This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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. Danny
Why should it be a disambiguation page? There is no ambiguity for Knowledge like for Mercury. I think it should be introductory to the various form of knowledge or redirected to Knowledge (philosophy). -- Ann O'nyme 03:58, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
All the material we have here on to acquire knowledge already is discussed in the propositional knowledge 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. RK 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 Wikipedia in the first place. It simply is another (related) article; an article that is appropriate for that specific content. RK 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. RK 22:58, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
re: People need to read the... Summary edit lines. - I disagree. Angela 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. Apogr 11:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Simply say: Information and experience brings you knowledge.
Anything writen is simply information. The experience cannot be put on paper, just the leassons, you will never , ever learn to ride a bike by reading all the books about it.
Does anyone else thing to see also list is getting a little out of hand? -- Ryguasu 03:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
dis is the most borinest homework i ave ever done lol how is every1
I have moved all the material that was at Knowledge (philosophy) to here. I then edited it to remove much that is reproduced elsewhere. Please reinstate anything you think is needed.
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
-- Kzollman 20:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
"A common definition of knowledge is that it consists of justified true belief." The statement after this seems to imply that all knowledge is belief so why not put Category:Knowledge under Category:Belief? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 14:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
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. Banno 09:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge is definitely not "a subset of belief," as the sophistry of the obscurantists would have it. What an odd notion! The two are entirely different things. The fallacy of conflation of knowledge and belief, two different things, has no place in a modern encyclopedia, the attempts of the obscurantists to have it engraved in stone here notwithstanding. -- 207.200.116.198 03:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Section asserting that knowledge is justified true belief deleted this date because it entails a conflation of knowledge and belief, two different things. Belief without it being evident that a given statement is true is religious faith, but for a statement to qualify as known to be true (to qualify as knowledge) there must be proof, 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. -- 67.182.157.6 19:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
So in the same breath you are saying that knowledge is belief, but knowledge is not belief? You are contradicting yourself all over the place, Mr. Banno. Gettier's counterexamples show that belief has nothing to do with knowledge, they are two completely different things, moron. Study up.-- 67.182.157.6 15:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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. Banno 20:54, July 21, 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. Banno 21:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Commenting on the contributor, personal attack, is argument ad hominem. See Wictionary.
And don't try to argue, "She/He started it." That is ad hominem tu quoque. Two wrongs do not make a right. Set a good example and just remind the alleged miscreant of the policy: No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
This is not rocket science.
One miss-use of "knowledge" sees it as juxtaposed to "belief". Some consideration will show this to be a misunderstanding, since it is clearly absurd to suppose that we know something to be the case yet do not believe it to be the case. At the least, the things we know form a sub-set of the things we believe.
This is an attempt to voice the opinion of the anon in a way that makes sense. Consider it as "writing for the enemy" on my part. Please discuss it here. Banno 21:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I was indeed not attempting to say that it is a mistake to equate knowledge and belief, but that it is a mistake to juxtapose them. I take the comments and edits by the anon 207.200.116.132 as indicating that he thinks the JTB account states that knowledge and belief are the same thing - that it conflates them. it doesn't, it says that the statements we know to be correct form a sub-set of the statements we believe; The most direct way to argue this case seems to me to be to point out the contradiction inherent in saying that you know something yet do not believe it. Unfortunately a "full reading of the whole article" appears to have left the anon with a misapprehension. I should point out that user:207.200.116.198 may be yet another sock puppet for user:67.182.157.6, author of some comments above, and that there is an RfC for him - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix to which I am a signatory. So, while I think that the article needs some re-working, I will not attempt to do so for now because I suspect it would result in a revert war. Banno 10:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. An interesting point - I'll drop the word "juxtapose", I guess, although it is the proper word in the context. I failed to understand your point that the argument is circular. I certainly do not think that it is absurd to claim to know something.
You are quite right that the misunderstanding cuts very deep. That is why I think it important that it be explained away in the article. We are attempting to explain epistemology, aren't we? Banno 21:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is a bit of a mess. I think the majority of it should be merged with Epistemology and probably Gettier problem. I feel that knowledge should be more of a disambiguation page, perhaps with short sections on the various definition and usages, and links to relevent articles. When you start trying to expound on what knowledge is, you automatically fall into the realm of epistemology, and should be editing in there. MickWest 17:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged. This article needs work, but there is more to knowledge than just the philosophical perspective of epistemology. Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how is relevant to management and KM; Sociology of knowledge should have a place inthe article; and the KM section needs development (as do all the KM articles) - leave it a separate, closely related item. Banno 08:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I reverted an edit which added the parenthetical remarks in this sentence:
I don't think the empiricists are appropriately considered aristotelians. I'm not sure all rationalists where "platonics" and I also think the proper term is "platonist" not "platonics." Anyway, I think that the parenthetical remarks introduce uneeded confusion into the sentence. This matter should probably be discussed on continental rationalism and empiricism. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 06:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Principle: Neutral Point of View (NPOV) 1) With respect to controversial topics Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a topic be fairly presented. [4]
Your lead statement, using terms like 'awareness', and 'information' reveals a bias towards Cognitivism (psychology), which is contrary to the principle that Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view, so that all significant points of view regarding a topic are fairly presented. How long will you continue to ignore this principle? -- 67.182.157.6 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The Wikification of Knowledge [5]
by John C. Dvorak
PC
ARTICLE DATE: 07.11.05
Excerpt:
"To understand some of the basics of the wiki concept you have to read the entry in the Wikipedia on the consensus theory of truth—a very odd idea."
-- 67.182.157.6 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi There. Knowledge is a key concept in the fields of Information Science and Knowledge Management (see DIKW). And there's nothing philosophical about how it's used there. So can you please sort out whatever the hell you're arguing about so that we can unlock this page and get that in there.
--- Actually, in Information Science, especially Artificial Intelligence, knowledge differs from data or information in that new knowledge (i.e. in a Knowledge Base) may be created from existing knowledge using logical inference. The Knowledge Management take on knowledge is quite different, where knowledge has more to do with belief. Perhaps we should accept that 'knowledge' is a homonym.
-Eric.
---
Just briefly reading over the comments here, it sounds like a lot of philosophical dickering. That's interesting (really) but you're getting in the way! Move! Sbwoodside 06:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't pay any attention to Banno's lame argument _ad hominem_. Banno is just bitter because I had the timerity to question his odd notion that knowledge is belief, a notion that was taken out by Gettier's counterexamples.-- 67.182.157.6 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Anything else? Banno 00:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I just rewrote the intro, so I think that part at least is all good for now. Sbwoodside 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
These sections sound like the same thing. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 09:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
For those that missed it:
DotSix, using any IP is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case. [6]
As I understand it, if he edits here again, we report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to have him blocked; add a link to the diff of the arbitration decision 9as above) by way of explanation. Banno 11:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
This concerns your additions to knowledge. Wikipedia does encourage contributions from everyone, but they must be written in a tone that is suitable for this site. Quotes such as "Not True... KM is useless" do not belong on the page. Why don't you look at the Welcome page to get a feel for the style of the site? Feel free to send me a message on my talk page. Cheers. -- PhilipO 18:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Simply say: Information and experience brings you knowledge.
Anything writen is simply information. The experience cannot be put on paper, just the leassons, you will never (ever) learn how to ride a bike by reading all the books about it.
Welcome to the Wiki. I'm glad yo like it. A few things you should know. Firstly, you sign talk posts by writing "~~~~ at the end of your comment. Please do so. Secondly, there is a rule about reverting an article to a previous version more than three times in a day. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Third, your aim should be to adopt a Wikipedia:neutral point of view. In this article, this means giving reasonable representation to the range of perspectives on Knowledge. Finally, you would be well advised to create an account so that there are clear lines of communication. If you do, you will obtain much more support from other editors. And it makes editing easier. Banno 20:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
All our ideas should produce good and lasting results and then anything that is good NOW would have been good in the PAST and it will be good in the FUTURE and it will be good UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, so any idea that does not cover all this broad base IS NO GOOD. To be right, one's thought will have to be BASED ON NATURAL FACTS, for really, Mother Nature ONLY can tell what is right and what is wrong and the way that things should be. My definition of right is that right is anything in nature that exists without ARTIFICIAL MODIFICATION and all the others are wrong. Now suppose you would say it is wrong. In that case, I would say YOU are wrong yourself because you came into this world through natural circumstances that YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH and so as long as such a thing exists as yourself, I am right and you are wrong. Only those are right whose thoughts are BASED on natural facts and inclinations. 209.191.143.129 13:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)L.
Negating the reasoning base..
All our ideas should NOT produce good and lasting results and then anything that is NOT good NOW would have been NOT good in the PAST and it will NOT be good in the FUTURE and it will NOT be good UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, so any idea that DOES cover all this broad base IS GOOD. To be right, one's thought will NOT have to be BASED ON NATURAL FACTS, for really, Mother Nature ONLY can NOT tell what is NOT right and what is NOT wrong and the way that things should NOT be. My definition of right is that right is NOT anything in nature that exists with ARTIFICIAL MODIFICATION and all the others are wrong. Now suppose you would say it is NOT wrong. In that case, I would say YOU are NOT wrong yourself because you DID NOT came into this world through natural circumstances that YOU HAD (NOTHING delete) EVERYTHING TO DO WITH and so as long
as such a thing DOES NOT exists as yourself, I am NOT right and you are NOT wrong.
Only those are NOT right whose thoughts are NOT BASED on natural facts and inclinations.
