Difference between revisions of "Knowledge"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
That which is known to be the case. 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 gods and religions ([[knowledge in the biblical sense|divine knowledge]]). This can mean that what constitutes 'knowledge', despite the concept involving incontrovertibility, is in fact contested around the world, between religions, amongst historians, scientists etc. | That which is known to be the case. 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 gods and religions ([[knowledge in the biblical sense|divine knowledge]]). This can mean that what constitutes 'knowledge', despite the concept involving incontrovertibility, is in fact contested around the world, between religions, amongst 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. Encyclopedias 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'. Wikipedia is considered to lack knowledge by Daniel Brandt. | + | 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. Encyclopedias 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'. [[Wikipedia]] is considered to lack knowledge by [[Daniel Brandt]]. |
Knowledge is opposed to mere [[subjective opinion]]. | Knowledge is opposed to mere [[subjective opinion]]. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Philosophers take up the question of knowledge in [[Epistemology]] and [[Methodology]]. | 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] |
[[category:philosophy]] | [[category:philosophy]] | ||
Revision as of 14:48, September 8, 2007
That which is known to be the case. There are said to be various kinds of knowledge: knowledge of matters of contingent fact (empirical knowledge), knowledge of necessary truths (a priori knowledge), and knowledge of matters of gods and religions (divine knowledge). This can mean that what constitutes 'knowledge', despite the concept involving incontrovertibility, is in fact contested around the world, between religions, amongst 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. Encyclopedias 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'. Wikipedia is considered to lack knowledge by Daniel Brandt.
Knowledge is opposed to mere subjective opinion.
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." [1]