Reflection on the Concept of Knowledge

"Whatever is accepted as knowledge today may also be discarded tomorrow. " Consider knowledge issues elevated by this affirmation in two areas of knowledge.

  • Satyajith Botcha

Plato' once said, "Knowledge is a justified, true idea. " [1]It's not only systematic group of facts, but what a person deems true and invests beliefs in. Whenever we discuss knowledge being "discarded, " does it imply that it's nullified and not further used? Or, can it mean that it's temporarily disregarded scheduled to differing opinions? In my opinion, knowledge can be debunked as in, discarded or temporarily put on carry, much like ideas. As the affirmation is further explored, another questions occurs as to who "accepts" knowledge or who "discards, " it? I really believe, knowledge should be backed by legitimate research.

In my research, I wish to explore the multiple perspectives - the many alternatives, ideas, and the holistic take on which the world should be explored, in order to understand what knowledge truly is and its relevance on our lives. One commences to question the usefulness of knowledge if it would eventually become obsolete anyways? If knowledge can change so easily, do we've the to question the validity of the current theorems if indeed they would only have a temporary life?

I believe eventually it is up to the given individual to admit knowledge as it is today. However, if one would like to question it, they have the right to do so because, if no-one questioned information newer information could not come into existence and the planet would never improve. This will not mean that inside our progress toward the future we can your investment past. In today's world, two widely known regions of knowledge that have numerous sensible applications, the natural sciences and history have undergone radical changes revolutionizing each field. To further my study I am using three different ways of knowing -reason, sense notion and sentiment.

History as we realize is an archive of our entire past encounters, information and ideas. It shows us the way the world was, or that which we thought was in the previous generations. We are able to clearly look out of a panorama of belief, the radical change in knowledge, apparent in modern human's different thought process than from that of these ancestors. On the other hand, the natural sciences, we see sweeping changes all over the world occurring once we speak. We receive new what to see, to explore also to question due to the rapid development in technology and scientific research. But, how respectable is this? Is it feasible that some of the material we realize today is perhaps less practical than that of the 'out-of-date' discoveries, or information that our ancestors perceived as the right ones? If so, how do we standard bank on what is right and what is wrong, or how do we forecast what could change and what cannot?

A theory that has long been discarded is that of spontaneous generation[2]. This stated that humans comes from inanimate lifeless chemicals, such as stones. Our ancestors developed this through taking a look at the progress of maggots from rotting beef. Although this concept seems ridiculous now, we should recognize that this theory was presumed by most of the 19th hundred years scientists. In fact, it was considered as a scientific simple fact. However, the theory of falsification[3] that essentially tells us that there surely is an inherent probability a hypothesis or theory can be bogus is an example of the instability of knowledge. This is where those who believe in wide-range perception come in. This is where understanding kicks in as an integral element to success also to understanding knowledge. "Spontaneous generation" was countered by Luis Pasteur in 1859, putting it to test[4]. He had placed two bits of meat in individual jars, one exposed and the other shut down. He detected maggots only growing in the one which was opened up. Thus, he figured the roots of the maggots must be from outside the house, living microorganisms in the air. In truth it was flies that acquired laid their eggs in the meats to nourish their young. Immediately our view of the world and the point of view of the roots of life were debunked. Nevertheless people commenced to believe just as completely in a complete new theory proposed by Pasteur[5]. On this basis, at this specific rate, if a significant portion of an entire generation would have confidence in the same fact for years without doubt, then where does the destiny of human being kind rest?.

