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. In order to evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional, one must first examine: when, if at all, does knowledge have to be discarded? In the sciences, many theories cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be proven true; however, they can be proven false and therefore discarded. Human scientists spend their lives attempting to understand human behavior and human phenomena. As time progresses and technology advances, they make new discoveries about humans. I discovered one example of this while studying addiction in my standard level psychology class. Over 50 years ago, psychopathologists, those who study mental disorders and that which is abnormal, acknowledged the abuse of alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, and nicotine, amongst other substances, as addictions. This was based largely on the fact that the... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
“As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with that exists” (Albert Einstein) Everyone is intelligent in many ways. People can also learn in many, many ways. An example is how musicians are smart in music and write the music in many ways. There are many ways unexpected people are intelligent and here are three ways that people can be intelligent.
Core knowledge is a psychological theory that proposes the idea that children have innate cognitive abilities that are the product of evolutionary mechanisms, called nativism. The theoretical approach of constructivism also includes that children have domain-specific learning mechanisms that efficiently collect additional information for those specific domains. The core knowledge theory is primarily focused on whether our cognitive abilities, or capacities, are palpable early on in development, or if these capacities come up during a later developmental phase (Siegler 168).
This assumption also shows the assumption Elbow’s proposal makes about human intellectual processes, which is that it wants to know the correct answer, and is willing to disregard previous answers so long as a better answer presents itself. So long as the process to find a correct answer isn’t one that tears down the wrong person’s answer, but rather a process that builds the correct answer’s legitimacy, the wrong person will be more willing to accept the correct answer. This is because the doubting game is inherently hostile to the other person when compared to the believing game. When neither person knows the correct answer, but both believe they know the correct answer, the doubting game causes conflict. Due to the fact that the doubting game has you finding
...ce, if this were scientific knowledge that apparently is not true, it would still be considered an item of order, a false one. However, if the false scientific data is currently acceptable, then our mindset and way of thinking remains unchanged, but, in the final analysis, science or technology cannot develop in the long term with false scientific information. The false scientific truth would have temporary impact on our lives, since we would notice there is a disorder with this false information and someone would challenge it and replace it with more accurate information. In fact, when we discover that this knowledge is in reality, false, we would fix it and progress further in the fields of science and technology, and our lives would therefore be greatly influenced in the short and long term.
...t find anything new. This description points out the hindrances on humans’ acquisition of knowledge because of our finite biological capacities.
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...
Theories of knowledge and power, and the exploration of the relationship between these two intangibles, are not nascent to the field of political philosophy. Francis Bacon first stated that ‘Knowledge is Power’, suggesting that to possess an understanding of something was to exert power over it. However, this also implies that knowledge is subservient to power, and exists as an implement or expression of power. For Michel Foucault, the relationship between power and knowledge is much more intimate and inseparable. While Foucault would certainly accept that to possess knowledge is to exercise power, he uniquely suggests that the corollary also contains truth; namely, the act of exerting control or power provides knowledge. Moreover, our modern society represents a paradigm shift away from (but not the elimination of) the exercise of juridical power, ‘the right to death’, and in turn has come to embrace the exercise of biopolitical control, ‘the power over life’. In other words, Foucault contends that modern systems of control, particularly neo-liberal ideologies, operate to micromanage biopolitical power in order to gain knowledge of, and therefore power over, humanity. Juridical power is best understood as the power of repression, or the power exercised traditional by the Monarch in Classical Liberal societies. The power relations discussed in the works of early Social Contract theorists like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau explore juridical power; the power to prohibit and punish, to subtract, deduct and supress. For example, legal strictures that seek to extoll a custodial punishment or monetary fine are an expression of juridical power. This also illustrates further the subtractive nature of juridical power,...
Since the beginning of the human race, people have sought out knowledge for survival, power, and curiosity. There is no real answer as to where knowledge comes from. Throughout history, great philosophers such as Plato, Augustine, and René Descartes have debated the source of knowledge and how we get it. This paper will demonstrate that, although Plato, Augustine, and Descartes all come up with explanations for how knowledge is obtained, Plato and Descartes have more sound arguments than those of Augustine.
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.
I know that everyone is not born with knowledge. Something I think makes people happy is knowledge. To have knowledge, I have to have an education, and I think happiness comes with knowledge. Someone I think is happy with knowledge is my sister because she is always in a good mood. Someone else I think is happy with an education and knowledge is my mom because she never yells at us or is in a bad mood therefore she is very happy. Therefore, knowledge makes almost everyone happy with their life and family.
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.
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.
...feasibility' and 'Causal' theories, and knowledge as 'warranted true belief' require us to take a certain 'leap of faith' when considering the question of knowledge at times. In order to avoid scepticism, I hold that knowledge does not necessarily need to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition does not need to be true, it means that something we hold as knowledge is not one which is beyond reasonable doubt, but one which it wouldn't make sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.
4. “Without application in the real world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.
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...