| Revision as of 03:57, 26 July 2005 edit207.200.116.198 (talk) →Category:Belief?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:25, 23 October 2024 edit undoPhlsph7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,885 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024: done |
| (730 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{philosophy}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|
|action1date=30 October 2022 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Knowledge/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=1118712850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
____ |
|
|
|
|action2date=9 March 2023 |
|
|
|action2link=/GA1 |
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=1143742632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
I beleive any knowledge found anywhere anytime is a good thing Lenard Z |
|
|
|
|action3date=23 January 2024 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Knowledge/archive2 |
|
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid=1196814375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|dykdate=20 March 2023|dykentry=... that it is controversial whether ''']''' is the same as justified true belief?|dyknom=Template:Did you know nominations/Knowledge|action4 = FAC |
|
Belief is defined as a "confidence in the truth of something, without subjecting it to rigorous proof." In other words, it is a subjective supposition. For example, "I think you are an idiot" is a statement of belief. Given the assertion here that "knowledge = belief," it would also be defined as a statement of knowledge. Hmmm. ] |
|
|
|
|action4date = 2024-04-02 |
|
|
|action4link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result = failed |
|
|
|action4oldid = 1216470241 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC/GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=philosophy |
|
: I was taking my lead from the "what this article is not" section of ]... but yeah, hmm... :-/ ] |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High |epistemology=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Education|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Knowledge/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Knowledge/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Knowledge/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Untitled == |
|
:: The problem seems to be a faulty assumption that knowledge = truth. If we eliminate that and begin with a reverse definition of knowledge as "confidence in the truth of something, after subjecting it to rigorous proof," the question is then "what constitutes proof?" Standards of proof have changed historically, as have, as a result, our standards for what constitutes knowledge. For example, most people no longer accept as proof that Aristotle wrote it in a book or that it appears in the Bible. At another time, historically, that may have been considered sufficient proof for the validity of an assertion. (Of course, a problem remains--who determines standards of proof--but that is a question of POV.) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:''This article covers many aspects of knowledge. For the philosophical areas of knowledge please use ].'' |
|
: ''Rotem Dan's criticism of philosophy removed at his request'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wrong knowledge is still knowledge== |
|
---- |
|
|
|
"Complementary to the sociology of knowledge is the sociology of ignorance<ref>http://www.sociologyofignorance.com The Sociology of Ignorance</ref> including the study of nescience, ignorance, knowledge gaps or non-knowledge as inherent features of knowledge making."<ref>{{cite book |
|
Why should it be a disambiguation page? There is no ambiguity for ] like for . I think it should be introductory to the various form of knowledge or redirected to ]. --] 03:58, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| last=Beck | first=Ulrich |
|
|
| last2=Wehling| first2=Peter |
|
|
| editor-last=Rubio | editor-first=F.D. |
|
|
| editor2-last=Baert | editor2-first=P. |
|
|
| year=2012 |
|
|
| title=The politics of non-knowing: An emerging area of social and political conflict in reflexive modernity |
|
|
| pages=33–57 |
|
|
| location=New York |
|
|
| publisher=Routledge |
|
|
| isbn=0415497108 |
|
|
| url=http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415497107/ }} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
<ref>{{cite book |
|
|
| last=Gross | first=Matthias |
|
|
| year=2010 |
|
|
| title=Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological Design |
|
|
| location=Cambridge, MA |
|
|
| publisher=MIT Press |
|
|
| isbn=9780262013482 |
|
|
| url=https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ignorance-and-surprise}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
<ref>{{ cite journal |
|
|
| last=Moore | first=Wilbert |
|
|
| last2=Tumin | first2=Melvin |
|
|
| year=1949 |
|
|
| title=Some social functions of ignorance |
|
|
| journal=American Sociological Review |
|
|
| volume=14 | issue=6 |
|
|
| pages=787–796 |
|
|
| url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2086681 |
|
|
| doi=10.2307/2086681 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
</ref> |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Did you know nomination== |
|
:That is what I used to think, but this caused a huge flame war. A very small number of people began turning the "Knowledge" article into a treatise about sexuality, sexism, politics, environmental ethics, etc. Our discussions about "knowledge" were attacked as censorship, because the article wasn't discussing what they wanted it to discuss. The Misplaced Pages community gave in to this pressure, and allowed them to redefine what the word "Knowledge" means. The same thing is also currently happening in the ] article. It is shameful that people with no background in philosophy are letting themselves be tarred as bigots and censors, when in fact they are not. ] 23:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Knowledge}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024 == |
