John Boyd Orr once said ‘Our civilization has evolved through the continuous adjustment of society to the stimulus of new knowledge’. As human beings we have been evolving for thousands of years and are still evolving. This too can be said about our knowledge of the world; it is constantly expanding as we gather new information to assimilate the great think tank of the world. Knowledge survives the test of time such as Pythagoras's Theorem. However, this raises the question of whether to accept knowledge as it is or to continue to question it. The knowledge we so zealously hold on today, could be proven wrong tomorrow and this is how we continue to expand our knowledge. Knowledge as defined in a Theory of Knowledge sense is a justified, true belief. In order for it to be justified there must be evidence supporting it and for it to be a belief it must be believed by the consensus, or experts in an authoritative institution. When attaining knowledge I value my personal experience in order to validate it, however, this doesn't mean I am right. If the knowledge I attain is wrong and there are no contradictions at the time then I will believe I am right. Verifying my claims is a way of gaining confidence in my knowledge.
By using the areas of knowledge, history and the natural sciences we will see the issue of how false information in history can be regarded as the truth and those natural sciences are constantly shifting with new breakthroughs and information being assimilated. History provides information of the past and how small events can lead to large scale ones but if the information given is falsified or wrong it may cause inaccuracies in knowledge. Natural science shows us how knowledge must be tested before being discarded an...
... middle of paper ...
...ethod we learn to further knowledge to increase our understanding. Those in power may try to do this for beneficial or even unethical needs but knowledge cannot easily be fully erased from history, traces will always remain and it is our job to find it. Some knowledge can withstand the test of time due to this and thus are always changing little by little in order to obtain a better or a more complete truth. Therefore in conclusion “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” is an accurate statement as shown from the areas of knowledge history and natural sciences. However, emphasis on the word ‘sometimes’ must be given as history shows us that it will only be discarded if wrong or can be manipulated for personal gain. While the natural science show us knowledge must tested thoroughly before being discarded as all knowledge is useful.
Knowledge, when used for the wrong reasons can be proven harmful, but overall, knowledge is used for creating a better
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives” ~ James Madison
Since the beginning of time humans have had a desire for knowledge. This craving for more has provided many advancements in technology, medicine, and how the world works. Even though it is an admirable gift, knowledge needs to be handled in moderation. Similar to a drug knowledge is addicting, leading to a fixation that becomes a curse.
History is an area of knowledge that is subject to a lot of bias; it examines past events with limited evidence. This means that the data that is missing is subject to the interpretation of the historian. Knowledge must be accurate; it has to reflect what is observed in reality. If it is not held to this standard, anything becomes knowledge. Anyone could say anything and have it be knowledge.
The two theories I have chosen to write my essay about include the pseudoscience of astrology and the recognized science of plate tectonics. I will explore the reasons why the first theory is pseudoscientific, and the second is not. Following that, I will argue why these characteristics are acceptable in deciding whether a science is genuine science or a pseudoscience. As described in the text, “people use the term scientific to suggest reliability, validity, and certainty” (370). My thesis is that by using the scientific method, which includes views from empiricists, rationalists, and transcendental idealists, one can accurately determine a science from a pseudoscience.
The knowledge can equip one when he or she pursues the truth. However, an illusion of owning the knowledge can do exactly the opposite. People tend to have their opinions, but it is important to realize that we may do not own the knowledge that we thought we had. The perplexity can be a sign for us that reminds us the existence of ignorance of ourselves, just as what Socrates said, “…he would be glad to find out, whereas before he thought he could easily make many fine speeches to large audiences about the square of double size…” (Meno, 84c).
At one side knowledge is the source of all conclusions that we reach and the way we interact with one another. On the other hand, if the knowledge is doubtful, it leaves us at a state of dilemma where we no longer can link up different aspects of life and how they are supposed to function to create something of significance. For instance, when it comes to the idea of knowledge, many scholars rely on the notion that its existence is certain and very much logical as long as the existence of God has been accepted as the universal truth (Loeb). However, when someone fails to establish this to be of such status, means, if someone is doubtful about the existence of God, without any doubt this leads to the questioning of knowledge as well since the very source of that is being questioned. However, this notion is debatable and different scholars hold different perceptions regarding the
Knowledge, it is power but what is done with that power makes all the difference. Does history repeat itself, or as the above quote alludes to, does humankind ignore the lessons learned, allowing the experience of those before to become nothing more than a light showing the path to what was already known. History relies on many different elements such as, the memory and firsthand accounts of the events that took place; the finding of artifacts that become pieces to a puzzle that eventually tell a story of what might have occurred. These lessons are documented for a reason, not only to recount what took place but also to learn and gain valuable knowledge from those recorded events.
In the past, as well as in current times, both historians and scientists have strived to present knowledge that is free of bias, a prejudice in favor or against one thing, and selection, the act of having a preference when carefully choosing the most suitable thing. In a nutshell, they try their best to present knowledge that is objective and impartial in nature. Nonetheless, there are times, in which the knowledge that they present to us contains certain hints of bias and selection. Hence, the knowledge is to be considered as subjective and representative. With respect to all these, the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection actually lingers in my mind. I believe that it is, in fact, possible, but, at the same time, I believe that the problems of bias and selection may limit the knowledge that we attain. I am contemplating whether there is anything wrong with knowledge that contains hints of bias and selection and whether knowledge that has been tainted with bias and selection is still worth knowing, so does subjective knowledge render the knowledge irrelevant is the knowledge issue at hand.
Shaping knowledge is similar to reevaluating what a person may consider to be true. While this is neither a positive or negative thing, it impacts the progression of the world, in terms of societal cues, which is constantly reliant on continued shared knowledge among individuals. Shared knowledge shapes personal knowledge, and this is done by strengthening personal knowledge or by bringing its validity into question. This is dependent on the individual accepting knowledge. Some people may not have experienced a certain type of situation, so they would
I am of the opinion that humankind does not produce knowledge in the realm of natural sciences, human sciences, and history. We discover knowledge and our reach is limited. Aristarchus
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
“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge.
What is stated above happens around us all the time. Something might be proven today, but proven wrong tomorrow. Therefore I completely agree to this statement. But how do we accept something to be knowledge, and what makes one thing knowledge and the other thing just a theory? We can look at it from various aspects.