• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How Do You Define Knowledge?

Cory Duchesne

New Blood
C
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
15
I remember asking myself one late night while drinking tea, "What is knowing?" and I repeated this question to myself a few times and realized I wasn't entirely sure. I decided to turn my attention to the words of the question to see if the answer lied in the very assumption the question makes. It turned out, when I was asking "what is knowing" I was subscribing to definitions of words without realizing it. In other words, I already "knew" but I asked the question as if I didn't. So really, I just had to become conscious of what I already knew, as opposed to seeking some answer that I assumed wasn't already in my possession.

The question "what is knowing" then, becomes irrational, since the question depends on words which have definitions.

You might then ask, well is it appropriate to equate defined words with knowledge? Is language, with it's defined words, a form of knowledge?

I say it is.

But I ask you that, JRF. I look forward to your replies.
 
Last edited:
How Do You Define Knowledge?

Personally, I get a dictionary when it comes to this particular task.

Dictionary.com

knowl·edge
   
–noun
1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4.the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
Click to expand...

See? ;)

And whose jrf?
 
Last edited:
Epistemology hurts my head.

How do we know what we know? Is what we know really real, or is it simply in our own heads?

Beware - here be solipsism.
 
If the dictionary definition isn't enough, then I'd go with 'information I have good reason to believe is accurate in describing a real state of things', with the possible qualifier 'that also is accurate'.
 
Knowledge is the body ideas and observations that are testable and have survived the trials of the scientific method. In simplistic terms, ideas that survive the filter of science become theories and observations become facts.

I am using the National Academy of Sciences' definitions of 'theory' and 'fact'.
 
fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

A theory represents the best present explanation for a scientific phenomenon.
National Academy of Sciences
 
arthwollipot said:
Epistemology hurts my head.

How do we know what we know?
Click to expand...

Are you asking from a neurological standpoint? Are you asking how our brain remembers things? That's a question for scientists.

But philosophically, we can answer your question by saying that there is no "how" there is only the undeniable experience of having memories (which create larger webs of concepts and propositional thought).

Is it appropriate to be skeptical of what we remember? If I have a memory of a birthday party 15 years ago, it's appropriate to be skeptical about whether or not the memory accurately reflects what actually happened. However, it is entirely inappropriate to be doubtful of the fact I am having the memory. The memory is an appearance and you cannot doubt that appearance, since doubting it would affirm it's existence.

Is what we know really real, or is it simply in our own heads?
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of a piece of knowledge that might not be real?

I would refer to all scientific knowledge as modeling, and models are not the real thing, so all scientific knowledge is not absolute, but merely a model of the absolute. We never come into direct contact with nature in her totality, we have only our models which create a filter between our minds and nature outside our minds.
 
bozman said:
How Do You Define Knowledge?

Personally, I get a dictionary when it comes to this particular task.

See? ;)
Click to expand...

The problem with the dictionary is that it offers a variety of definitions, all of which use words which have to be put in a context that the dictionary does not provide, so that's up to you. So one can't passively rely just on the wording of a dictionary, you have to put it all into a context yourself relevant to the inquiries of the discussion.

And whose jrf?
Click to expand...

I meant JREF, sorry. James Randi Forum.
 
The Blind Watchmaker said:
fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

A theory represents the best present explanation for a scientific phenomenon.
National Academy of Sciences
Click to expand...

What all of these forms of knowledge have in common is that they are forms of memory, so my contention is that the most primitive pieces of knowledge, from where all further knowledge stems, is the retention of memories. When a baby learns to distinguish between the presence or absence of the mother, you have the earliest forms of knowledge. It is just recollection and recognition based on past experience.
 