It reads to me pretty much like the history of the world!. Now, most importantly I would like to have a MILLION people or more read this and vote.And THAT should be what WIDIPEDIA should publish if they(the owner) knew what the true purpose this site is for. It would MEAN as you putted "represent a common view". I wonder what the result would be. Last thing. What the heck is "accepted by the mainstream" ?.In my mind looks like what I just described. Thanks again. 209.191.143.129 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I meant that I disagreed with your general premise, not that I thought every single sentence you used to explain it was wrong according to boolean logic. If you wish to know why I disagreed with your general premise, please discuss it on my talk page. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with this article, and I am not going to discuss your individual beliefs here any more, except insofar as they relate to this article. WhiteC 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed this content:
Knowledge is always abstract, built up from the concrete upwards.
Data are facts. e.g. Telephone numbers in a telephone book. The list of densities of different materials. Data is the most concrete. You can print data.
Information is produced in response to a question asked on the data. e.g. Which is the longest name? How many names start with A? How many materials have a density greater than Iron? Information can be false. You can read information.
Knowledge is required to comprehend / understand the information. e.g. What is the meaning of density? Knowledge as it exists cannot be false. You cannot print or read knowledge; you have to Understand / Assimilate it.
Knowledge management in the corporate world seeks to record and make available experiential knowledge to Utilize the experience of One person to solve the problems of Another. Therefore, the Another does not have to repeat the experience to create the knowledge which the 'company' already has done once when One went through that experience.--Zhenn 08:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
== X ======= X ====
I'm not sure what this adds to the page and also it should be cited. As a note to the author, thank you for the contribution. For future reference, you should not sign content that's in a page and you don't need to add that mark for the end of your contribution. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 16:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge is the state of understanding something and being capable to utilize the fact for doing something. Things we know can be facts, truths or information. Obtaining knowledge is called learning. This article looks at the philosophical study of knowledge, namely epistemology, and then at how knowledge is manipulated in organizations, and at the social character of knowledge.
Information is a word which has many different meanings in everyday usage and in specialized contexts, but as a rule, the concept is closely related to others such as data, instruction, knowledge, meaning, communication, representation, and mental stimulus.
Human beings are systems as
A system is an assemblage of inter-related elements comprising a unified whole. From the Latin and Greek, the term "system" meant to combine, to set up, to place together. A sub-system is a system which is part of another system. A system typically consists of components (or elements) which are connected together in order to facilitate the flow of information, matter or energy. The term is often used to describe a set of entities which interact, and for which a mathematical model can often be constructed
Energy is a fundamental quantity that every physical system possesses. Energy of physical system in a certain given state is defined as the amount of work (W) needed to change the state of the system from some initial position, known as the reference state or reference level, to a specific or final position.
Hence Why knowledge can't be defined as a measure of energy in a human system?
This is lacking a section on situated knowledge which is knowledge that can only be discovered, or only used, in a particular place. Quite unforgiveable.
Hi I just rewrote the summary, more or less. I felt that the old summary had some problems, the first being the use of the horrible word "utilize" which is for me like a red flag in front of a bull. In addition, information is not really the same as knowledge, and the mention of truth and fact ignores others other things like belief and really belongs later on anyway (e.g. what kinds of knowledge are there?) or in the epistomology article. And finally the "this article looks at" construction isn't really appropriate for wikipedia.
Anyway, the only really substantive change is the addition of confidence -- it's a critical criteria for knowledge as compared to say information and seems like a good way to summarize all the qualifications from whatever epistemological side you happen to be on. Sbwoodside 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I also just mowed the lawn in the Definition section, changed it to "Defining knowledge". Some of the material there seemed overly specific. I moved Skepticism to epistemology, and everything under Problem of justification seems to be already covered there better (including some of it word-for-word).
I think it would probably be worth creating a new section that discusses the Transmission of knowledge ... it could include links to learning, teaching, instruction, communication, representation, mental stimulus, rhetoric... the list goes on. Sbwoodside 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Re The Article: Knowledge is the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose.
Why do you think you are confident in your understanding, because you know it? Prove to me your understanding is worthy of confidence.
I suggest to remove the paragraph:
Main article: epistemology
While knowledge is a central part of daily life, the actual definition of knowledge is of great interest to philosophers, social scientists, and historians. Knowledge, according to most thinkers, must be justified, true, and believed. Meeting these qualifications may be difficult or impossible. It is also common to weigh knowledge in how it can be applied or used. In this sense, knowledge consists of information augmented by intentionality (or direction). This model aligns with the DIKW hierarchy which places data, information, knowledge and wisdom into an increasingly useful pyramid.
The motivations
- it is not clear and includes such strongly subjective opinions as increasingly useful
- the theory mentioned is not sufficiently grounded in the subject matter literature
- there are many other theories, more or less formal, dealing with knowledge (see for example the discussion above).
- the terms used for the explanation of knowledge are not referenced to the Wikipedia articles (it is lack of congruence and creates a confusion).
In general, I think, the framework used in the article on information could be also useful in the case of knowledge and applied to an insertion of the above intuitive "DIKW hierarchy".
- By the way, the definitions in DIKW are not the same and are not congruent with those presented on the first Google page: search "information, knowledge, wisdom"
See in: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm
According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:
1. Data: symbols
2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions
3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions
4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"
5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.
The definitions used in the Wikipedia DIKW article are completely different and evolved to the IPK definitions, what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference).
Comment: The IPK meta-ontological definitions are integral part of the TOGA meta-theory of goal-oriented knowledge ordering.
A meta-comment: We should always remember that definition making is not an art but has to be governed by a set of explicite professional rules.
-- Adam M. Gadomski 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
And also, the definition for knowledge in this article is highly political. It seems more like a definition for "military intelligence" or something similar. I think it needs a much less biased and open definition. Just a thought. -- Eridani 2308, 14 September 2006 (EST)
"Because any knowledge incorporates concepts and will be expressed using terms, the interdependencies between knowledge and language are essential for the definition itself. This has been demonstrated by Hey recently.[3]"
Sorry but this is not useful, and it looks very much to me as a breach of wikipedia's policies (i.e. no original work). This seems to be from a student paper, and I would suggest that it is debatable that anyone could 'demonstrate' such a thing. Although his paper is interesting, I would reference articles from well recognised journal on the subject such as the Journal of Knowledge Management for example.
And another comments, the reference list looks quite short! This page is now on my 'to do' list ;) -- GarOgar 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the philosophy links are intended to be inclusive, not exclusive. The philosophy project is not building an empire - hell, we can't even agree on a format, let alone a colonisation strategy!
Knowledge is an important concept in Philosophy. When the KM folk get their act together enough to make a Wiki project, they are most welcome to put their banners here, too. It's just a link, my friends. Banno 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do we care how he defines knowledge? He isn't even famous enough to have his own page on the Wiki - removed this section. Banno 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do we care what Banno writes? Why do we care what Wikipedia says? Hmmm. So when you say " famous enough" do you mean that fame is what you need to sell your ideas?
Could somebody explain why do we have Chabad reference in See also section?-- 66.41.162.254 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are there mentions of sources (e.g., Worthington, 2005) without the complete citation? For a professional researcher this is deeply frustrating. Could someone out there please add the citations to this page?
This section was added in this edit. It struck me as a load of crap when I first saw it and it still strikes me that way. Brian Jason Drake 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The confusion here is perhaps due to some unfamiliarity either with the Sanskrit terminologies included here (although their English equivalents are also given) or with different possible types of definitions for any concept, viz utilitarian, prescriptive or descriptive: the definition here 'describes' what Knowledge can be, in general terms.== PPRao
Here the objective features of knowledge are more emphasized whereas this descriptive definition of knowledge is suited more to clarify the concepts such as truth, justification etc encountered under Epistemology. Hence I wish to remove this definition over to Epistemology.=== PPRao, Aug 18, 2006.
The new section, Levels of Knowledge ( revision), appears to be original research by the author. The image upload identifies the creator of the chart to be John Jan Popovic. - George100 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think that limits of knowledge (of the present) should be mentioned in the article. e.g. uncertanty principal where the position and velocity of an electron can never be known simultaneously?-- Matt H. 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The same knowledge may be present on various levels in different systems citation needed. Acquisition of knowledge may be represented as successive cascade like transformation of signal (0) to data (1), then classification of data into knowledge (2), and at the end arriving sometimes to wisdom(3) which successfully describes generalized knowledge of particular topic.
The same information may be existent on different 4 levels:
Signal -> Data -> Knowledge -> Wisdom
And during the information refinement, there are 3 types of transformations
Reception -> Perception -> Cognition
Example: to Listen -> to Hear -> to Understand
Inverse example would be: Thinking -> Grammatical Formulating -> Pronouncing
It is clear that there are different qualities of reception, in terms of sensitivity or wave spectrum, like ability to see different colours, or faculty to hear ultrasound, but there are also different qualities of perception and cognition.
Signal examples are: sound, light or some other wave form energy, while corresponding data examples are recorded sound and photographic image. Articulated human voice may generate intelligible sound which may be used as the information carrier.
Levels of knowledge:
0. Signal - as physical waves or complex pulse information: Level 0 knowledge
1. Data – is captured, coded and recorded signal: Level 1 knowledge
2. Knowledge – systematized, classified, structured and interrelated data: Level 2 knowledge
3. Wisdom – generalised knowledge presented as coherent system: Level 3 knowledge
The intelligent information processing evolves by stages, and the "processed data" from one stage may be considered the "raw data" of the next. So perception is process which transforms input>"raw data" to output>"knowledge"; while cognition transforms input>"raw knowledge" into more abstract and generalized output>"Wisdom".
Reception is the process which transforms signal into data, while inverse process of reception is interpretation of data, i.e. Reproduction of original signal, and recording and reproduction of signals easily achieved by technological devices.
