“Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.” Discuss this statement in relation to Math and Natural Sciences. The fundamental knowledge question posed in this statement is “To what extent is the systematic organisation of facts reliable in the acquirement of knowledge?” Knowledge provides us with an understanding of the world we live in, thus contributing to the advancement of our world. By considering this knowledge question, we are able to assess the strengths and limitations of categorising knowledge systematically. This can then provide us with a broader understanding of knowledge, encouraging further discoveries and inventions. The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge states that three aspects- belief, truth and justification- constitute knowledge. Knowledge is typically divided into three categories: personal knowledge, procedural knowledge and propositional knowledge. Personal knowledge is knowledge obtained through personal experience, procedural knowledge is the knowledge of knowing how to perform a specific skill, and propositional knowledge is the knowledge of facts that can be declared. Knowledge is accumulated through a variety of ways, the most salient being experience, perception and reason. Facts are statements proven to be true through observation and investigation. The systematic organisation of facts implies a methodical approach towards knowledge, which is most commonly achieved through following the processes within the scientific method. This systematic organisation requires the extraction and categorisation of supposed facts. Although this allows for convenience, this can be a reductionist approach towards the acquirement of knowledge, potentially disregarding extraneous variables. Math... ... middle of paper ... ...f organised facts. Limiting knowledge to a particular system is unrealistic, as new discoveries and experiences can be predictable. The Chaos Theory, which does not abide by a specific system, accounts for this unpredictability. Einstein’s theory of relativity demonstrates how knowledge can be acquired in ways other than reason, such as imagination. Whereas, a systematic organisation of facts does not accommodate for imagination and other creative ways of knowing. Although in some circumstances, using a systematic organisation of facts can provide convenience. Axioms are clear examples of knowledge that are nothing but the systematic organisation of facts. However, these axioms are mostly redundant, in that they do not further our understanding of the world we live in, for the most part. Knowledge is much more than the reliance on a systematic organisation of facts.
...concrete theories and empirical truths, no matter how factual, that we may attempt to use
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
In this section, Hume begins by categorizing knowledge into types: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas are knowable a priori and negating such a statement would lead to a contradiction, and matters of fact are knowable a posteriori, or through experience, and the negation would not be a contradiction. While relations of ideas are generally used in mathematics, matters of fact are significant in determining how one experiences the world; the beliefs an individual has are formed through his experience, thus making cognition a matter of fact.... ... middle of paper ...
Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Many researchers distinguish between declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge types, with varying agreement on those distinctions (Cross & Paris, 1988; Kuhn, 2000; Schraw et al., 2006; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Declarative knowledge is the factual information that one knows; it can be declared—spoken or written. An example is knowing the formula for calculating momentum in a physics class (momentum = mass times velocity). Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do something, of how to perform the steps in a process; for example, knowing the mass of an object and its rate of speed and how to do the calculation. Conditional knowledge is knowledge about when to use a procedure, skill, or strategy and when not to use it; why a procedure works and under what conditions; and why one procedure is better than another. For example, students need to recognize that an exam word problem requires the calculation of momentum as part of its solution.
Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand something is different from having a relationship with something. Propositional knowledge, that can be known or believed, is her focus due to simplicity. The criteria required for belief is to have a thought, followed by augmentation with experience. The minimal criteria for a definition of knowledge must incorporate two types of “good”; a moral and an ethical. These truths are implemented to develop the foundation on which Zagzebski later builds her definition.
In this paper, I offer a solution to the Gettier problem by adding a fourth condition to the justified true belief analysis of knowledge. First though, a brief review. Traditionally, knowledge had been accounted for with the justified true belief analysis. To know something, three conditions had to be met: first, you had to have a belief; second, the belief had to be justified; third, this justified belief had to be true. So a justified true belief counts as knowledge. Gettier however showed this analysis to be inadequate as one can have a justified true belief that no one would want to count as knowledge.
“A map is only useful if it simplifies things.” To what extent does this apply to knowledge?”
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
van de Lagemaat, R. (2011) Theory of knowledge for the IB diploma, Cambridge University Press.
In this book, Samir Okasha kick off by shortly describing the history of science. Thereafter, he moves on scientific reasoning, and provide explanation of the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. An important point Samir makes, is the faith that humans put into the inductive reasoning
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.
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.
The Nature of Mathematics Mathematics relies on both logic and creativity, and it is pursued both for a variety of practical purposes and for its basic interest. The essence of mathematics lies in its beauty and its intellectual challenge. This essay is divided into three sections, which are patterns and relationships, mathematics, science and technology and mathematical inquiry. Firstly, Mathematics is the science of patterns and relationships. As a theoretical order, mathematics explores the possible relationships among abstractions without concern for whether those abstractions have counterparts in the real world.
To provide solutions to philosophical problems such as, how world process was created, man must be in possession of rational, intuition, and intuitive knowledge. Rational knowledge is human reasoning and requires verification. The ability of man to reason while giving logical step by step demonstration and arguments is referred to as human knowledge and it has a rational source. According to Carriero and Broughton (2011), genuine rational knowledge is provided by clear and separate knowledge of wholesome intellect with sense deliverances interaction. Sen (1996) considers rational knowledge as the knowledge of change in states of specific entities, in the sense that human experience is a confirmation of change. What are its classes, provisions and philosophical problem associated with rational knowledge? The paper seeks to examine rational knowledge by addressing the above three issues.