Before we even get to epistemology I think we have to look at where knowledge comes from in the first place: ontology. Thinking about that in practical terms essentially boils down to one important question: 'what types of things exist?'. Before we can consider the methods we use for knowing about something (therefore what constitutes knowledge), it is essential to have in mind what we think exists in the first place. Only once that has been established can theories about knowledge production be applied to what we know/believe we know in order to ascribe the information an epistemologiocal position. What I think is important to bear in mind also about the subject of what knowledge is or isn't, is that there is no right or wrong answer, no matter how firmly somebody believes in a particular set of criteria over what constitutes knowledge. Certain points of view are always going to be accepted to greater/lesser degrees than others within any given social context. So, for example, medical knowledge is very powerful in our culture and something is generally only considered medical knowledge if it conforms to a very rigid set of criteria. But that shouldn't necessarily invalidate other types of knowledge which may be applied to medical problems - except maybe in the eyes of some medical academics/practitioners who will only accept knowledge which has been produced in the time-honoured way. :D
 
Last edited:
Cory Duchesne said:
I remember asking myself one late night while drinking tea, "What is knowing?" and I repeated this question to myself a few times and realized I wasn't entirely sure. I decided to turn my attention to the words of the question to see if the answer lied in the very assumption the question makes. It turned out, when I was asking "what is knowing" I was subscribing to definitions of words without realizing it. In other words, I already "knew" but I asked the question as if I didn't. So really, I just had to become conscious of what I already knew, as opposed to seeking some answer that I assumed wasn't already in my possession.

The question "what is knowing" then, becomes irrational, since the question depends on words which have definitions.

You might then ask, well is it appropriate to equate defined words with knowledge? Is language, with it's defined words, a form of knowledge?

I say it is.

But I ask you that, JRF. I look forward to your replies.
Click to expand...



Cory, there are several kinds of knowledge. There's carnal knowledge, for instance. That means that when a Daddy and a Mommy love each other very much, they get very close together, and the Daddy puts .......... hmm ... I think you better go ask your Mom. :o:o
 
Last edited:
Cory Duchesne said:
The problem with the dictionary is that it offers a variety of definitions, all of which use words which have to be put in a context that the dictionary does not provide, so that's up to you. So one can't passively rely just on the wording of a dictionary, you have to put it all into a context yourself relevant to the inquiries of the discussion.
Click to expand...


If you're interested in my informal thoughts on the subject, I think of "knowledge" as information that has been accepted and assimilated by the brain. In other words, anything I simply "know" is knowledge. Anything I have to look up or make an effort to remember is information.

For example, if someone asks me "what is 7 plus 3" I know the answer is 10 without even thinking about it. So for me "7+3=10" is knowledge. But if someone asks me "what is 437 plus 248" I wouldn't unthinkingly "know" the answer to be 685. So for me "437+248=685" would be information, but not knowledge. (But the process of how to reach that answer is knowledge, as I simply "knew" how to get that answer, even if it took an effort to reach it.)

Of course, if the question "what is 437 plus 248" was asked of me frequently enough, "437+248=685" would soon become knowledge rather than just information.

So exactly what information constitutes knowledge differs from one person to the next depending on experience and education.
 
yomero said:
Cory, there are several kinds of knowledge. There's carnal knowledge, for instance. That means that when a Daddy and a Mommy love each other very much, they get very close together, and the Daddy puts .......... hmm ... I think you better go ask your Mom. :o:o
Click to expand...

And then there's the cynical knowledge that the "love each other" part isn't actually necessary. :D
 
I don't think there is any final, definite definition. That pretty much goes for all words.

To me, knowledge is information I understand.

Understanding information means that I can apply the information to situations and problems that I have not encountered before.
 
The Blind Watchmaker said:
Knowledge is the body ideas and observations that are testable and have survived the trials of the scientific method. ... I am using the National Academy of Sciences' definitions of 'theory' and 'fact'.
Click to expand...

This is useful for the NAS, but it flows from an unstated philosophical position and an institutional political mandate. It's not so useful in a personal, philosophical context.

Nobody in the world has personally run the scientific tests necessary to demonstrate all the scientific knowledge we take for granted. We trust others to have done this and therefore trust their conclusions.

As I see it, there are three categories of knowledge: there is personal knowledge you have gathered from your own experience through your own senses. Here the question is, how much can you trust your own senses? And if you can't necessarily trust your senses, the question is, is there another category of knowledge that is so fundamental that it's independent of your senses? You can argue, with Descartes, that you know you exist, although there are objections to this. Finally-- and this is the largest category by far-- there is the knowledge we learn from other people, which depends upon our faith in the other two categories, and whom we choose to trust for our knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom