledge." Science knowledge subject to change. 13 November 2013 .
Galbraith states that the problem with conventional wisdom is that it does not adjust well with change. “Conventional wisdom accommodates itself not to the world that it is meant to interpret, but to the audience’s view of the world. Since the latter remains with the comfortable and the familiar, while the world moves on, the conventional wisdom is always in danger of obsolescence. ”(Galbraith 11). Galbraith used many examples to prove how the conventional wisdom failed.
knowledge, a symbol that needed to be disposed of for the elites to remain the
In the essay “The Allegory of the Cave,” Plato addresses how humans generally do not pursue knowledge. Most humans are satisfied with what they already know and do not want to expand their knowledge. Plato uses simple examples to help the reader understand his logic on why humans do not expand their knowledge.
In the area of Natural Sciences, new advances in the field are proposed by theorized conclusions before the theory is ever tested or proved. So in order for the different fields to move past the accepted knowledge to become more
The meaning, scope and reliability of what we call knowledge is without a doubt completely based on our ability to remember things. We have to remember our justifications of why we find things to be true and the truth in being justified in believing things to be knowledge. The vast libraries of human knowledge as well as the things we as individual hold to be basic truths only exist insofar as we can remember them. The most basic source of knowledge being memory is the grounding force in it as well. Without memory of truths past, present and future, we can know nothing. Memory grounds knowledge, and always will as long as humans have the capacity to do so.
... previous knowledge critically in order to decide if that knowledge is really worth of abundance. Luckily there are some scientists who later discover that discarded knowledge and takes it as a basis for their further research (like in Leibniz – Einstein case) that helps to establish new aspects of knowledge.
The Romantic Era followed the Age of Enlightenment, a time of scientific discovery, political changes, and philosophical advancement. Romanticism challenged the rationality of the Enlightenment (Britannica). Romantic artists placed emotions above reason. In keeping with the Romantic tradition, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley challenges the benefits of science, education, and knowledge. In Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein, his creature, and Robert Walton are all ambitious; they have a desire for knowledge. However, this quest for knowledge brings about destruction to Dr. Frankenstein, misery to the monster, and danger to Walton. Shelley draws parallels to the Biblical story of the Fall; a catastrophe which befell mankind because of a desire for knowledge.
In “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Research” it says, “they are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time.” These new discoveries can lead then to advancements and as a result can lead them to build a better society. Human beings will be able to reconstruct a better institutional framework which will bring them a prosperous and happy
(q), his belief that he sees a barn, isn’t justified, though. Therefore, Dom cannot know (q). The internalism of my account is obvious. What’s required for justification of (q) is different for Henry and Dom because of each’s belief about the kind of environment he is in. It is the belief about the environment and not the environment that matters. In other words, two people could be in the exact same circumstances but what required for justification would be different because of the beliefs they have. Causal accounts of knowledge can’t account for why Henry is justified for (q), but Dom is not. My account is not a causal account; as is shown in the Dom variation above, my account has no problem accounting for the different justifications required for Dom and for Henry.
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.
...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.
"We often think of science as something inescapably linked to progress, and of progress as continually marching forward. We assume that there is something inevitable about the increase of knowledge and the benefits this knowledge brings" (Irvine & Russell). Provide humanity with wisdom and speculative enjoyment. This enjoyment of the public is through reading, learning and thinking. But scientists are met with the real research work.
Conversely, upon investigating the artwork’s factual information such as the painting’s context, the artist’s background, the genre and the school or movement associated with the painting, it is possible to obtain knowledge that combines objective information and subjective opinion, confirming that some degree of objectivity, albeit with our ‘cultural imprint’, is possible as an art observer.
The language in this knowledge claim allows for multiple interpretations. Hence, we will assume that the past refers to both the distant and recent past, and that the phrase “change the future” includes further developing the AoK of human science's ability to predict ways to change the future. To check the validity of the knowledge claim, we will look at both the AoK history and the AoK human sciences in relation to the past and future respectively.
We gain knowledge in through our ways of knowing which are mainly perception, reason and language. We use them to find knowledge because we justify our claims and beliefs by their use, thus, our evidences, because they get us closer to the truth. To accept something as knowledge, it must be considered true, one must believe it and there must be justification why the person knows it, therefore these ways of knowing aid in the process for our quest for knowledge. In conclusion, in order to obtain knowledge all of these three attributes have to be integrated in some type of way, and due to the changing nature of all three of them, knowledge is always changing and it is dynamic, leading to the fact that knowledge can be discarded. The questions b...