Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on knowledge construction
Essay on knowledge construction
Essay on knowledge construction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on knowledge construction
We, as human beings, are active processors of information. As our lives progress, we use a series of different interactions between ourselves and the real world to gain important intelligence, which we define as empirical evidence as we use our five senses to obtain it. We utilize this evidence in order to create a sure understanding of the world we exist in, and thus knowledge. Knowledge has no end in the sense that we are constantly absorbing information through our everyday lives, surrounding environments and experiences. As this knowledge is stored in our minds, it must have a starting point from which to continuously build on, as the complexity of information we are exposed to increases. The claim “knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts” then becomes relevant as our quest for knowledge can be seen as a constant building process. Nonetheless, we need to consider arising issues such as how reliable these processes are in extending our knowledge within different areas of knowledge (AOK) and how we can measure its effectiveness. Therefore, we need to start by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of these systematic approaches in constructing our overall understanding of knowledge. The knowledge issue is how can we know that a systematic processing of facts can allow a thorough understanding in the areas of the mathematics and history?
To begin, we must first establish what is meant by the terms “fact” and “systematic organization”. From my own perspective, I defined the first term as a piece of evidence which is true and which cannot be discarded or disputed in a logical manner. They are the concrete realities which no amount of reasoning can alter. For example, in 6th grade, I experienced a case o...
... middle of paper ...
... in order to form the cause and effect relationship of a given event or in determining the event’s significance in the greater context of history. Accordingly, it aids in building a comprehensive understanding of the true nature of history by producing concrete evidence to explain the significance of the past events. Equally important is how we measure the effectiveness of this approach. Knowledge being nothing more than a product of this systematic processing is largely supported by the certainty achieved along the way which allows the facts to be beyond reasonable doubt.
I have come to conclude as a knower, an in-depth examination in the areas of knowledge is a result of the systematic organization of undeniable facts. Simply put, the process of using the things we know for sure to gain further knowledge is essential in expanding our overall understanding.
In every field of study that exists, experts research, test, and reach conclusions; later they often debate, their ideas clashing to see which holds the most merit and which is the best to continue researching. This is the basis of our understandings, turning the personal knowledge of experts into shared knowledge that can be used to better the lives of everyone, and this comes from the disagreements in our Areas of Knowledge (AoKs). Before we delve further, we need to define some terms. Facts are understood as something that is the case, or as information that makes a sentence true. Experts are understood to be people that possess a significant amount of knowledge in an area at a greater level than the general public, and discipline is understood
In the traditional analysis of knowledge, knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. The presence of these three requirements (i.e., justification,
He believed the only way to understand knowledge was to understand how it was acquired, therefore psychological and historical investigation was necessary.
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, we are able to draw a conclusion which explains the process of validating knowledge. To validate knowledge claims, it is important to have evidence or experience. This not only gives the knower a fuller comprehension of the claim at hand, but gives your claim credibility to others.
Our first understanding of knowledge is in our childhood when we rely solely on our perception of what we believe to be true, to be actual. Perception is our first natural process of taking in information before we evaluate its justifiedness in our belief or nonbelief of its actuality. The commonly accepted definition of knowledge as, justified true belief, is based on the sources of knowledge. The importance of such sources of knowledge are heavily reliant on the role that memory itself plays in the meaning, scope and reliability of what we call justified true belief.
... 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.
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...
Knowledge is something that can change day to day, which can be learned through both the natural and human sciences. Knowledge changes in the natural sciences when an experiment is conducted and more data has been gathered. Knowledge changes in human sciences when patterns are recognized in society and further tests have been conducted. Does our knowledge of things in the natural and human sciences change every day? I think that our knowledge grows everyday but does not necessarily change every day. The areas of knowledge that will be discussed in this essay are natural and human sciences. In History we can see that at one point something that was considered knowledge then transformed into different knowledge, especially in the natural sciences. However, in the past, due to lack of technology, it might have been more of a lack of knowledge that then turned into knowledge on the topic.
The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop. In major areas such as: scientific investigations, judicial examinations, historical assessments and many other field of knowledge, the value of creditable evidence are strongly advocated. While evidence is a strong factor in eliminating doubts of knowledge, different types of evidence can also affect the reliability of the truth claim which it supports. The fine line dividing valuable evidence and unreliable proof has since been drawn and debated over from the first schools of thoughts to today’s broad fields of knowledge. Likewise, I will also call upon my own experience and understanding to draw my own line in the grey vicinity of this spectrum.
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
Knowledge is but understanding. How we indulge and interpret an issue is knowledge. In the pursuit of knowledge, we, as materialistic learners and knowers, repeatedly ignore crucial procedures, pro...
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
Socrates once said “To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.”(Citation ) The study of knowledge is something philosophers have been conducting from the creation of philosophy. In fact knowledge is one of the perennial topics of philosophy, just as nature of matter in the physical sciences. The discipline of knowledge is known as epistemology(Greek meaning of knowledge and reason). Epistemology is literally defined as means to reason about knowledge, to think about knowledge and to examine knowledge so that we may better ourselves. Philosophers who study knowledge attempt to study what makes up knowledge, the kinds of things one can know, what the limits of knowledge and above all, the age long question
According to Lowe, knowledge requires a form of action to be accurate and precise. In other words, knowledge is created on the basis of a rationally conceived design such as an experiment. Experiments are a great example of how action is required to produce or replicate knowledge. Moreover, one necessitates research and a rational design to attain certainty in his or her knowledge claim. Generally, this certainty may be achieved with an experiment. Natural sciences may be referred to as a science of the physical world, whereas a social science may be defined as a branch of science dealing with human society and relationships. Furthermore, social sciences and natural science may be distinguished by the method of their creation. In general, natural sciences usually require a form of action (i.e. experiment) to provide justification for their knowledge claims whereas social sciences don’t require action to justify their knowledge claims. An example of a method that doesn’t require action may be a case study. One may wonder which method is more reliable and accurate. A knowledge questions that arises from this situation is: To what extent is action required to justify knowledge. In this essay, I am going to examine the extent at which action is required to justify a knowledge claim. By taking both natural and social sciences into consideration. By taking personal experiences and relevant knowledge issues into account, this essay will discuss several aspects regarding the knowledge question.