I think that I can find the right information using both intuition and reasoning. For instance, when you look at the historians that worked hard to determine knowledge through their works or investigations, the thing is that flaws in the knowledge that we experienced blindly thought for generations. The internet era's historic event, THE ENTIRE WORLD Trade Centre 9/11 attack, was said by conspiracy theorists to possess collapsed in 9 moments inciting possible links to the centre being rigged with explosives before the attack[6]. This theory was backed by Rosie O'Donnell who mentioned that analysis was must. If this wasn't ever before questioned, a whole ancient event would simply be falsified in data scheduled to a one person's incorrect research. Many people would've thought her bank account despite never even witnessing the real footage of the building collapsing, which got almost 20 plus a few moments. This defies the entire logic of the building falling at "free-fall" quickness, shattering the totally false conspiracy. Not only can such theory impact the emotional stability of analysts, patriots and common men and women, but can create a sore patch in the minds of the subjects' families that actually underwent trauma through such incidents. Nevertheless, we now understand that the peculiar collapsing of the building was due to the fact that it turned out built with triangles across the areas of the building because of its enormity. Most people, however, did not know the truth and established their views on less knowledge associated with something never completely understood. Only when people started looking into the problem themselves was it instantly debunked. If this same process was repeated throughout record, we could find many loopholes. Eventually, it lies in the average person, whether one would accept or deny the knowledge awarded. Perception is exactly what drives this; people choose what they have confidence in.

Our reasoning cannot continually be right but we are rational beings, capable of making informed decisions with some previous knowledge. Some essential individual based facts always will persist and the key to understanding these facts is beyond simply recognizing them. To seriously understand a thought one must ask questions about that specific subject matter and their knowledge can either be further strengthened or their complete notion could change. People unnecessarily take information sculpted by someone else's research without doing some of their own based on the idea that the researcher who required the time to do the analysis must be accurate. It must be thought to be false until the point when the one who receives the info actually looks into the problem and validates the knowledge.

In a world where information changes every day, some persist, plus some simply vanish creating needless new ideas. One particular idea that have been so ingrained in your brain of humanity was the concept of a static universe. This image of the universe possessed persisted even before twentieth century. In fact, one of the biggest intellectual intellects Albert Einstein even assumed in this idea. When he previously created his theory of the world, the general theory of relativity, in 1915 he added a totally irrelevant and apparently random concept just to hold it. He unveiled the thought of a cosmological constant, an all pervading drive that would prevent the world contracting from gravity and remain static. Before this, though Edwin Hubble acquired discovered a red transfer in the galaxies nearby and a straight larger shift in those further. A red switch occurs when light that is emitted with a source, a galaxy for example, that is moving away from the observer becomes elongated. This sensation was witnessed on all attributes folks and it does increase with distance, and therefore the world was expanding in all directions. Einstein did not recognize this knowledge and had unnecessarily complicated his theory by adding a frequent that obviously made no sense. The info that was proven true was not accepted, as a earlier knowledge was jammed in his mind's eye restricting his ability to formulate a realistic theory. Later, he realized the validity of the information and incorporated the idea of an expanding universe into his theory. A theory previously thought bogus was proven true and needlessly discarded.

But, the urge to question, the craving to wish to know more will always be a crucial area of the human mind. This is what will lead us to want to change the knowledge we realize today and improve current knowledge. It generally does not stop there though; conception is the main element to learning to be a experienced thinker. If one thinks critically about all when and grand paradigms of the world, the inventive opportunity for additional knowledge could be limitless.

Bibliography

http://oregonstate. edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Protagoras/protagoras_plato_knowledge. htm

http://science. howstuffworks. com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method5. htm

http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Falsifiability

http://listverse. com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/

http://www. pasteurbrewing. com/the-life-and-work-of-louis-pasteur/experiments/louis-pasteurs-experiment-to-refute-spontaneous-generation/204. html

http://www. debunking911. com/freefall. htm

1

[1] http://oregonstate. edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Protagoras/protagoras_plato_knowledge. htm

[2] http://research. howstuffworks. com/invention/scientific-experiments/scientific-method5. htm

[3] http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Falsifiability

[4] http://listverse. com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/

[5] http://www. pasteurbrewing. com/the-life-and-work-of-louis-pasteur/experiments/louis-pasteurs-experiment-to-refute-spontaneous-generation/204. html

[6] http://www. debunking911. com/freefall. htm

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)