|
:: This article wasn't meant to be a pure disambiguation page. However, neither should it be a duplicate of ], as the current "overview" section appears to, to some extent. Rather it needs to discuss knowledge from the most general perspective possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Knowledge|answered=yes}} |
|
:: This is difficult, so I expect this page to remain a stub for some time. Also, ] is currently empty. ] 15:28, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Misspelling/Typo: "A less radical limit of knowledge is identified by falliblists," should read "...fallibilists," ] (]) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Done. ] (]) 16:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
All the material we have here on to acquire knowledge ''already'' is discussed in the ] article. I have thus moved the text on this subject from here to there; actually, very little needed to be moved, since what was here was a near carbon-copy of what was there anyways. ] 01:42, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have reverted Fred Bauder's universal rewrite of this entire article to push his POV. I find it ridiculous that Fred claims to have "restored" material, when that same material ''was never removed from Misplaced Pages in the first place''. It simply is another (related) article; an article that is appropriate for that specific content. ] 23:00, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
People need to read the comments on the Talk page and in the Summary edit lines. All the recent changes made here were described and justified. As stated above, one problem with the previous version of this page was that it was a repeat of what already existed in the other Knowledge articles. (We made a number of new knowledge articles to avoid this problem. Let us not recreate the problem we originally had months ago!) If you have a specific problem, mention it here and we will work it out together. ] 22:58, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
re: ''People need to read the... Summary edit lines.'' - I disagree. ] 23:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I miss the point that when defining knowledge no distinction is made between knowledge as it is in the head and as it is coded in writing, for instance. |
|
|
|
|
|
The content of whatever is written down to be shared as knowledge will largely depend on the knowledge of the next person to read/gather such knowledge, a very important consideration in detailing our knowledge of knowledge further. |
|
|
|
|
|
Of knowledge of languages for instance, more specifially, of knowledge of words, just a single word, one can list a number of deliverables that prove that knowledge exists, is displayed by someone |
|
|
For example, if you know a word, then you can off-hand |
|
|
say/write |
|
|
its definition |
|
|
pronounciation/spelling |
|
|
grammatical classification |
|
|
synonyms/antonyms |
|
|
collocations |
|
|
connotations, |
|
|
the word one level up/down in a hierarchy of words/terms/concepts |
|
|
and many other things that unnoticedly change the object of reference from the word itself to the thing denoted by that word.... |
|
|
Hence knowledge is synonymous with data, except that whereas you have established procedures for processing numbers, you have less sophisticated and fewer means for processing words/texts, representing knowledge.... |
|
|
But you do have language technology, a branch developing along those lines, just as economic intelligence, and spying/poking on the net by people/organisations that can afford it. Incidentally, they are professionaly dedicated to paranoia and look for knowledge that may threaten them. |
|
|
After all this you may want to define what meaning and context is in these pages and will not be suprised to learn that Microsoft has commissioned Mr C. Simonyi to run a software R&D company in Hungary to study how to identify/extract meaning (intent) from communications on the net. |
|
|
] 11:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Huge see also list! == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else thing to see also list is getting a little out of hand? --] 03:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Cleaned up. I don't know how it got that way, looks like a crazed bot. Several entries were repeated many times. --] 06:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==knowledge(philosophy)merge== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have moved all the material that was at ] to here. I then edited it to remove much that is reproduced elsewhere. Please reinstate anything you think is needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
==A priori and a posteriori merge/section removal== |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the section on inferential vs factual knowledge. I believe that this section is refering to the a priori vs. a posteriori distinction. I have replaced this entry with the old entry entitled ''A priori and a posteriori knowledge''. I have copied the old section here if anyone wants to put it back |
|
|
|
|
|
:Knowledge may be factual or inferential. ] is based on direct ]. It is still not free of ], as ] of observation or interpretation may occur, and any ] can be deceived by ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Inferential knowledge is based on ] from facts or from other inferential knowledge such as a ]. Such knowledge may or may not be ] by observation or ]. For example, all knowledge of the ] is inferential knowledge. The distinction between factual knowledge and inferential knowledge has been explored by the discipline of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 20:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== announcing policy proposal of general interest == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is just to inform people that I want Misplaced Pages to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See ] for the detailed proposal. ] | ] 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Category:Belief?== |