Perception is the process which transforms data into knowledge, and inverse process of perception is interpretation of the thought, i.e. more or less successful Creation of Structured Ideas. For more than three decades [Artificial Intelligence] is trying to emulate human intelligence, but with inadequate results. There are some voice recognition systems and OCR, but they are still much inferior than humans.
Cognition is the process which condenses and generalizes knowledge of one or different correlated topics, into one coherent logical system. For instance Geometry represents a type of knowledge and it has existed before Euclides, but Euclides in his Elements, represents geometry as a coherent collection of definitions, axioms, theorems and proofs thereof, and is one of the oldest example of pure wisdom.
Banno 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The claim that knowledge is a relative concept needs justification. First off, dear anon, what is my knowledge that I am writing this relative to? What does it mean to say "knowledge is relative"? And secondly, if knowledge is a concept, what is it a concept of? I understand having knowledge of a concept - is that what you meant to say? "Vague" is the wrong word, I think. What is vague about Plato's "justified, true belief"?
I have also removed some repetition. Banno 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of noteworthiness for this character? If this is not provided over the next day or so, this section should be removed. Banno 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to see one or two articles/reports of Ballard. Google search: "Richard L. Ballard",publications - no concrete results! only a publicity.
I also think, the article " Richard L. Ballard" edited by 66.75.88.152 and Dxthom in Wikipedia could be a mistake (?) - no references!
-- Adam M. Gadomski 07:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello All
I'm trying to develop Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Gutenberg and Wikipedia information and make it available to the community for free.
My initial post to External Links was deleted so obviously I didn't get it right. I thought the Knowledge Community on this page might be able to assist me and provide quidance.
I've posted my comments, goals and objectives at * Knowledge Generation and Dessimination.
I would appreciate any comments the Knowledge Page community can give me.
Arnold Villeneuve 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The question to hand is if the article should commence with Knowledge is what is now known" or Knowledge is what is known". From my talk page:
No, but then which foot is the shoe on - can you provide references to support the assertion that knowledge that has been forgotten is no longer knowledge? But this is looking in the wrong place. Look at the use of the word: "Knowledge that has been forgotten in no longer knowledge" - what is it then? What was it? Is there something wrong with saying " I used to know her phone number, but I forgot it"? I don't think so. I once had a justified true belief about a particular number, but now I don't remember which number it was I had that belief about.
In the end, the distinction introduced by adding now counts as original research. Banno 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Or to put the point another way, "Knowledge is what is now known" just seems ungrammatical to me. Banno 08:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/wwwerg26701/gad-dict.htm IPK definitions], what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference) article should remain distinct from the science that studies it. People will search for and link knowledge and not the rather exotic field of epistemology. Iancarter 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The definition has become the target of Wikirot, what with everyone adding their favorite philosopher's pet theory. Some culling is needed. Banno 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) We are all learning to be better.
Knowledge is the matching and combination of information, context and expectation to effectively recreate. The recreation could be time, space, energy or new information. Context as used here describes the mindset of the individual.
I agree with Banno's assessment that most of the entry has become Wikirot. There is much talk of the USES of knowledge but virtually nothing of what it IS. If it is not defined, then it cannot be effectively used. Prof 7 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved this section down in order prominence and then on reflection, tagged it for discussion, and then untagged it. The relevance tag I placed does not exactly fit what the concerns I have. Clearly Knowledge Management is relevant to knowledge, but my concern is that placing this section in the main article on knowledge gives it excessive weight? Knowledge Management is a body of management consultancy paradigms/theories which emerged in the 1990s (along with ideas of "Knowledge Society" and "Knowledge Age" and "Knowledge Citizens" etc. which didn't last as long). Basically, its corporate and management speak. I'm in two minds about this. Bwithh 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree to this move, the Knowledge Management article appears still in need of an overhaul to shed buzzwords (not the technical language) and clear up confusion that seems to be the root cause of ongoing contention there. It would fit this article on knowledge, though, to offer a clarification for the layperson, the likes of, the distinction between 'knowledge' (what I know) and 'information' (what I am able to convey about what I know), as it appears in Wilson's paper, largely a critique on the indiscriminate use of the term "Knowledge Management". Bernd in Japan 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just read the following statement: "The classical definition, found in Plato[1], 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." Since this definiton refers to the Theaetetus dialogue and I've just had a philosophical course about it, I cannot make much sense out of it. Where and how does Plato states these criteria?
In accordance with Cornford the criteria for knowledge are: 1) knowledge must be real 2) knowledge must be unmistakable. Within the dialogue Socrates states this in the beginning of the first thesis (knowledge is perception): "SOCRATES: Then perception is always of existence, and being the same as knowledge is unerring?" Perception fulfills the second criteria, but not the first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.59.150 ( talk • contribs) ThT 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief"." - My understanding of Plato's theory of knowledge is that knowledge arises from 'rememberence' of the ideas, which would conflict with the above quote. I'm sorry, I haven't found a source yet, but I'm fairly sure that Plato proposes the definition and rejects it. The quote implies that this was in fact his position on what knowledge was.
.
How come that Peterdjones deletes something he may not agree with. I am disgusted. Inducer 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please ensure content is verifiable, discuss changes on talk pages and write edit summaries.
See Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP:OR
1Z 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Knowledge is what is known." This circular definition does not stand any rational test. See definition in wikipedia. For a hypertext lexicon to remain consistent you should at least concord your defintions all the way round. To push Plato or anyone writing two thousand years ago in the 21th century environment of knowledge is downright ridiculuous. Hiding behind wikipedia editing principles puts you in a very bad light. Why not write a dictionary of quotations from classics instead? Inducer 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
REFERENCE THIS: Knowledge means comprehension of truth -- a person knows something if that person comprehends or understands some kind of truth. Like the related concepts truth, belief, and wisdom, there is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge. The word "knowledge" itself refers to a process outside the boundaries of language. We could reference the Epistemology introduction which starts (reasonably) from Justified True Belief and then explains some of the theories. Asserting one defintion is obviously wrong
Knowledge involves truth, belief, wisdom... And Epistomology which is theory of knowledge also discusses truth and belief and justification.
This article is within the scope of the Philosohy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas.
The style for these philosophy articles is worked out as per the Philosophy Portal instructions and standards (at the top of this page).
I will be looking some more at those guidelines before I do any more edits here. Newbyguesses 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The main section as it now reads is a vast improvement IMHO - thanks to you, well done sir snowded Newbyguesses 06:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph dealing with religious meaning of knowledge is really too short, and is not comprehensive, I'm sure that many more beliefs and religions could be added. At this stage, it would be better to delete or label the paragraph as a stub.-- B J Bradford 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a slim line, between not endorsing and rejecting JTB (justified true belief). The construct of that whole paragraph is clumsy, a list of modern objections to an ancient proposal that few ever thought tenable. What would be good is a brief history of the definitions of knowledge, starting with Plato's critique of JTB, Killing a few weasels on the way - "some claim", and finishing with links to Gettier. Let's show that there was some thinking on the topic between Plato and Gettier... Banno 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't like parenthetic comments. I was taught that since they break the sequence of the text they demonstrate a lack on the part of the writer. In this case, I think the parenthesis may have been placed by he whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of addressing with the perpendicular pronoun (to misquote Sir Humphrey). Banno 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page:
I think that that parathenses or what is its name, is neccessary to make clear that it is ultimately (the essence) not endorsed by Plato, although he has dedicated a work about it. I think your edit removes that fact. Mallerd 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that the parenthesis is not essential to the article. Perhaps the answer is to spell out in more detail what the conclusion, or lack there of, is in the account. Rather than have the discussion on the talk page, let's put it into the article - with appropriate citations, of course. Banno 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The link to the german page leads to "Wissen", but as far as I know the two concepts are not identical, and knowledge could rather be compared to "Erkenntnis"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.222.153 ( talk) 08:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As written, the article states: "There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one." The first part of the sentence is accurate but the second part asserts a fact that cannot be known. Are there any objections to editing out the second part? -- Terry Oldberg ( talk) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
== defining "knowledge" == part 2 In a number of books and peer reviewed articles, the engineer, lawyer and theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen defines "knowledge" as the measure known as the "mutual information" in the literature of information theory, in the circumstance that this measure is applied to the pair of state-spaces of a scientific model. One state-space contains the unobserved outcomes of events. The other contains observed conditions on this model's "feature space" (set of independent variables). Christensen's aim is to demonstrate how, in building a scientific model, the maximum possible knowledge (defined as he defines it) may be created. This reduces the problem of the creation of knowledge to a problem in optimization.
The notion that knowledge is created by optimization leads to a comprehensive theory of knowledge and set of rules for valid reasoning. Under these rules, one seeks and finds an optimum in the information that is missing, in a model's inferences, for a deductive conclusion. Christensen calls this set of rules "entropy minimax," for the mathematical name for the information that is missing for a deductive conclusion in a single event. Entropy minimax reduces to the rules of deductive logic in the circumstance that the missing information is nil.
Christensen's rules have, in effect, been tested throughout recorded history and found to work without exception in the very large domain in which they are applicable. Syllogisms result from Christensen's rules. They always work. Thermodynamics results from Christensen's rules. It always works. Shannon's theory of communication results from Christensen's rules. It always works. Cardano's theory of fair gambles results from Christensen's rules. It always works. Also, entropy minimax may be derived from classical logic, by replacing the rule that every proposition has a truth-value with the rule that every proposition has a probability of being true.
