This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.197.187.58 (talk) at 16:01, 29 August 2005 (m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:01, 29 August 2005 by 172.197.187.58 (talk) (m)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Knowledge is simply that which is known to be in accord with the actual state of affairs because it is supported by proof, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
Systematic-summarizing Approach
From this point of view knowledge is seen as the relevant set of data. Data (see Data (disambiguation)) is raw information such as an observation or measurement, the plural form of datum.
Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how
Suppose that Fred says to you: "The fastest swimming stroke is the front crawl. One performs the front crawl by oscillating the legs at the hip, and moving the arms in an approximately circular motion". Here, Fred has propositional knowledge of swimming and how to perform the front crawl.
However, if Fred acquired this propositional knowledge from an encyclopedia, he will not have acquired the skill of swimming: he has some propositional knowledge, but does not have any procedural knowledge or "know-how". In general, one can demonstrate know-how by performing the task in question, but it is harder to demonstrate propositional knowledge.
See Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge.
A short definition: Knowledge is the ability to take action, or in some cases, not take action. In Fred's case, above, after jumping in the pool - he 'knows' to take action by swimming or he risks drowning. Jumping in the pool with information about swimming or propositional knowledge about swimming may not be applied in time to save Fred's life. Presumably, beyond knowledge, comes wisdom - should Fred have jumped in the deep end of the pool so soon after eating lunch?
A priori versus a posteriori knowledge
Western philosophers have distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
A priori knowledge is knowledge gained or justified by reason alone, without the direct or indirect influence of experience (here, experience usually means observation of the world through sense perception.)
A posteriori knowledge is any other sort of knowledge; that is, knowledge the attainment or justification of which requires reference to experience. This is also called empirical knowledge.
One of the fundamental questions in epistemology is whether there is any non-trivial a priori knowledge. Generally speaking rationalists believe that there is, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is ultimately derived from some kind of external experience.
The fields of knowledge most often suggested as having a priori status are logic and mathematics, which deal primarily with abstract, formal objects.
Empiricists have traditionally denied that even these fields could be a priori knowledge. Two common arguments are that these sorts of knowledge can only be derived from experience (as John Stuart Mill argued), and that they do not constitute "real" knowledge (as David Hume argued).
Adoption of knowledge
Through experience, observation, and inference, individuals and cultures gain knowledge. The spread of this knowledge is examined by diffusion. Diffusion of innovations theory explores the factors that lead people to become aware, try, and adopt new ideas and practices -- this can help to explain development of knowledge.
Skepticism
Skepticism is the reasonable presumption, like the presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court, that any given statement is false unless there is proof the statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.
Knowledge management
Knowledge management seeks to understand the way in which knowledge is used and traded within organisations and treats knowledge as self-referential and recursive. This recursion means that the definition of knowledge is in a state of flux. Knowledge management treats knowledge as a form of information which is impregnated with context based on experience. Information is data which causes a difference to an observer because of its observer-specific relevance. Data is can be observed, but does not need to be.
Sociology of knowledge
Aspects of knowledge exhibit a social character. For instance, Knowledge is a form of social capital. Sociology of Knowledge examines the way in which Society and Knowledge interact.
Adoption of knowledge
Through experience, observation, and inference, individuals and cultures gain knowledge. The spread of this knowledge is examined by diffusion. Diffusion of innovations theory explores the factors that lead people to become aware, try, and adopt new ideas and practices -- this can help to explain development of knowledge.
Other definitions
Knowledge is "information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection. It is a high-valueform of information that is ready to apply to decisions and actions." T. Davenport et al., 1998
"Explicit or codified knowledge refers to knowledge that is transmittable in formal, systematic language. On the other hand, tacit knowledge has a personal quality, which makes it hard to formalize and communicate." I. Nonaka, 1994ĤÂ
See also
- Analytic proposition/Synthetic proposition
- A priori/A posteriori
- Belief
- Epistemology
- Institutional knowledge
- Knowledge creation
- Knowledge engineering
- Knowledge management
- Knowledge relativity
- Knowledge representation
- Philosophical skepticism
- Propositional knowledge
- Truth
External links
- The Gettier problem: Justified true belief?
- Theory of Knowledge: The Gettier problem
- The Duality of Knowledge
- Philosophy of Knowledge Glossary
References
- Creath, Richard, "Induction and the Gettier Problem", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol.LII, No.2, June 1992.
- Feldman, Richard, "An Alleged Defect in Gettier Counterexamples", Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 52 (1974): 68-69.
- Gettier, Edmund, "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", Analysis 23 (1963): 121-23.
- Goldman, Alvin I., "Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge", Journal of Philosophy, 73.20 (1976), 771-791.
- Hetherington, Stephen, "Actually Knowing", The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.48, No. 193, October 1998.
- Lehrer, Keith and Thomas D. Paxon, Jr., "Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief", The Journal of Philosophy, 66.8 (1969), 225-237.
- Levi, Don S., "The Gettier Problem and the Parable of the Ten Coins", Philosophy, 70, 1995.
- Swain, Marshall, "Epistemic Defeasibility", American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.II, No.I, January 1974.