The 's Theory Of Knowledge

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

- Spelke’s position focuses more on the nature side of the debate as she describes her core knowledge theory. What this theory suggests is that humans are born with innate knowledge that can be divided into four systems involving objects, people, numbers, and space. In other words, Spelke believes that humans are born with certain knowledge in each of these systems, which then provide a basis for learning from new experiences. In her article, she further defends her theory by justifying that it is universal. For instance, she explains that core knowledge is can be found in other animals, as well as in people from other cultures like the Piraha.

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

There are four fundamental patters of knowing in nursing that are distinguished according to logical type of meaning. The first fundamental pattern of knowing in nursing is empirical. It is described as factual, descriptive, and ultimately aimed at developing abstract, and theoretical explanations. It is exemplary, discursively formulated, and publicly verifiable.

Merriam-Webster defines knowledge as “the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.” This definition of knowledge isn't really helpful because it attempts precision but doesn't arrive anywhere useful. How is knowledge different from knowing? The definition from the dictionary wanders through suggestions related to awareness, understanding, information, and cognition. Each of these terms are quite different from each other.That is why, when we say “Innovation”, understanding these terms becomes a necessity or we are going to have a vague understanding about innovation.

Unger’s analysis of knowledge states that S knows P if and only if (I) P is true, (II) S believes P, and (III) it is not at all accidental that S is right about P. Unger used an example to help illustrate this. This example begins by stating that there is a gypsy who has been raised in order to believe the reports of a certain crystal ball. This crystal ball is always correct in its predictions. Regardless of the gypsy’s knowledge of its source and his belief of the general unreliability of the source, which he gained from others, he ultimately cannot help but always believe the report of the ball. Unger states that the gypsy is not justified in his belief because he does lack knowledge of its source and also because of the general unreliability

Nozick’s analysis of knowledge states that S knows P if and only if (i) P is true (ii) S believes P (iii) if P weren’t true, then S would not believe P, and (iv) if P were true, then S would believe P. An example, presented by Harmon, involving a dictator’s death and whether somebody knows if the dictator was killed will be used to show how Nozick’s analysis is suppose to work. A separate example, presented by Kripke, involving a photon’s emission and whether the subject knows if a photon was emitted will be used to oppose Nozick’s analysis of knowledge. I believe that Kripke’s counterexample to Nozick’s analysis of knowledge does not successfully show that Nozick’s analysis fails and I will add my own condition to prove how Nozick’s analysis

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

A perpetual conflict emanating throughout all mankind questions the significance of knowledge to human nature, regarding knowledge’s definition, acquisition, branches, and value. Major role models in the foundation of philosophy - specifically, in this essay, Plato and Aristotle - obsess over the significance of knowledge and its importance to and relationship with the development of human beings and their mindsets. Although Plato’s view on knowledge describes the internal predisposed essence of all Forms and the need for a superior being to extract them from the student, Aristotle’s outlook resides as more reliable and realistic due to his beliefs in the premise of knowledge in the sensation and perception, with continuing development in memory, experience, art and science, and, ultimately, true wisdom.

Associationists are believers that a person is born as a tabula rasa or a blank slate where everything that has been learnt has been imprinted upon through connections made in the environment. This is why lemons are associated with being sour or a cloudy day is thought to signify rain. Stemming back centuries, many renown thinkers of their time have contributed to the theory.

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is

Knowledge, as we all understand, can be general or specialized. We are able to gather knowledge about certain aspects of reality, branches of science, skills, traits and phenomena observable in nature. But there is another kind of “knowledge”, which is the sum of every subcategoric, specific knowledge. This knowledge is what we know about the “world” - how knowledgeable we are, how well can we navigate the seas of reality because of our knowledge about its currents, flows and hidden reefs.

Knowledge is defined to be facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. There are two categories that fall under knowledge; personal knowledge and shared knowledge. Shared knowledge refers to what “we know because.” It can also be defined as communicated and constructed knowledge; within culture, social norms, and semiotics. Personal knowledge refers to “I know because.” An expanded definition of personal knowledge refers to personal experiences, values, and perceptions. Shared knowledge changes and evolves over time because of methods that are continuously shared. It is assembled by a group of people. Personal knowledge, on the other hand, depends crucially on the experiences of a particular individual. It is gained

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

Knowledge lies at the foundation of everything in society. While it may not always be noticed, it is always present. This knowledge is used in an array of processes such as creativity, experimentation, analysis, and so much more. From process to process, or area of knowledge to area of knowledge, all knowledge incorporates the processes of both transformation and description in order to evolve as justifiable beliefs. Transformative knowledge includes the product of an individual’s implementation of their personal cognitive processes to challenge traditional perspectives, while descriptive knowledge results when individuals utilize the new perspectives, allowing fresh outlooks to be perceived. While all areas of knowledge incorporate the use of both processes, some may primarily use one or the other. This can be seen in the areas of art and natural sciences. Knowledge in arts seems to primarily describe the world, while knowledge in natural sciences seeks to transform it through innovation and much more.