Thus, while it is true that there is no single agreed upon definition of "knowledge," it seems to me that we now have a good candidate. In my view, readers of Wikipedia would be better served if this advance were somehow to be reflected in the wording of the article. -- Terry Oldberg ( talk) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The addition of a defining knowledge section is problematic. Nothing in it is wrong per se, but its a very partial summary of the field and other articles (such as epistemology) are better. This is an overall problem with the page anyway, it includes knowledge management, and other areas. All in all a bit of a hotch podge. Its been tagged for over a year and has not really improved much. Ideas? -- Snowded TALK 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Any property which can be found in more than one thing is a common property. Any property which cannot be found in more than one thing is a special property.
The knowledge of the common properties is applicable to more than one thing because a common property can be found in more than one thing. The knowledge of a special property is not applicable to more than one thing because a special property cannot be found in more than one thing. [1] -- Cumputers ( talk) 02:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday's edits in effect produced a poor replication of material better handled in Scientific method. We also had the Biology section which is important for its recognition that knowledge can be embodied in non human systems. I have put the two together in one section, using material from Scientific method and also included a reference to Philosophy of Science. It still needs more work and we also need to settle what are the headings. In effect this is a summary or transition article between the more rigourous Epistemology and articles such as Knowledge management and should probably stay as a short article with a series of short and piplinked sections.
If other editors are unhappy with this then we can revert to the prior stable version and discuss. -- Snowded ( talk) 06:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wished to chime in on the subject of knowledge versus epistemology.
It would be useful to have two different articles -- the one, describing what is acceptable by the reader as a description of knowledge (a kind of helpful definition) versus epistemology (which is a description of how various philosophers challenge or challenged the shorthand description of knowledge found in the former article.)
Perhaps the two articles have very different utility. The article on knowledge is a help to the person who believes that they know, and the article on epistemology is a help to the person who would like to challenge the first assertion.
Most humans are filled with doubt as to whether they really know certain things. But they certainly don't appreciate being reminded of that doubt, just as uncertainty is disconcerting at best and frightening at worst. -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not have the Scientific Method mentioned in an article on Knowledge ?
Then, if there is a particular philosophical hole that needs coverage, that could be included in the article on Epistemology.
By the way, if we can't cite Plato, is that because the Dialogues aren't peer reviewed, or because they are self published ?
(Or perhaps more ominously, anonynously published). -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If there a section which addresses these question, this article would be wonderful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 ( talk) 08:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of Plato, let's for the sake of argument say that there is a current textual check as to the veracity of textual transmission of the Dialogues. Does that allow us to cite only the most recent text ?
In other words, does the check of textual transmission have more value than an earlier text, on which the textual check is based ?
(or, alternatively, can we directly cite an old copy of Ulysses if there is a newer critically edited version ?) -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 01:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
What will you do if no thing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability? Anything which one can identify has: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability.
No one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Virginexplorer (
talk •
contribs) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
references: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_divisibility
2. Analytical Thinker's Manual (2009) published by Intellectual Development Foundation
3. Research and Rediscover: http://www.archive.org/download/ResearchAndRediscover/ResearchAndRediscover.wmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is some input that I did in this page about a typology of knowledge. I understand that there may not be a accepted typology of knowledge, but this is something that should then be indicated here (well, I am not sure this is indicated).
I also feel that we should provide some reference to the work of respected academics (Nonaka, De Jong) even if it is to indicate the shortcoming of their approaches.
Any suggestion about how to proceed? Thanks. -- Nabeth ( talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Section added that was reverted:
Different types of knowledge can be distinguished. De Jong and Hessler (1996) [2] proposes the following types of knowledge:
Other categories / classifications of knowledge have been advanced such as socio-cultural knowledge (knowledge about beliefs and attitude in a society), declarative knowledge (facts) or structural knowledge (how concepts are articulated) [3].
Knowledge can also be explicit (articulated, codified and stored in some media) or tacit (e.g. when present in people head). Knowledge in organization can also be transformed in a form to another: Tacit knowledge is then say to be externalized into explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is said to be internalized into tacit knowledge [4].
Conceptual knowledge is about meaning and understanding. Typical examples include theories and models.
Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation [2]. What is the knowledge which is applied (repeated) on different things by different people in different ways? Identify it in "Analytical wiki".
--
Nabeth (
talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A section discussing how to measure "all human knowledge" would be great. emijrp ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
here is 3 party souce http://questioncentre.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/knowledgee.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.10.240 ( talk) 12:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains the sentence, 'It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject' (where 'it' stands for 'knowledge'). In its present form this is incorrect, and although I changed it the original version has been restored. Writing 'knowledge can refer to...' implies that it may do, but it may not.
'It refers to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject' is a better sentence and means what it says. The 'can' is neither necessary nor correct.-- Chris Jefferies ( talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not the philosophy I'm struggling with, it's the sentence construction. Let's take a really simple example. Imagine a shop that sells only two products - apples and pears.
'The shop sells apples and pears' is concise and accurate in meaning. It sells either or both.
'The shop can sell apples and pears' is longer than necessary and unclear. Does it mean it sells only one or the other? Maybe.
I just think the sentence could be better. And in Wikipedia if it could be better, it should be changed. It's not worth a long discussion, I'm simply expressing my opinion.-- Chris Jefferies ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed once again the sentence
and the reference to Wikia. The content of Wikipedia articles has to be attributable to a reliable, published source which obviously excludes Wikia. The sentence is in any case too vague and preachy to constitute encyclopedic content. Pichpich ( talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "data is" to "data are"
128.36.175.156 ( talk) 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This page links to Fact which gets in a loop back to Fact when playing the philosophy game on Wikipedia. This might seem trivial, but I hardly believe that over 94% of all articles link back to philosophy now. It is either this page's fault, or the fault of Fact, because every page that I haven't gotten to philosophy with, I've gotten to this one. I propose we make the first linked word be Philosophy, possibly by just adding it in front of the word "fact" in the first sentence. This would not significantly change the meaning of the sentence or the summary, but would make a lot of bored Wikipedia browsers a lot happier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgopack4 ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that this page be replaced by views of 10 or more solicited top thinkers and people of knowledge, without pay. One of the major problems of Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopedia is the lack of top authorities, who avoid the open environment of Wikipedia. Here is one page that can take some solicited top authorities in knowledge, who can be criticized by the regulars. Jumpulse ( talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The following text of section Communicating knowledge is not completely factual: "Writing is still the most available and most universal of all forms of recording and transmitting knowledge. It stands unchallenged as mankind's primary technology of knowledge transfer down through the ages and to all cultures and languages of the world." This is far from the truth, as many cultures and languages have not ever used—and still do not use—written language: a fact that this statement denies. In addition, writing is likely not humankind's current "primary", "unchallenged" technology of knowledge transfer; the Internet is arguably replacing writing in informational importance at an exponential rate, thus the claim that writing alone is unchallenged in this way is utterly false. This material, as well as the rest of the section, is completely unreferenced and should be modified or otherwise partially removed from the article. — | J ~ Pæst| 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So what exactly is the problem with putting information first? To be clear, I'm not in support of turning Wikipedia into a game, I'm in support of ending an edit war that's been going on for years. — MusikAnimal talk 19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The edit notice ( Template:Editnotices/Page/Knowledge) can only be created by an admin or a template editor. Nevertheless, I propose the following (less grumpy but hopefully effective):
{{editnotice
| id = faqedn
| header = "Philosophy" game editing
| headerstyle = font-size: 120%;
| textstyle = background-color: #fee;
| text = Please note that altering the order of wikilinks or otherwise editing the lead of the article for the sole purpose of playing the Get to philosophy game is considered disruptive. These edits will be quickly reverted.
}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichpich ( talk • contribs)
The article states: "Plato famously defined knowledge as ´justified true belief.´" No citation is given, however. While this definition (known as the classical definition of knowledge) is commonly attributed to Plato, it is unclear wheather he actually ever presented or subscribed to such a definition. The exact formulation commonly used is not found in either the Theatetus or the Republic, nor in any other known work of Plato. Historians of philosophy usually take the closest assimile to the classical definition to be Theatetus 201c: "...knowledge was true opinion accompanied by reason". It is not established that Plato means to accept this as a definition of knowledge.
I suggest that the reference to Plato be removed or else that at least the relevant section of Theatetus be cited. Reference to Plato could be removed by simply saying that the definition in question is the classical definition (instead of claiming that it is the definition given by Plato). If deemed important, it can be stated that this definition is commonly attributed to Plato (some citation would be needed then to credit the the statement that this practice is indeed common).
I will not edit the page, but I strongly suggest that some editing be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.2.243 ( talk) 11:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Used in the introduction to The Politics of Knowledge ISBN 0415704758 What is that? That "knowledge." How would it be treated, as the subject, of a Wikipedia article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is about knowledge, not epistemology, philosophy of knowledge. Sophisticated treatment of epistemology belongs there. The subject of the article is much more ordinary. By the way, the material deleted regarding the origin of ordinary knowledge in authority and division of labor had 3 footnotes in the cited reference. They include Coudy, Tony, Testimony, A Philosophical Study, Princeton University Press; Audi, Robert, 1997, "The Place of Testimony in the Fabric of Knowledge and Justification," American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (No. 4) 404-42; and Adler, Jonathan E., 2002, Belief's Own Ethics, MIT Press User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The heading "Theories of Knowledge" ought to include Timothy Williamson's view on knowledge, at least in brief. If this page discusses issues concerning why and how an agent has knowledge, then Williamson needs to be included. Though his view may be controversial, it is still a recent theory of how agents have knowledge. If this article includes a theory of knowledge from someone who is not an epistemologist (i.e. Wittgenstein), then surely this page should accept a view from a leading epistemologist. Also, if we look at the SEP article on "The Analysis of Knowledge" we will see Williamson mentioned. I request the following additional paragraph to be inserted under the heading "Theories of knowledge":
Timothy Williamson, on the other hand, posits a claim about knowledge. In his book, Knowledge And Its Limits, Williamson says that knowledge is not a combination of justification, belief, and truth. Instead, Williamson argues that knowledge cannot be broken down into concepts or analyzed. In fact, he claims that knowledge is a basic, factive mental state--i.e. a mental state that entails truth. Williamson further claims that justification, [5] evidence, [6] and belief are not requirements for knowledge. He says justification and evidence require knowledge. Tlendriss ( talk) 15:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the awareness to link to the Wikipedia page on awareness. 129.21.94.40 ( talk) 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
80.82.24.143 ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simple syntax correction request,
From: to be problematic because of the Gettier problems while others defend the platonic definition. To: to be problematic because of the Gettier problems,<-(insert comma) while others defend the platonic definition.
