Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,371
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − [[File:Dubai Knowledge Village.jpg|thumb|left|250px|[[Dubai]] Knowledge Village.]]+ Line 6:
Line 6: − + − {{Clear}} − + + + + + + + + + Line 18:
Line 25: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + Line 28:
Line 60: − *''[http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational atheist]: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by [[Vox Day]], Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2008'' , ISBN 1933771364; ISBN 978-1933771366 Line 39:
Line 70: + + + + + + − + + +
no edit summary
'''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.
[[File:Beliefs and knowledge and truths.png|right|thumbnail|400px|A Venn diagram picturing the traditional definition of knowledge as justified [[Truth|true]] [[belief]] (That is represented by the yellow circle). ]]
'''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.
== Scientific knowledge and falsifiability ==
''See also:'' [[Falsifiable]]
A concept is [[falsifiable]] if it is possible to show that it is false if it were false.<ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-falsifiability.html Definition] A Dictionary of Psychology, Andrew M. Colman, via encyclopedia.com</ref> A concept that could not possibly be shown to be false, even if it were false, is not falsifiable.
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==
* ''Constructive knowledge'' is what a person knew or should have known at a relevant time, i.e., what he would have known if he had exercised reasonable care.
* ''Constructive knowledge'' is what a person knew or should have known at a relevant time, i.e., what he would have known if he had exercised reasonable care.
* ''Imputed knowledge'' can be one person's knowledge imputed to another because of their legal relationship (e.g., agent and principal), knowledge that people are required to have ("Ignorance of the law is no excuse"), or knowledge that someone lacks because of [[willful ignorance]].
* ''Imputed knowledge'' can be one person's knowledge imputed to another because of their legal relationship (e.g., agent and principal), knowledge that people are required to have ("Ignorance of the law is no excuse"), or knowledge that someone lacks because of [[willful ignorance]].
The law of evidence also distinguishes between statements made of one's own knowledge and statements made on information and belief, which are statements of second-hand information that the person making the statements believes to be true.
== Bloom's taxology and knowledge ==
''See also:'' [[Bloom's taxology]]
[[File:Bloom's taxology.png|thumbnail|right|350px|[[Bloom's taxology]] ]]
[[Bloom's taxology]] is a hierarchical classification of the different levels of thinking and understanding developed by Benjamin Bloom in 1956 with collaborators Max Englehart, Edward Furst, Walter Hill, and David Krathwohl.<ref>[https://bloomstaxonomy.net/ Bloom's taxonomy]</ref><ref>[https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ Bloom's taxonomy], Vanderbilt University</ref> Educators often use it when creating coursework.<ref>[https://bloomstaxonomy.net/ Bloom's taxonomy]</ref>
Vanderbilt University explains Bloom's taxology thusly:
{{Cquote|The framework elaborated by Bloom and his collaborators consisted of six major categories: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The categories after Knowledge were presented as “skills and abilities,” with the understanding that knowledge was the necessary precondition for putting these skills and abilities into practice...
Here are the authors’ brief explanations of these main categories in from the appendix of Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Handbook One, pp. 201-207):
- '''Knowledge''' “involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting.”
- '''Comprehension''' “refers to a type of understanding or apprehension such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest implications.”
- '''Application''' refers to the “use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations.”
- '''Analysis''' represents the “breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements or parts such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit.”
- '''Synthesis''' involves the “putting together of elements and parts so as to form a whole.”
- '''Evaluation''' engenders “judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes.”<ref>[https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ Bloom's taxonomy], Vanderbilt University</ref>}}
== Atheism and knowledge ==
== Atheism and knowledge ==
''See also:'' [[Atheism and knowledge]]
''See also:'' [[Atheism and knowledge]] and [[Atheism and epistemology]]
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|A common and legitimate criticism of the [[atheist worldview]] is that [[atheism]] is irrational.<ref>[http://carm.org/cut-atheism Atheism] by Matt Slick
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|A common and legitimate criticism of the [[atheist worldview]] is that [[atheism]] is irrational.<ref>[http://carm.org/cut-atheism Atheism] by Matt Slick
* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html Theism, Atheism, and Rationality] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
* [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html Theism, Atheism, and Rationality] by [[Alvin Plantinga]]
</ref> See: [[Atheism and irrationality]] ]]
</ref> See: [[Atheism and irrationality]] ]]
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>}}
== See also ==
*[[Epistemology]]
*[[Rational thinking]]
*[[Logical reasoning]]
== External links ==
== External links ==
[[File:Dubai Knowledge Village.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[Dubai]] Knowledge Village.]]
*[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/>
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]