|
|
|
|
|
"A common definition of knowledge is that it consists of ] ] ]." The statement after this seems to imply that all knowledge is belief so why not put ] under ]? ]]] | ] | 14:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC) |
|
|
:That would be somewhat misleading. Knowledge is not the same as belief, since it must also be (at the least) justified and true. ] 08:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::They don't have to be the same - all we need is for knowledge to be a '']'' of belief (Category:Algebra is under Category:Mathematics but noone would claim that they are the same thing). |
|
|
|
|
|
True, but knowledge is more important and more interesting than belief, and I would argue that it should have a higher position on the hierarchy. Think of it from the point of view of a potential user looking for "knowledge" - would they think to look in "belief"? I think not, and so I think this categorization inappropriate. ] 09:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Category:Knowledge is not on the main page and is currently only under Category:Fundamental. Putting it under Category:Belief and something else if necessary (to make it easier to find, we could leave it in Category:Fundamental, but I don't think it belongs there) would be better than what we have now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge is definitely not "a subset of belief," as the sophistry of the ] would have it. What an odd notion! The two are entirely different things. The fallacy of ] of knowledge and belief, two different things, has no place in a modern encyclopedia, the attempts of the ] to have it engraved in stone here notwithstanding. --] 03:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Section deleted== |
|
|
|
|
|
Section asserting that knowledge is justified true belief deleted this date because it entails a ] of knowledge and belief, two different things. Belief without it being ] that a given statement is true is religious ], but for a statement to qualify as known to be true (to qualify as knowledge) there must be ], where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. -- ] 19:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Plato's theory of knowledge is by far the most important in philosophy; and it does not conflate knowledge and belief but carefully distinguishes them; showing that knowledge is a sub-set of belief. ] 20:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ] for other edits by .6 - Such extraordinary behaviour may need to go to arbitration. ] 21:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Full agreement with Banno. I feel that .6's edits constitute vandalism, largely because of the amount of deletions, and have reverted to the previous version of this article. ] 19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: .6 has been by ] today. I reverted the edits and added a note to the talk page encouraging .6 to take up discussion here. --] 00:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Actually, it was a different ip address that seems to have made some good edits in the past, but the same MO removing the section on Plato and complaning of conflation of knowledge and belief. --] 00:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Systematic-summarizing Approach == |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge is a temporaly true state variable and a self-referable process. The definition of knowledge is already changing itself, because it gets a component of this knowledge. Its an information, which is impregnated with context based on experience. Information is a component of data, which caused a difference to an observer because of its observer-specific relevance. Data is something, that can be observed, but does not need to be. |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
I removed this section - the only Goggle entries on it derive from this page; could the author provide some references to show that the is not original research or vanity? Thanks. ] 20:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:You didn't search well. Its a summary of lots of definitions. So you have to adapt your search to prove the facts included here. Multiple referencies follow if you type "knowledge data information" in google, i.e.: or or "knowledge is a process". Do not remove it until you are sure, that it is not true! I've a section in my user discussion page for this too. ] --] 21:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Neither of the references you provide refer to "Systematic-summarising Approach". My problem remains - is the term your own? if so, it should be replaced by something a bit more widely used. if it is not, can you provide a reference for the term being used? Frankly, if I search for a key term and don;t find it, I think that the key term is not a key term. ] 22:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Ok, I understood your point. :-) Yes, this term in the subtitle is my own, if anyone has a better one, feel free to change it. But please inform me, so i can prove it. The aim should be to find a term which describes that this approach is system-based and a summary of other definitions to give the reader a brief definition and not pages to read. It has also a logistics point of view included. ] 14:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen similar material to the stuff you have written and referred to in KM articles, so perhaps something like my edits are OK? Personally I think there are profound problems with the systems approach, and it might be interesting to explore them here. ] 21:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC) |
|
"Complementary to the sociology of knowledge is the sociology of ignorance including the study of nescience, ignorance, knowledge gaps or non-knowledge as inherent features of knowledge making."
level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
@Phlsph7: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
