It seems to me that any philosophical discussion about [knowledge] must
deal with the fact that we use the term [know] to mean many different
things... and, in fact, these meanings are often incompatible with one
another.
Absolute vs. Relative
Knowing something seems to imply that what we know MUST be true... but very little (if any) of what we say we "know" actually satisfies this condition.
Consider the statement, "I know what reality is." It seems like a statement that should be obviously true. But how do we "know" that we're not in a hospital somewhere, hallucinating our world? Or living in a Matrix-like reality that is generated by a computer? Furthermore, what we perceive is not the underlying reality--as Quantum Mechanics seems to demonstrate--thus, there is nothing that we "know" about the "exact" nature of reality. Even those who are experts in the QM field are unsure how to interpret what the the mathematics implies about the nature of reality. That's why there are several theoretical interpretations--such as the many worlds interpretation.
I would say that this [absolute aspect] of knowledge is impossible to have. Instead, we use knowledge in a relative way... So for example, when I say, "I know what reality is," what I really mean is something more along the lines of, "In as far as it can be known, I know what reality is."
know vs. believeOne of the key distinctions between these terms seems to be that when we say we [know] something we have to have a valid reason for our belief that we know it. For instance, if a drunk hallucinates a pink elephant behind the bar. And he expresses this belief. And coincidentally there actually is a [pink elephant] hidden behind the bar. Is it accurate to suggest that the drunk [knows there is a pink elephant behind the bar]?
The reason it seems more plausible to suggest that the drunks assertion is a [belief] instead of [knowledge] is because there isn't a sound justification. Be believes what he says because he is hallucinating... not because he has some knowledge.
Know vs. aware
If we're traveling in a car and see what appears to be a barn... we might say, "I know there is a barn on that property." But what if the object we see isn't an actual barn--but rather is a papier-mâché object made to look like a barn.
What we think we know is false. What appears to be an actual barn is not an actual barn. But we are not wrong about what we are aware of... for what we are aware of is not a [barn] but [what appears to be a barn].
know vs. learnedA child might say, "I know my ABCs." But there is a difference in [learning] something and [knowing] it. If I learn that the earth is flat, it makes sense to say I've learned that the earth is flat--just as the child has learned the ABCs... but I do not KNOW the earth is flat.
Know vs. Understand
I can learn something without understanding it. For example, quantum theorists have learned how to work the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics, without understanding the principles behind why the math works.
But [understanding] isn't the same thing as [knowing] it, because we don't have to believe something in order to understand it. I may understand a fellow philosopher's theory, but that doesn't mean I believe it. And even if I did believe it, there is enough evidence to suggest that the theory may be wrong that there isn't a strong justification for claiming that I know his theory in that sense.
Given all of this, how do we define [knowledge] in a meaningful way; and how do we distinguish between that sense of knowledge and all the other informal ways that it can be used in plain English?
Absolute vs. Relative
Knowing something seems to imply that what we know MUST be true... but very little (if any) of what we say we "know" actually satisfies this condition.
Consider the statement, "I know what reality is." It seems like a statement that should be obviously true. But how do we "know" that we're not in a hospital somewhere, hallucinating our world? Or living in a Matrix-like reality that is generated by a computer? Furthermore, what we perceive is not the underlying reality--as Quantum Mechanics seems to demonstrate--thus, there is nothing that we "know" about the "exact" nature of reality. Even those who are experts in the QM field are unsure how to interpret what the the mathematics implies about the nature of reality. That's why there are several theoretical interpretations--such as the many worlds interpretation.
I would say that this [absolute aspect] of knowledge is impossible to have. Instead, we use knowledge in a relative way... So for example, when I say, "I know what reality is," what I really mean is something more along the lines of, "In as far as it can be known, I know what reality is."
know vs. believeOne of the key distinctions between these terms seems to be that when we say we [know] something we have to have a valid reason for our belief that we know it. For instance, if a drunk hallucinates a pink elephant behind the bar. And he expresses this belief. And coincidentally there actually is a [pink elephant] hidden behind the bar. Is it accurate to suggest that the drunk [knows there is a pink elephant behind the bar]?
The reason it seems more plausible to suggest that the drunks assertion is a [belief] instead of [knowledge] is because there isn't a sound justification. Be believes what he says because he is hallucinating... not because he has some knowledge.
Know vs. aware
If we're traveling in a car and see what appears to be a barn... we might say, "I know there is a barn on that property." But what if the object we see isn't an actual barn--but rather is a papier-mâché object made to look like a barn.
What we think we know is false. What appears to be an actual barn is not an actual barn. But we are not wrong about what we are aware of... for what we are aware of is not a [barn] but [what appears to be a barn].
know vs. learnedA child might say, "I know my ABCs." But there is a difference in [learning] something and [knowing] it. If I learn that the earth is flat, it makes sense to say I've learned that the earth is flat--just as the child has learned the ABCs... but I do not KNOW the earth is flat.
Know vs. Understand
I can learn something without understanding it. For example, quantum theorists have learned how to work the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics, without understanding the principles behind why the math works.
But [understanding] isn't the same thing as [knowing] it, because we don't have to believe something in order to understand it. I may understand a fellow philosopher's theory, but that doesn't mean I believe it. And even if I did believe it, there is enough evidence to suggest that the theory may be wrong that there isn't a strong justification for claiming that I know his theory in that sense.
Given all of this, how do we define [knowledge] in a meaningful way; and how do we distinguish between that sense of knowledge and all the other informal ways that it can be used in plain English?
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق