Changes

'''Knowledge''' is the sum of what is known. There are said to be various kinds of knowledge: knowledge of matters of contingent fact ([[empiricism|empirical knowledge]]), knowledge of necessary truths (a priori knowledge), and knowledge of matters of [[god]]s and [[religion]]s ([[Revelation (religion)|Divine revelation]]). This can mean that what constitutes 'knowledge', despite the concept involving incontrovertibility, is in fact contested around the world, between religions, among historians, scientists etc.

'''Knowledge''' is the sum of what is known. There are said to be various kinds of knowledge: knowledge of matters of contingent fact ([[empiricism|empirical knowledge]]), knowledge of necessary [[truth]]s ([[a priori]] knowledge), and knowledge of matters of [[god]]s and [[religion]]s ([[Revelation (religion)|Divine revelation]]). This can mean that what constitutes 'knowledge', despite the concept involving incontrovertibility, is in fact contested around the world, between religions, among historians, scientists etc.

Many believe that sharing of knowledge is the best way to increase knowledge. Others believe so firmly in one kind of knowledge that they fear learning. [[Encyclopedia]]s often contain a wealth of 'knowledge' unless they espouse only one single type of knowledge in which case they seem to become repositories of 'opinion'.

Many believe that sharing of knowledge is the best way to increase knowledge. Others believe so firmly in one kind of knowledge that they fear learning. [[Encyclopedia]]s often contain a wealth of 'knowledge' unless they espouse only one single type of knowledge in which case they seem to become repositories of 'opinion'.

Knowledge is opposed to mere subjective [[opinion]], or the body of facts, truths, or principles accumulated in the course of time.

Knowledge is opposed to mere subjective [[opinion]], or the body of facts, truths, or principles accumulated in the course of time.

Philosophers take up the question of knowledge in [[Epistemology]] and [[Methodology]].

[[Philosophy|Philosophers]] take up the question of knowledge in [[Epistemology]] and [[Methodology]].

[[C.S. Lewis]] said, "All our knowledge of the universe beyond our immediate experiences depends on inferences from these experiences." [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html]

[[C.S. Lewis]] said, "All our knowledge of the universe beyond our immediate experiences depends on inferences from these experiences." [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html]

General erudition or [[Polymath]] deals with knowledge of many things.  

General erudition or a [[polymath]] deals with knowledge of many things.

 

 

 

 

To be considered [[scientific]], a [[hypothesis]] must be "falsifiable", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see [[pseudoscience]]). However, the [[history of science]] is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong.

==In law==

==In law==

If an atheist agrees that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, then they must live consistently with that implication in order to have a self consistent foundation for knowledge. But if the foundation of knowledge is no more than induction, then it entails that one can not be ultimately certain about anything.  If the atheists say that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, but yet they make absolute claims, then the atheist is contradicting their own epistemology. This is because the atheist, who uses inductive reasoning as their foundation for knowledge, has limited themselves to what they believe is probable, but they can’t make absolute claims due to the limitations of inductive reasoning.<ref>[http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/the-epistemological-argument-against-atheism/ The Epistemological Argument against Atheism]</ref>}}

If an atheist agrees that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, then they must live consistently with that implication in order to have a self consistent foundation for knowledge. But if the foundation of knowledge is no more than induction, then it entails that one can not be ultimately certain about anything.  If the atheists say that their foundation for knowledge is inductive, but yet they make absolute claims, then the atheist is contradicting their own epistemology. This is because the atheist, who uses inductive reasoning as their foundation for knowledge, has limited themselves to what they believe is probable, but they can’t make absolute claims due to the limitations of inductive reasoning.<ref>[http://answersforhope.org/portfolio_item/the-epistemological-argument-against-atheism/ The Epistemological Argument against Atheism]</ref>}}

== External links ==

== External links ==

 

*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Knowledge Knowledge.]

*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Knowledge Knowledge.]

*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/erudition Erudition.]

*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/erudition Erudition.]

*[http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html The duality of knowledge.]

*[http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html The duality of knowledge.]

==References==

==References==