From: However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist. To: However, several definitions and theories of knowledge have attempted to explain its existence. English Correctorer ( talk) 16:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a comma splice in the 'Situated knowledge' section: 'This knowledge is not knowledge that one can "forget", even someone suffering from amnesia experiences the world in 3D.' Please replace the comma with a period or semicolon, or add a word (maybe 'because') after the comma to make it grammatical. 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 17:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the article needs a section on classifications of the knowledges. There is an article similar to that, Branches of science, but with a minor scope. Some sugestions:
Some sources for this planned section:
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
one dead link found plz add my website link https://www.technical-education.com/ Talimam ( talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
"Awareness" was originally the first descriptive link. Is it possible to reinstate this as was initially in place? Etaripcisum ( talk) 19:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like the Knowledge page to have an encyclopedic section on Using Knowledge. I have added some intuitive content on good-knowledge vs bad-knowledge. I have connected this to a relevant source reference. I would like feedback from the community for this page to refine this section before it is boldly attacked by overzealous deleters.
Openyk ( talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If we hold the entire article up to that standard, I have a lot I can delete with justification, including the entire first paragraph, several sections, etc. simply because they have not been source-linked. What is your solution to someone deleting every sentence in Wikipedia without a source link? Official Wikipedia policy states that unsourced content should be improved-by-default, not deleted-by-default.
Openyk ( talk) 00:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Are truthes knowledges or this question better to /info/en/?search=Epistemology ? -- Visionhelp ( talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
subject The subject of science is what discussed in that science معین پورصادق ( talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In the wikiproject table found in external link section, it says small "knowledge" and must begin with capital letter "Knowledge". 196.188.240.85 ( talk) 16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines knowledge as a understanding, but it isn't the same thing. Knowledge needs to be revised to exclude understanding. Eliasladd ( talk) 21:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Aramaic manda means "knowledge," and is conceptually related to the Greek term gnosis. This means the Mandaeans or 'knowers' are the only surviving Gnostics from antiquity. Mandaeans also refer to themselves as Nasurai (Nasoraeans) meaning guardians or possessors of knowledge. This has a clear connection to the religious concept of knowledge. As a Gnostic religion, "Mandaeanism stresses salvation of the soul through esoteric knowledge of its divine origin." (Encyclopedia Britannica) Mcvti ( talk) 17:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
They are a type of Gnosticism, in fact the only surviving Gnostic religion from antiquity. They can be listed under Gnosticism section and described if that would help solve the issue. Mcvti ( talk) 18:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. The talk page of one or more directly related articles.
Copied from Wikipedia:Canvassing
WP:POVRAILROAD (Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing) Mcvti ( talk) 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the position as I understand it
So - I have not disputed the addition of a section on Gnosticism but I am disputing giving privilege to one sect in that entry, and I am very dubious as to if any sect should be mentioned.
Per standard practice I have restored to the previous stable text to allow discussion takes place; the onus is on those proposing an addition to justify the new material. If we can't reach agreement then we call an RfC although this really is a minor issue but that is proper process, not edit warring.
Those who want to insert this material need to make a case about why a Gnostic sect deserves unique treatment in this article. I repeat, no other entry for more significant religions is treated in that way ----- Snowded TALK 07:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the second sentence in the opening statement because it was a VERY DEEP philosophical statement that may be appropriate later in the article but doesn't really help elucidate the basic concept. Happy to discuss or be corrected. The statement might be appropriate later in the page, IMO. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead section of this article is currently in bad shape and needs a rewrite, in my view. @ Phlsph7: You have done a lot of work on other epistemology articles, so would you be interested in taking a look at the lead section of this article and making revisions? @ Snowded: You are the long-time top editor of this article and your input on revising the lead section would also be appreciated. Thanks, Biogeographist ( talk) 16:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Between Gettier-inspired concerns about the analysis of knowledge and the project of refuting the skeptic, epistemologists fell into two broad camps, depending on whether they considered knowledge to require an element of justification or understanding, or whether, contrary to tradition, true belief might be enough. The idea that knowledge requires only true belief, provided the cause of the belief is appropriate or reliable, is known as externalism. Such theories reject the traditional assumption that knowledge requires the knower to understand the reason why a belief is true. [...] [Later the topic changes from Gettier to knowledge and truth more generally:] Certainly there is some difference between knowing that the earth rotates around the sun (a true proposition) and knowing how to play the flute (a skill or art). But is the difference one in kinds of knowledge? What is obviously different about them is how the knowledge is expressed. In one case by producing a proposition, in the other by a musical performance. But that is a difference in the artifacts that express knowledge, and does not prove a difference in what makes these examples of knowledge at all. In both cases the knowledge concerns artifacts, constructions of ours, whether propositions or musical performances. [...] Heliocentric astronomy and musical artistry are therefore not so different as knowledge. Whether we speak of knowing that (such and such is true) or knowing how, we are qualifying capacities for performance at a certain high level with artifacts of some kind.
— Allen, Barry (2005). "Knowledge". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1199–1204. ISBN 0684313774. OCLC 55800981.
In the meantime, I restored an earlier version of the first paragraph as a better basis for future development. Biogeographist ( talk) 23:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
In the following sentence in this article: "These controversies intensified due to a series of thought experiments by Edmund Gettier and have provoked various alternative definitions." The hyperlink given to 'thought experiments' which is this link: /info/en/?search=Thought_experiment has nothing to do with Gettier or Edmund Gettier. It is a wrong linkage between these 2 topics or article. Mojtaba Mohammadi ( talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
My edit summary for this edit was supposed to say " hyphen to en dash", not em dash. I do know the difference, but apparently this is the day of sloppy edit summaries for me. Biogeographist ( talk) 00:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I did not remove anything from the lead but the second paragraph needs a lot of citations. It looks a little like Original Work. I added a more general common language definition at the start of the article. Alex Jackl ( talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Knowledge can be defined as theoretical awareness of facts or as practical skills. It may also refer to familiarity with objects or situations.It's based on your suggestion but makes a few adjustment. Besides some streamlining of expressions, it leaves the repeated reference to experience out, which seems to me not central to the definition of knowledge. Phlsph7 ( talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Knowledge can be defined as awareness of facts or as practical skills, and may also refer to familiarity with objects or situations.
Per
WP:ISAWORDFOR, I changed the lead sentence to: Knowledge is an awareness of facts, practical skills, or a familiarity with objects or situations.
[7]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
outlier, but as an example of a type of lead that is permitted by policy but
[C]hanging an article because it was used as an example of something of which you denied the existence on another Talk page is fairly disruptive. As I stated above, the reason I changed the lead was per WP:ISAWORDFOR. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
[A] type of lead that is permitted by policy but that you denied exists.That is a false statement. I did not deny it exists. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Please start by providing a single example of an article on a definable topic which does not begin with a definition to show that this actually represents an existing practice[10] reads as a denial that a lead without a definitional statement of the kind you prefer is
an existing practice- in other words, an initial presumption that such a practice does not exist. Pardon me if you meant something else by your request. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
false- was poorly formulated. I have now corrected it to read
something the existence of which you were questioning, rather than the more terse but potentially misleading
something that you denied exists. I didn't mean to get over my skis; you have my apologies. Newimpartial ( talk) 05:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
it's off to say it "can be" defined. It is sometimes defined certain ways.For that reason, I propose that "can be defined as" be replaced with "is often defined as" as Phlsph7 suggested. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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. Danny
Why should it be a disambiguation page? There is no ambiguity for Knowledge like for Mercury. I think it should be introductory to the various form of knowledge or redirected to Knowledge (philosophy). -- Ann O'nyme 03:58, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
All the material we have here on to acquire knowledge already is discussed in the propositional knowledge 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. RK 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 Wikipedia in the first place. It simply is another (related) article; an article that is appropriate for that specific content. RK 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. RK 22:58, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
re: People need to read the... Summary edit lines. - I disagree. Angela 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. Apogr 11:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Simply say: Information and experience brings you knowledge.
Anything writen is simply information. The experience cannot be put on paper, just the leassons, you will never , ever learn to ride a bike by reading all the books about it.
Does anyone else thing to see also list is getting a little out of hand? -- Ryguasu 03:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
dis is the most borinest homework i ave ever done lol how is every1
I have moved all the material that was at Knowledge (philosophy) to here. I then edited it to remove much that is reproduced elsewhere. Please reinstate anything you think is needed.
