Some questions and the definition of Knowledge. My answers is written below these questions and what is yours? 01. What is your definition of knowledge? 02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how? 03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings? 04. What are the means for sharing knowledge? 05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable? 06. Can knowledge be verified? 07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge? 08. Are there different types of knowledge? 09. Should knowledge be sought for? 10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean? 11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, for example, A is more knowledgeable than B? 12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, for example. A has X knowledge units more than B? 13. Can knowledge be divided into practical and theoretical knowledge? 14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge? 15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you? 16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how? My answers to the above questions are as follows- 1. Knowledge is a collection of facts (or, at least, what one believes to be facts). 2. Yes. Yes, it is a more general term. Science is the pursuit of knowledge (or, rather, the system by which we pursue knowledge), obviously the pursuit and that which is pursued are different things. 3. Yes. 4. Any form of communication is a means of sharing knowledge. 5. Not entirely, one cannot always get the point across, no matter which form of communication we use. However, they are reliable, just not perfect. 6. Yes. 7. I think if I mean "how is knowledge verified?!? If so, it is through experimentation (which is what science does). 8. Only in that there is the kind of knowledge that is only consistent of facts (whether this kind of knowledge really exists or not, is another matter), and the kind that is consistent of what the individual believes are fact - but are in fact no facts. 9. Yes. 10. It (basically) means trying to learn more facts. 11. Yes, but it is better to specify on what topic ' A is more knowledgeable then B'. 12. I mean, how many more facts, about a specific/ certain topic, A knew more... compared to B. 13. Theories become practical. 14. That it be useful, and verifiable by experimentation. 15. Yes. 16. Yes, through any/all of the steps of the scientific method. You can add any more question/s for this discussion to be continued.
No, no - as in "what have you to barter in return for us writing your essay"... like a nice looking cousin or some such gem as reward for our hard work... Be our guide to India (wherever you are)...??? Something...
Okay! be my guest whenever you visit my country/place and I'll serve you my mother's special 'dish' as a reward for the hard work you did doing my home work that you'll never forget. And I would like to guide you through India's crumbling fortress , frenetic bazaars , innumerable temples, churches and mosque and also in the jungles of the Himalayan mountain and show you the scenic beauty of Kashmir etc..
You're on!!! That sounds like fun!!! Just go easy on the chillies, please... "Mild, mild, Sir..." as they say in a cool Bangladeshi place I use to frequent - but I was spewing fire afterwards... Start with Aristotle: "Knowledge is knowledge of differences"! Definitio fiat per genus proximum et differentiam specificam. Or knowledge is knowledge of sameness and differences. This is what science does: looks for patterns/models/paradigms, while noting that which differs... otherwise we can't have rules/principles/laws etc. Dialectics.... Of course, science is after that which is common, universal, that which connects but not that which is specific to an individual, as that is outside its scope. This is a well reported "blind spot" of (Western) science... Enough for a guided tour and to meet your lovely cousin?
Well, please correct me id I'm wrong, as an historical matter, and before empirical science really got going, knowledge was identified with certainty, because the model of knowledge was mathematics. This all changed around the end of the 18th century with the powerful effect of science on culture, and the realization that science gave us knowledge, so that knowledge could not be identified with certainty, since empirical science was inductive and not deductive. This was what, I suppose is called, a "paradigm shift." Descartes (and Plato, of course) were the great proponents of knowledge as certainty, and, of course, for them, it was mathematics that was the paradigm of knowledge. Hume began to force the shift with his discussion of skepticism. For Descartes, the absence of certainty is the absence of knowledge, but Hume called his skepticism "modified" and although he was still wedded to certainty (as was Locke before him) he saw that science gave us knowledge.
All wrong. If we start from the beginning of Mediterranean-Western European civilisation and culture, then we have to say that it was Philosophy that grounded the rest of knowledge. The questions concerning nature and those phenomena always ended up in Philosophical principles, initially of "arche" (ἀρχή) and so on... Those are essentially Philosophical questions, nothing to do with mathematics. Maths (numbers) were used as a "paradigm" in one specific Philosophical school. Then, before Renaissance and Enlightenment it was - well... bad Philosophy, called (church) Dogma... After that some proposed another dogma, Scientism in all directions, frequently forgetting or not even knowing the elementary lessons we learnt from Ancient Greeks already... Try that...
@Gorski I think you forgot the alien intervention about 100000 years ago and the bigger brain we were given which lead to the wheel et al.. Not sure what Sid is talking about, I was under the impression that knowledge is just a definition for a general accumulation of data and science is just a part of that and not the other way around.
That is a specific "understanding" of what "knowledge" is.... Relatively novel, i.e. "modern" and very mindless, i.e. devoid of understanding the elementary Philosophy, from Ancient Greece onwards...
01. To gain knowledge means to differentiate, objectify and separate. Also there must be somebody who could gain it at all. (Basic differentiation of 'I' and non I. Of 'I' and my...knowledge.) 02. A difference is found at the German meaning, for instance. Knowledge means: Wissen whereas science means Wissenschaft. Science is the active process to gain knowledge itself also an result of the idea of a separate identity which causes a incompleteness (driving force). 03. Yes. 04. Any form of objectification 05. Relative. It is when defined conditions are satisfied. 06. Relative. It is when defined conditions are satisfied. 07. Relative. It is when defined conditions are satisfied. 08. No. Their nature is objectification. The difference would be just another object. 09. To have a progress in the linear time and relations of objects, yes. Concerning wisdom which is reasoned in being itself, no. 10. To objectify by using discursive thinking. 11. Yes. It’s a question of another objectification which is relative to the own identification. 12. Any measurement is relative. Define one new unit and relate it to it (proportionality). 1 meter, one kilogram, one Mol, one sid_16_knowledge_point, lol. 13. Yes. It’s a question of another objectification which is relative to the senses. 14. Objectification recognized and verified through senses. 15. Yes. It is the own opinion about how objectification via thinking can be recognized through senses. The difference itself is although just an idea. 16. Yes. It is the progress of differentiation / objectification. It can be Science, it can be Philosophy. Both however will stay in the world of objects and their relations. It is an illusion to describe the truth and to have included the subject itself. Both are the same in this aspect. The subject, the Philosopher or the Scientist are never objectifiable. In other words as soon one tries to describe the subject it becomes a relative object. (All you can perceive, think about is not the subject (perceiver)) The subject and the truth are reasoned in being, not in an idea one could have. Humans are using their mind to gain knowledge, to objectify. The function of mind which is reasoned in being is not yet developed. It is consciousness which becomes aware of itself. No objectification method will ever give answers of truth and subject. The challenge of humankind will be to overcome this illusion. If not they will be tied to the finite nature of objects. Actually no object has any real value, it changes. Neither knowledge, nor science nor Philosophy. Their value is reasoned in present being.
Is this an assignment from your school that you want us to answer? hihihi. So loooooooooong. but for no. 5 yes sharing knowledge is reliable