It's a popular belief among people, especially those whose jobs revolve around a field of knowledge, that strong knowledge requires agreement and disagreement. However, some believe that disagreement among experts should be a reason not to trust those experts, even it they have some things they do agree on. Robust knowledge is knowledge that is relevant and can be deemed credible by multiple people who may have helped take part in the production of the results. I believe that for knowledge to be specifically considered robust it doesn't have to be disagreed upon and then accepted, but that it just has to be accepted. I'm going to focus on two areas of knowledge: religious knowledge systems and indigenous knowledge systems because the belief …show more content…
If robust knowledge would require both consensus and disagreement it would just make matters more complicated and additionally it would make its own definition implying that robust knowledge should be knowledge that was debated upon and proved to be or made correct by whoever argued upon it. When there is something that can't simply be solved, more people may begin to develop theories of their own, so the knowledge couldn't be considered robust, it would be close to personal knowledge since people wouldn't come to terms on it. In the case of nuclear power, people are split in between whether it should be used as a source of energy or not because of how dangerous the stuff is and the fact that it is not a renewable resource. Everyone won't be able to say that nuclear power is something that should be managed without any concern. The term robust has more than one meaning: it can be something well built, strong, and it can be something well thought out. When robust and knowledge are put together, I assume that it would be mean strong knowledge and for knowledge to be strong, it shouldn't e something multiple people had to assure and test the validity of, it's nearly a matter of perspective, it you think it is strong knowledge, then it may be strong
The Tell, by Matthew Hertenstein, is about the power of prediction based on observations of brief samples of others’ behavior. Throughout this book, Hertenstein teaches what tells in early life predict autism, how photographs betray others’ personality and aggressive inclinations, how smiling predicts marital stability, how micro-expressions signal deception, how facial structure predicts companies’ profits, and who wins political elections. In the following few pages, there will be many clues on what tells can predict certain things for the future (Hertenstein, ix).
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
Knowledge is defined as information and skills one acquires through experience or education. There is; however, a certain knowledge than cannot be certain and is unjustifiable from the scientific perspective. Karen Armstrong, Robert Thurman, and Azar Nafisi wrote about this type of knowledge in their essays: “Homo Religiosus,” “Wisdom,” and “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” respectively. Each of these authors has a different view of what knowledge is exactly, how it can be achieved, and what it means to have achieved it, but each author takes on the view that the concept of knowledge should be viewed from a social stance. Armstrong refers to this uncertain knowledge as “myth,” Thurman refers to it as “wisdom,” and Nafisi refers to it as “upsilamba";
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.
Prior knowledge plays a pivotal role in every aspect of human life. Knowledge can be stored in various formats like images, features, statistical patterns, all these formats help in making sense of the environment. Using prior knowledge humans can perform various activities including, but not limited to: focusing attention, organizing information in to groups, categorizing objects around, hypothesizing, understanding language, and generating inferences(Smith & Kosslyn, 2007). Processing of information is influenced by prior knowledge during the top down processing. Once signal has been detected by the biological visual system, we try to infer meaning using the prior related knowledge which has been stored in the long term memory based on category, association and similarity in features and statistical patterns(Wickens, Lee, Liu, & Becker, 2004). Prior knowledge has no boundaries and it keeps on changing based on experience with the environment making it easier for us humans to understand our surrounding better and quicker as time passes.
“A map is only useful if it simplifies things.” To what extent does this apply to knowledge?”
...wing how our human perception of things quickly shifts. I have looked at various examples in history, religion, mathematics and natural sciences, illustrating how disagreements were the main cause behind the contradiction of past theories. As humans, we constantly find new patterns that manage to reject what we thought we knew while observing past knowledge. However, are most theories discarded to reach a more complete notion of knowledge? I would personally say yes. There is an inherent assumption that with each paradigm shift we gain information and the knowledge developed from such would lead onto a much more complete theory. Therefore, through the process of investigating permutations within paradigms and paradigm shifts, in human and natural sciences, it is clear that knowledge once accepted as knowledge is likely of being discarded as we evolve through time.
...eas of knowledge has already been tainted with bias and selection as stated above. There is merely a slight chance of the knowledge not having any hints of bias and selection. In spite of this, of course, knowledge can still be objective and impartial in nature, which is good since the people will be provided with complete accounts and information. Nonetheless, the sheer amount of knowledge may render it useless, as well as clouding the truth. Whereas, knowledge with hints of bias and selection may be subjective and representative, but, on a brighter note, the knowledge may be more specific and better evaluated. Better evaluated in the sense that a debate between different people under the influence of bias and selection can contribute to the growth of knowledge. That is why, at the end of the day, knowledge with hints of bias and selection is still worth knowing.
The accuracy of data input is extremely important. There are several types of data input. They all provide different aspects of data accuracy. There is Copy and paste method, Typing of data input manually, Verbal through
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
‘It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts’. To what extent would you agree with this claim?
...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.
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.
There are several Areas of Knowledge you can use to determine if something is accepted as knowledge or not. I am going to look at some paradigm shifts by use of the Area of Natural Sciences.
Simply stated by Dr. D. Robinson, “ Active learning is ‘doing’ and this leads to understanding.” Learning by doing is a theme that many educators have stressed since John Dewey’s convincing argument that “children must be engaged in an active quest for learning and new ideas”. (Hendrikson, 1984) Jean Piaget also stressed the need for concrete operations in early childhood. Some educators incorrectly assume that active learning is important only in the education of young children. However, Piaget makes it clear that this in not so: “Experience is always necessary for intellectual development... the subject must be active...." (Hendrikson, 1984).