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
-- Kzollman 20:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
"A common definition of knowledge is that it consists of justified true belief." The statement after this seems to imply that all knowledge is belief so why not put Category:Knowledge under Category:Belief? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 14:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
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. Banno 09:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge is definitely not "a subset of belief," as the sophistry of the obscurantists would have it. What an odd notion! The two are entirely different things. The fallacy of conflation of knowledge and belief, two different things, has no place in a modern encyclopedia, the attempts of the obscurantists to have it engraved in stone here notwithstanding. -- 207.200.116.198 03:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Section asserting that knowledge is justified true belief deleted this date because it entails a conflation of knowledge and belief, two different things. Belief without it being evident that a given statement is true is religious faith, but for a statement to qualify as known to be true (to qualify as knowledge) there must be proof, 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. -- 67.182.157.6 19:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
So in the same breath you are saying that knowledge is belief, but knowledge is not belief? You are contradicting yourself all over the place, Mr. Banno. Gettier's counterexamples show that belief has nothing to do with knowledge, they are two completely different things, moron. Study up.-- 67.182.157.6 15:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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. Banno 20:54, July 21, 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. Banno 21:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Commenting on the contributor, personal attack, is argument ad hominem. See Wictionary.
And don't try to argue, "She/He started it." That is ad hominem tu quoque. Two wrongs do not make a right. Set a good example and just remind the alleged miscreant of the policy: No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
This is not rocket science.
One miss-use of "knowledge" sees it as juxtaposed to "belief". Some consideration will show this to be a misunderstanding, since it is clearly absurd to suppose that we know something to be the case yet do not believe it to be the case. At the least, the things we know form a sub-set of the things we believe.
This is an attempt to voice the opinion of the anon in a way that makes sense. Consider it as "writing for the enemy" on my part. Please discuss it here. Banno 21:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
I was indeed not attempting to say that it is a mistake to equate knowledge and belief, but that it is a mistake to juxtapose them. I take the comments and edits by the anon 207.200.116.132 as indicating that he thinks the JTB account states that knowledge and belief are the same thing - that it conflates them. it doesn't, it says that the statements we know to be correct form a sub-set of the statements we believe; The most direct way to argue this case seems to me to be to point out the contradiction inherent in saying that you know something yet do not believe it. Unfortunately a "full reading of the whole article" appears to have left the anon with a misapprehension. I should point out that user:207.200.116.198 may be yet another sock puppet for user:67.182.157.6, author of some comments above, and that there is an RfC for him - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix to which I am a signatory. So, while I think that the article needs some re-working, I will not attempt to do so for now because I suspect it would result in a revert war. Banno 10:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. An interesting point - I'll drop the word "juxtapose", I guess, although it is the proper word in the context. I failed to understand your point that the argument is circular. I certainly do not think that it is absurd to claim to know something.
You are quite right that the misunderstanding cuts very deep. That is why I think it important that it be explained away in the article. We are attempting to explain epistemology, aren't we? Banno 21:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is a bit of a mess. I think the majority of it should be merged with Epistemology and probably Gettier problem. I feel that knowledge should be more of a disambiguation page, perhaps with short sections on the various definition and usages, and links to relevent articles. When you start trying to expound on what knowledge is, you automatically fall into the realm of epistemology, and should be editing in there. MickWest 17:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged. This article needs work, but there is more to knowledge than just the philosophical perspective of epistemology. Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how is relevant to management and KM; Sociology of knowledge should have a place inthe article; and the KM section needs development (as do all the KM articles) - leave it a separate, closely related item. Banno 08:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi - I reverted an edit which added the parenthetical remarks in this sentence:
I don't think the empiricists are appropriately considered aristotelians. I'm not sure all rationalists where "platonics" and I also think the proper term is "platonist" not "platonics." Anyway, I think that the parenthetical remarks introduce uneeded confusion into the sentence. This matter should probably be discussed on continental rationalism and empiricism. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 06:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Principle: Neutral Point of View (NPOV) 1) With respect to controversial topics Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a topic be fairly presented. [4]
Your lead statement, using terms like 'awareness', and 'information' reveals a bias towards Cognitivism (psychology), which is contrary to the principle that Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view, so that all significant points of view regarding a topic are fairly presented. How long will you continue to ignore this principle? -- 67.182.157.6 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The Wikification of Knowledge [5]
by John C. Dvorak
PC
ARTICLE DATE: 07.11.05
Excerpt:
"To understand some of the basics of the wiki concept you have to read the entry in the Wikipedia on the consensus theory of truth—a very odd idea."
-- 67.182.157.6 19:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi There. Knowledge is a key concept in the fields of Information Science and Knowledge Management (see DIKW). And there's nothing philosophical about how it's used there. So can you please sort out whatever the hell you're arguing about so that we can unlock this page and get that in there.
--- Actually, in Information Science, especially Artificial Intelligence, knowledge differs from data or information in that new knowledge (i.e. in a Knowledge Base) may be created from existing knowledge using logical inference. The Knowledge Management take on knowledge is quite different, where knowledge has more to do with belief. Perhaps we should accept that 'knowledge' is a homonym.
-Eric.
---
Just briefly reading over the comments here, it sounds like a lot of philosophical dickering. That's interesting (really) but you're getting in the way! Move! Sbwoodside 06:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't pay any attention to Banno's lame argument _ad hominem_. Banno is just bitter because I had the timerity to question his odd notion that knowledge is belief, a notion that was taken out by Gettier's counterexamples.-- 67.182.157.6 19:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Anything else? Banno 00:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I just rewrote the intro, so I think that part at least is all good for now. Sbwoodside 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
These sections sound like the same thing. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 09:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
For those that missed it:
DotSix, using any IP is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case. [6]
As I understand it, if he edits here again, we report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to have him blocked; add a link to the diff of the arbitration decision 9as above) by way of explanation. Banno 11:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
This concerns your additions to knowledge. Wikipedia does encourage contributions from everyone, but they must be written in a tone that is suitable for this site. Quotes such as "Not True... KM is useless" do not belong on the page. Why don't you look at the Welcome page to get a feel for the style of the site? Feel free to send me a message on my talk page. Cheers. -- PhilipO 18:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Simply say: Information and experience brings you knowledge.
Anything writen is simply information. The experience cannot be put on paper, just the leassons, you will never (ever) learn how to ride a bike by reading all the books about it.
Welcome to the Wiki. I'm glad yo like it. A few things you should know. Firstly, you sign talk posts by writing "~~~~ at the end of your comment. Please do so. Secondly, there is a rule about reverting an article to a previous version more than three times in a day. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Third, your aim should be to adopt a Wikipedia:neutral point of view. In this article, this means giving reasonable representation to the range of perspectives on Knowledge. Finally, you would be well advised to create an account so that there are clear lines of communication. If you do, you will obtain much more support from other editors. And it makes editing easier. Banno 20:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
All our ideas should produce good and lasting results and then anything that is good NOW would have been good in the PAST and it will be good in the FUTURE and it will be good UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, so any idea that does not cover all this broad base IS NO GOOD. To be right, one's thought will have to be BASED ON NATURAL FACTS, for really, Mother Nature ONLY can tell what is right and what is wrong and the way that things should be. My definition of right is that right is anything in nature that exists without ARTIFICIAL MODIFICATION and all the others are wrong. Now suppose you would say it is wrong. In that case, I would say YOU are wrong yourself because you came into this world through natural circumstances that YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH and so as long as such a thing exists as yourself, I am right and you are wrong. Only those are right whose thoughts are BASED on natural facts and inclinations. 209.191.143.129 13:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)L.
Negating the reasoning base..
All our ideas should NOT produce good and lasting results and then anything that is NOT good NOW would have been NOT good in the PAST and it will NOT be good in the FUTURE and it will NOT be good UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, so any idea that DOES cover all this broad base IS GOOD. To be right, one's thought will NOT have to be BASED ON NATURAL FACTS, for really, Mother Nature ONLY can NOT tell what is NOT right and what is NOT wrong and the way that things should NOT be. My definition of right is that right is NOT anything in nature that exists with ARTIFICIAL MODIFICATION and all the others are wrong. Now suppose you would say it is NOT wrong. In that case, I would say YOU are NOT wrong yourself because you DID NOT came into this world through natural circumstances that YOU HAD (NOTHING delete) EVERYTHING TO DO WITH and so as long
as such a thing DOES NOT exists as yourself, I am NOT right and you are NOT wrong.
Only those are NOT right whose thoughts are NOT BASED on natural facts and inclinations.
It reads to me pretty much like the history of the world!. Now, most importantly I would like to have a MILLION people or more read this and vote.And THAT should be what WIDIPEDIA should publish if they(the owner) knew what the true purpose this site is for. It would MEAN as you putted "represent a common view". I wonder what the result would be. Last thing. What the heck is "accepted by the mainstream" ?.In my mind looks like what I just described. Thanks again. 209.191.143.129 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I meant that I disagreed with your general premise, not that I thought every single sentence you used to explain it was wrong according to boolean logic. If you wish to know why I disagreed with your general premise, please discuss it on my talk page. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with this article, and I am not going to discuss your individual beliefs here any more, except insofar as they relate to this article. WhiteC 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed this content:
Knowledge is always abstract, built up from the concrete upwards.
Data are facts. e.g. Telephone numbers in a telephone book. The list of densities of different materials. Data is the most concrete. You can print data.
Information is produced in response to a question asked on the data. e.g. Which is the longest name? How many names start with A? How many materials have a density greater than Iron? Information can be false. You can read information.
Knowledge is required to comprehend / understand the information. e.g. What is the meaning of density? Knowledge as it exists cannot be false. You cannot print or read knowledge; you have to Understand / Assimilate it.
