This is more like Appendix A to my main series of questions rather than fitting in uniformly with it. Is prompted by some of the answers I'm getting, especially to question #2: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071015074255AAz0sCk&r=w
What does it mean to know something?
2007-10-15 04:07:15 · 19 answers · asked by delsydebothom 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jolly Roger...I called the triangle 1-dimensional, because it is essentially a bent line segment.
2007-10-15 04:52:00 · update #1
I'm going to go with "Justified true belief" as well, despite the Gettier problems.
Certainty has nothing to do with it. Certainty is generally the product of ignorance, not of knowledge.
2007-10-15 04:15:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Interesting but rather a broad topic as it could be taken that knowledge is a form of belief in that I know that the earth will continue to rotate and make it appear as if the sun will rise tomorrow morning - of course I have thousands/millions of years of evidence that confirms this.
Knowing something does not necessarily make it true or accurate as in I know that the speed of light is 186,000 miles a second but I also know that this is an approximate, or I could know that some fairies have wings, a true statement depending on which story/stories I'm talking about but not applicable to the real world.
So we've seen that there is predictive knowledge, and knowledge that is either true, false or partially correct - like your assumption that you need to know about sides to visualize a triangle or that it is a 1 dimensional (????) shape rather than a 2 dimensional one.
I do know that philosophy is an interesting way to think and explore the world, but there is a point where it looses touch with reality.
2007-10-15 04:35:57 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Welcome to Epistemology 101. Your final exam will be the following question: What does it mean to know something?
Your question has been one of the core issues in philosophical debate since its inception. As such, there are a number of perspectives, but none with the final answer. Personally, I believe that knowledge is not ever finite, but growing, and that it must be based upon replicable evidence that we have at the time. Because we cannot claim perfect knowledge we can only claim relative knowledge.
But the good news is that almost all of the time, that is sufficient.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
By the way, anything contains an angle is at least 2-dimensional. Only lines (of zero width) and dots (of zero length and zero width) are 1-dimensional.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-10-15 11:35:18 · answer #3 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you really going to continue the tedious sequence? What do you hope to achieve?
The answer to this particular question takes in the entirety of epistemology, but there's no way to get anything more than a sound-bite answer on Y!A. Will you really feel satisfied if you can pick your way tenaciously through semantics to an end-point?
Worse, do you think you're going to convince anyone else? Or is this perhaps entire for your benefit?
CD
2007-10-15 04:20:10 · answer #4 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
'Know' is a funny word. Unlike 'believe' or 'think' (or 'want' or any of the other "stuff going on in my head" words) it's both about what's in my head, and about the world.
That is, if I turn out to be wrong, I don't say "I knew it, but I was wrong." I say "I THOUGHT I knew it, but I was wrong."
So, to be knowledge, the thing must be true.
Being a Wittgensteinian, I don't think in grand, absolute, but in practical ways about these things.
So, at some point in my life, I THOUGHT New York City was the capital of New York (or assumed it), but now I know it's Albany.
I suspect you're wanting this whole thing to go in the Grand and Absolute direction.
2007-10-15 06:01:30 · answer #5 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To assume it to be the most valid and workable option out of all available possibilities, consistant with all (or at least the majority) of one's extant working "knowledge"... that it might then be further used as an axiomatic assumption in order to determine further "facts".
Basically... what fits in best with one's own internal consistancy.
Doesn't mean it is objectively "right" necessarily; merely subjectively so.
2007-10-15 04:11:04 · answer #6 · answered by Lucid Interrogator 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For me would be to have enough tangible, supporting evidence to back up the subject in question as a fact. Like the fire example given previously or my answer to your triangle question.
I'd recommend you narrow your question if you want something more specific.
2007-10-15 04:15:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The direct opposite of your knowledge .
2007-10-15 04:14:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The example of a fire.
You can believe a fire is hot, because someone told you.
Stick your hand in the fire and you will know it is hot.
Give it a try.
2007-10-15 04:11:18 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Knowledge = justified true belief.
2007-10-15 04:10:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