“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” Knowledge itself can be compared to a small child who is about to begin the long way in learning. Why this comparison? Since, as the child grows and goes through all the school years, with time, he will learn more and more than what he did before. The same situation can be applied to knowledge itself. The pursuit of knowledge has lead mankind to the point of development we are at as of the 21st century. With the passing of time, new ideas and methodologies, and key technological developments have lead, not to discarding knowledge, but to modifying our previous knowledge. The word “discarded” can be utilized as representing two different ideas: either discarded as completely eliminating previous knowledge, or discarded as an idea that is modified thus the previous one can be argued was discarded and replace, though it is still present in the bases of this new idea.
However, how can we be sure that all knowledge is discarded completely, and not modified by new discoveries? We once believed that, for example, genetic manipulation was something just for science fiction, like Aldous Huxley’s “A Brave New World”, or the movie “Gattaca”. However, it is now a reality we are facing and researching even more. On the other hand, we can argue that in history, our knowledge is affected by sense perception, language and it will always be bias, since “history is written by the winners”.
This idea leads to the fact that, alongside technological developments, the natural sciences have not discarded and replaced knowledge, but modified that that we had with the new findings. In addition, the scientific method itself lists repetition as one of its 5 steps. Thes...
... middle of paper ...
...reviously stated, the definition for discarded is not completely accurate, since knowledge is never completely discarded, but rather modified. Technological advances, theories, ideas and methodologies are all based on something. That something is defined as the basis knowledge required to begin, and with the passing of time it was never discarded, but rather reshaped into what it is today, making what we once believed to be only for science fiction part of our reality and our daily lives.
Works Cited
DeVito, D., Shamberg, M., Sher, S., & Lyon, G. (Producers), & Niccol, A. (Director). (1997). Gattaca. [Motion picture]. United States. Columbia Pictures.
Dombrowski, E., Rotenberg, L., & Bick, M. (2007). IB Diploma Programme – Theory of Knowledge Course Companion. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press
Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. UK: Chatto & Windus.
Gattaca. Dir. Andrew Niccol. By Andrew Niccol. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Jude Law. Columbia Pictures, 1997
Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
I shall also expound Ayer's theory of knowledge, as related in his book. I will show this theory to contain logical errors, making his modified version of the principle flawed from a second angle.
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.
Lagemaat, Richard Van De. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. UK: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.
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.
...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.
The Justified True Belief (JTB) theory of knowledge, often attributed to Plato , is a fairly straightforward theory of knowledge. It states that something must be true if person S believes proposition P, proposition P is true, and S is justified in believing in believing that P is true . While many consider the JTB theory to be vital to the understanding of knowledge, some, such as American Philosopher Edmund Gettier, believe that it is flawed. I tend to agree with Gettier and others who object to the JTB theory as an adequate theory of knowledge, as the JTB theory allows for a type of implied confirmation bias that can lead people to be justified in believing they know something even though it isn’t true.
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.
van de Lagemaat, R. (2011) Theory of knowledge for the IB diploma, Cambridge University Press.
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...
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
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.
Plato is one of the most important people in the history of Philosophy. Throughout his life, he had made many contributions to the world of philosophy, but the most important contribution that he is most known for is his theory of the Ideas or Forms. Throughout his many works such as the Phaedo and Symposium, he presented his theory of Ideas by using both mythos and logos in his argument for support.