Knowledge management in the corporate world seeks to record and make available experiential knowledge to Utilize the experience of One person to solve the problems of Another. Therefore, the Another does not have to repeat the experience to create the knowledge which the 'company' already has done once when One went through that experience.--Zhenn 08:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
== X ======= X ====
I'm not sure what this adds to the page and also it should be cited. As a note to the author, thank you for the contribution. For future reference, you should not sign content that's in a page and you don't need to add that mark for the end of your contribution. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 16:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge is the state of understanding something and being capable to utilize the fact for doing something. Things we know can be facts, truths or information. Obtaining knowledge is called learning. This article looks at the philosophical study of knowledge, namely epistemology, and then at how knowledge is manipulated in organizations, and at the social character of knowledge.
Information is a word which has many different meanings in everyday usage and in specialized contexts, but as a rule, the concept is closely related to others such as data, instruction, knowledge, meaning, communication, representation, and mental stimulus.
Human beings are systems as
A system is an assemblage of inter-related elements comprising a unified whole. From the Latin and Greek, the term "system" meant to combine, to set up, to place together. A sub-system is a system which is part of another system. A system typically consists of components (or elements) which are connected together in order to facilitate the flow of information, matter or energy. The term is often used to describe a set of entities which interact, and for which a mathematical model can often be constructed
Energy is a fundamental quantity that every physical system possesses. Energy of physical system in a certain given state is defined as the amount of work (W) needed to change the state of the system from some initial position, known as the reference state or reference level, to a specific or final position.
Hence Why knowledge can't be defined as a measure of energy in a human system?
This is lacking a section on situated knowledge which is knowledge that can only be discovered, or only used, in a particular place. Quite unforgiveable.
Hi I just rewrote the summary, more or less. I felt that the old summary had some problems, the first being the use of the horrible word "utilize" which is for me like a red flag in front of a bull. In addition, information is not really the same as knowledge, and the mention of truth and fact ignores others other things like belief and really belongs later on anyway (e.g. what kinds of knowledge are there?) or in the epistomology article. And finally the "this article looks at" construction isn't really appropriate for wikipedia.
Anyway, the only really substantive change is the addition of confidence -- it's a critical criteria for knowledge as compared to say information and seems like a good way to summarize all the qualifications from whatever epistemological side you happen to be on. Sbwoodside 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I also just mowed the lawn in the Definition section, changed it to "Defining knowledge". Some of the material there seemed overly specific. I moved Skepticism to epistemology, and everything under Problem of justification seems to be already covered there better (including some of it word-for-word).
I think it would probably be worth creating a new section that discusses the Transmission of knowledge ... it could include links to learning, teaching, instruction, communication, representation, mental stimulus, rhetoric... the list goes on. Sbwoodside 06:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Re The Article: Knowledge is the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose.
Why do you think you are confident in your understanding, because you know it? Prove to me your understanding is worthy of confidence.
I suggest to remove the paragraph:
Main article: epistemology
While knowledge is a central part of daily life, the actual definition of knowledge is of great interest to philosophers, social scientists, and historians. Knowledge, according to most thinkers, must be justified, true, and believed. Meeting these qualifications may be difficult or impossible. It is also common to weigh knowledge in how it can be applied or used. In this sense, knowledge consists of information augmented by intentionality (or direction). This model aligns with the DIKW hierarchy which places data, information, knowledge and wisdom into an increasingly useful pyramid.
The motivations
- it is not clear and includes such strongly subjective opinions as increasingly useful
- the theory mentioned is not sufficiently grounded in the subject matter literature
- there are many other theories, more or less formal, dealing with knowledge (see for example the discussion above).
- the terms used for the explanation of knowledge are not referenced to the Wikipedia articles (it is lack of congruence and creates a confusion).
In general, I think, the framework used in the article on information could be also useful in the case of knowledge and applied to an insertion of the above intuitive "DIKW hierarchy".
- By the way, the definitions in DIKW are not the same and are not congruent with those presented on the first Google page: search "information, knowledge, wisdom"
See in: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm
According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:
1. Data: symbols
2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions
3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions
4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"
5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.
The definitions used in the Wikipedia DIKW article are completely different and evolved to the IPK definitions, what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference).
Comment: The IPK meta-ontological definitions are integral part of the TOGA meta-theory of goal-oriented knowledge ordering.
A meta-comment: We should always remember that definition making is not an art but has to be governed by a set of explicite professional rules.
-- Adam M. Gadomski 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
And also, the definition for knowledge in this article is highly political. It seems more like a definition for "military intelligence" or something similar. I think it needs a much less biased and open definition. Just a thought. -- Eridani 2308, 14 September 2006 (EST)
"Because any knowledge incorporates concepts and will be expressed using terms, the interdependencies between knowledge and language are essential for the definition itself. This has been demonstrated by Hey recently.[3]"
Sorry but this is not useful, and it looks very much to me as a breach of wikipedia's policies (i.e. no original work). This seems to be from a student paper, and I would suggest that it is debatable that anyone could 'demonstrate' such a thing. Although his paper is interesting, I would reference articles from well recognised journal on the subject such as the Journal of Knowledge Management for example.
And another comments, the reference list looks quite short! This page is now on my 'to do' list ;) -- GarOgar 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the philosophy links are intended to be inclusive, not exclusive. The philosophy project is not building an empire - hell, we can't even agree on a format, let alone a colonisation strategy!
Knowledge is an important concept in Philosophy. When the KM folk get their act together enough to make a Wiki project, they are most welcome to put their banners here, too. It's just a link, my friends. Banno 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do we care how he defines knowledge? He isn't even famous enough to have his own page on the Wiki - removed this section. Banno 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do we care what Banno writes? Why do we care what Wikipedia says? Hmmm. So when you say " famous enough" do you mean that fame is what you need to sell your ideas?
Could somebody explain why do we have Chabad reference in See also section?-- 66.41.162.254 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are there mentions of sources (e.g., Worthington, 2005) without the complete citation? For a professional researcher this is deeply frustrating. Could someone out there please add the citations to this page?
This section was added in this edit. It struck me as a load of crap when I first saw it and it still strikes me that way. Brian Jason Drake 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The confusion here is perhaps due to some unfamiliarity either with the Sanskrit terminologies included here (although their English equivalents are also given) or with different possible types of definitions for any concept, viz utilitarian, prescriptive or descriptive: the definition here 'describes' what Knowledge can be, in general terms.== PPRao
Here the objective features of knowledge are more emphasized whereas this descriptive definition of knowledge is suited more to clarify the concepts such as truth, justification etc encountered under Epistemology. Hence I wish to remove this definition over to Epistemology.=== PPRao, Aug 18, 2006.
The new section, Levels of Knowledge ( revision), appears to be original research by the author. The image upload identifies the creator of the chart to be John Jan Popovic. - George100 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think that limits of knowledge (of the present) should be mentioned in the article. e.g. uncertanty principal where the position and velocity of an electron can never be known simultaneously?-- Matt H. 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The same knowledge may be present on various levels in different systems citation needed. Acquisition of knowledge may be represented as successive cascade like transformation of signal (0) to data (1), then classification of data into knowledge (2), and at the end arriving sometimes to wisdom(3) which successfully describes generalized knowledge of particular topic.
The same information may be existent on different 4 levels:
Signal -> Data -> Knowledge -> Wisdom
And during the information refinement, there are 3 types of transformations
Reception -> Perception -> Cognition
Example: to Listen -> to Hear -> to Understand
Inverse example would be: Thinking -> Grammatical Formulating -> Pronouncing
It is clear that there are different qualities of reception, in terms of sensitivity or wave spectrum, like ability to see different colours, or faculty to hear ultrasound, but there are also different qualities of perception and cognition.
Signal examples are: sound, light or some other wave form energy, while corresponding data examples are recorded sound and photographic image. Articulated human voice may generate intelligible sound which may be used as the information carrier.
Levels of knowledge:
0. Signal - as physical waves or complex pulse information: Level 0 knowledge
1. Data – is captured, coded and recorded signal: Level 1 knowledge
2. Knowledge – systematized, classified, structured and interrelated data: Level 2 knowledge
3. Wisdom – generalised knowledge presented as coherent system: Level 3 knowledge
The intelligent information processing evolves by stages, and the "processed data" from one stage may be considered the "raw data" of the next. So perception is process which transforms input>"raw data" to output>"knowledge"; while cognition transforms input>"raw knowledge" into more abstract and generalized output>"Wisdom".
Reception is the process which transforms signal into data, while inverse process of reception is interpretation of data, i.e. Reproduction of original signal, and recording and reproduction of signals easily achieved by technological devices.
Perception is the process which transforms data into knowledge, and inverse process of perception is interpretation of the thought, i.e. more or less successful Creation of Structured Ideas. For more than three decades [Artificial Intelligence] is trying to emulate human intelligence, but with inadequate results. There are some voice recognition systems and OCR, but they are still much inferior than humans.
Cognition is the process which condenses and generalizes knowledge of one or different correlated topics, into one coherent logical system. For instance Geometry represents a type of knowledge and it has existed before Euclides, but Euclides in his Elements, represents geometry as a coherent collection of definitions, axioms, theorems and proofs thereof, and is one of the oldest example of pure wisdom.
Banno 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The claim that knowledge is a relative concept needs justification. First off, dear anon, what is my knowledge that I am writing this relative to? What does it mean to say "knowledge is relative"? And secondly, if knowledge is a concept, what is it a concept of? I understand having knowledge of a concept - is that what you meant to say? "Vague" is the wrong word, I think. What is vague about Plato's "justified, true belief"?
I have also removed some repetition. Banno 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of noteworthiness for this character? If this is not provided over the next day or so, this section should be removed. Banno 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to see one or two articles/reports of Ballard. Google search: "Richard L. Ballard",publications - no concrete results! only a publicity.
