Welcome, guest. You are not logged in.
Log in or join for free!
Stay logged in
Forgot login details?

Stay logged in

For free!
Get started!

Text page




><Defining Knowledge><
>>We support ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further that the fact could not be other than it is,Now that scientific knowing is something of this sort of evidence withness both those who falsely claim it, those who actually possess it, since the former merely imagine themselves to be, while the latter are also actually the condition described, consequently the proper object of unqualified scientific knowledge is something which cannot be other than it, |Aristotle|Posterior analytics (Book 1 Part 2)<|blockquote>
>>The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of EPISTEMOLOGY, The classical definition described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato, has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled: that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate, there are a number of alternatives proposed including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge "TRACKS the TRUTH" and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to to say that those who meet any of these conditions "through a defect,flaw or failure" have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the believer's evidence is such that it logically necessitates the truth of the belief.
>>In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed following Moore's paradox, that one can say" HE BELIEVES it but it ISN'T SO", but not " HE KNOWS IT, but it ISN'T SO" He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction, What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example on thìs account,to know that the kettle is boiling is not be in particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling Wittgenstein sought to by pass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way "KNOWLEDGE" is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a FAMILY RESEMBLANCE...

This page:

Help/FAQ | Terms | Imprint
Home People Pictures Videos Sites Blogs Chat