I also think, the article " Richard L. Ballard" edited by 66.75.88.152 and Dxthom in Wikipedia could be a mistake (?) - no references!
-- Adam M. Gadomski 07:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello All
I'm trying to develop Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Gutenberg and Wikipedia information and make it available to the community for free.
My initial post to External Links was deleted so obviously I didn't get it right. I thought the Knowledge Community on this page might be able to assist me and provide quidance.
I've posted my comments, goals and objectives at * Knowledge Generation and Dessimination.
I would appreciate any comments the Knowledge Page community can give me.
Arnold Villeneuve 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The question to hand is if the article should commence with Knowledge is what is now known" or Knowledge is what is known". From my talk page:
No, but then which foot is the shoe on - can you provide references to support the assertion that knowledge that has been forgotten is no longer knowledge? But this is looking in the wrong place. Look at the use of the word: "Knowledge that has been forgotten in no longer knowledge" - what is it then? What was it? Is there something wrong with saying " I used to know her phone number, but I forgot it"? I don't think so. I once had a justified true belief about a particular number, but now I don't remember which number it was I had that belief about.
In the end, the distinction introduced by adding now counts as original research. Banno 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Or to put the point another way, "Knowledge is what is now known" just seems ungrammatical to me. Banno 08:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/wwwerg26701/gad-dict.htm IPK definitions], what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference) article should remain distinct from the science that studies it. People will search for and link knowledge and not the rather exotic field of epistemology. Iancarter 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The definition has become the target of Wikirot, what with everyone adding their favorite philosopher's pet theory. Some culling is needed. Banno 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) We are all learning to be better.
Knowledge is the matching and combination of information, context and expectation to effectively recreate. The recreation could be time, space, energy or new information. Context as used here describes the mindset of the individual.
I agree with Banno's assessment that most of the entry has become Wikirot. There is much talk of the USES of knowledge but virtually nothing of what it IS. If it is not defined, then it cannot be effectively used. Prof 7 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved this section down in order prominence and then on reflection, tagged it for discussion, and then untagged it. The relevance tag I placed does not exactly fit what the concerns I have. Clearly Knowledge Management is relevant to knowledge, but my concern is that placing this section in the main article on knowledge gives it excessive weight? Knowledge Management is a body of management consultancy paradigms/theories which emerged in the 1990s (along with ideas of "Knowledge Society" and "Knowledge Age" and "Knowledge Citizens" etc. which didn't last as long). Basically, its corporate and management speak. I'm in two minds about this. Bwithh 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree to this move, the Knowledge Management article appears still in need of an overhaul to shed buzzwords (not the technical language) and clear up confusion that seems to be the root cause of ongoing contention there. It would fit this article on knowledge, though, to offer a clarification for the layperson, the likes of, the distinction between 'knowledge' (what I know) and 'information' (what I am able to convey about what I know), as it appears in Wilson's paper, largely a critique on the indiscriminate use of the term "Knowledge Management". Bernd in Japan 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just read the following statement: "The classical definition, found in Plato[1], 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." Since this definiton refers to the Theaetetus dialogue and I've just had a philosophical course about it, I cannot make much sense out of it. Where and how does Plato states these criteria?
In accordance with Cornford the criteria for knowledge are: 1) knowledge must be real 2) knowledge must be unmistakable. Within the dialogue Socrates states this in the beginning of the first thesis (knowledge is perception): "SOCRATES: Then perception is always of existence, and being the same as knowledge is unerring?" Perception fulfills the second criteria, but not the first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.59.150 ( talk • contribs) ThT 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief"." - My understanding of Plato's theory of knowledge is that knowledge arises from 'rememberence' of the ideas, which would conflict with the above quote. I'm sorry, I haven't found a source yet, but I'm fairly sure that Plato proposes the definition and rejects it. The quote implies that this was in fact his position on what knowledge was.
.
How come that Peterdjones deletes something he may not agree with. I am disgusted. Inducer 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please ensure content is verifiable, discuss changes on talk pages and write edit summaries.
See Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP:OR
1Z 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Knowledge is what is known." This circular definition does not stand any rational test. See definition in wikipedia. For a hypertext lexicon to remain consistent you should at least concord your defintions all the way round. To push Plato or anyone writing two thousand years ago in the 21th century environment of knowledge is downright ridiculuous. Hiding behind wikipedia editing principles puts you in a very bad light. Why not write a dictionary of quotations from classics instead? Inducer 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
REFERENCE THIS: Knowledge means comprehension of truth -- a person knows something if that person comprehends or understands some kind of truth. Like the related concepts truth, belief, and wisdom, there is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge. The word "knowledge" itself refers to a process outside the boundaries of language. We could reference the Epistemology introduction which starts (reasonably) from Justified True Belief and then explains some of the theories. Asserting one defintion is obviously wrong
Knowledge involves truth, belief, wisdom... And Epistomology which is theory of knowledge also discusses truth and belief and justification.
This article is within the scope of the Philosohy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas.
The style for these philosophy articles is worked out as per the Philosophy Portal instructions and standards (at the top of this page).
I will be looking some more at those guidelines before I do any more edits here. Newbyguesses 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The main section as it now reads is a vast improvement IMHO - thanks to you, well done sir snowded Newbyguesses 06:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph dealing with religious meaning of knowledge is really too short, and is not comprehensive, I'm sure that many more beliefs and religions could be added. At this stage, it would be better to delete or label the paragraph as a stub.-- B J Bradford 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a slim line, between not endorsing and rejecting JTB (justified true belief). The construct of that whole paragraph is clumsy, a list of modern objections to an ancient proposal that few ever thought tenable. What would be good is a brief history of the definitions of knowledge, starting with Plato's critique of JTB, Killing a few weasels on the way - "some claim", and finishing with links to Gettier. Let's show that there was some thinking on the topic between Plato and Gettier... Banno 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't like parenthetic comments. I was taught that since they break the sequence of the text they demonstrate a lack on the part of the writer. In this case, I think the parenthesis may have been placed by he whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of addressing with the perpendicular pronoun (to misquote Sir Humphrey). Banno 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page:
I think that that parathenses or what is its name, is neccessary to make clear that it is ultimately (the essence) not endorsed by Plato, although he has dedicated a work about it. I think your edit removes that fact. Mallerd 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that the parenthesis is not essential to the article. Perhaps the answer is to spell out in more detail what the conclusion, or lack there of, is in the account. Rather than have the discussion on the talk page, let's put it into the article - with appropriate citations, of course. Banno 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The link to the german page leads to "Wissen", but as far as I know the two concepts are not identical, and knowledge could rather be compared to "Erkenntnis"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.222.153 ( talk) 08:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As written, the article states: "There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one." The first part of the sentence is accurate but the second part asserts a fact that cannot be known. Are there any objections to editing out the second part? -- Terry Oldberg ( talk) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
== defining "knowledge" == part 2 In a number of books and peer reviewed articles, the engineer, lawyer and theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen defines "knowledge" as the measure known as the "mutual information" in the literature of information theory, in the circumstance that this measure is applied to the pair of state-spaces of a scientific model. One state-space contains the unobserved outcomes of events. The other contains observed conditions on this model's "feature space" (set of independent variables). Christensen's aim is to demonstrate how, in building a scientific model, the maximum possible knowledge (defined as he defines it) may be created. This reduces the problem of the creation of knowledge to a problem in optimization.
The notion that knowledge is created by optimization leads to a comprehensive theory of knowledge and set of rules for valid reasoning. Under these rules, one seeks and finds an optimum in the information that is missing, in a model's inferences, for a deductive conclusion. Christensen calls this set of rules "entropy minimax," for the mathematical name for the information that is missing for a deductive conclusion in a single event. Entropy minimax reduces to the rules of deductive logic in the circumstance that the missing information is nil.
Christensen's rules have, in effect, been tested throughout recorded history and found to work without exception in the very large domain in which they are applicable. Syllogisms result from Christensen's rules. They always work. Thermodynamics results from Christensen's rules. It always works. Shannon's theory of communication results from Christensen's rules. It always works. Cardano's theory of fair gambles results from Christensen's rules. It always works. Also, entropy minimax may be derived from classical logic, by replacing the rule that every proposition has a truth-value with the rule that every proposition has a probability of being true.
Thus, while it is true that there is no single agreed upon definition of "knowledge," it seems to me that we now have a good candidate. In my view, readers of Wikipedia would be better served if this advance were somehow to be reflected in the wording of the article. -- Terry Oldberg ( talk) 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The addition of a defining knowledge section is problematic. Nothing in it is wrong per se, but its a very partial summary of the field and other articles (such as epistemology) are better. This is an overall problem with the page anyway, it includes knowledge management, and other areas. All in all a bit of a hotch podge. Its been tagged for over a year and has not really improved much. Ideas? -- Snowded TALK 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Any property which can be found in more than one thing is a common property. Any property which cannot be found in more than one thing is a special property.
The knowledge of the common properties is applicable to more than one thing because a common property can be found in more than one thing. The knowledge of a special property is not applicable to more than one thing because a special property cannot be found in more than one thing. [1] -- Cumputers ( talk) 02:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday's edits in effect produced a poor replication of material better handled in Scientific method. We also had the Biology section which is important for its recognition that knowledge can be embodied in non human systems. I have put the two together in one section, using material from Scientific method and also included a reference to Philosophy of Science. It still needs more work and we also need to settle what are the headings. In effect this is a summary or transition article between the more rigourous Epistemology and articles such as Knowledge management and should probably stay as a short article with a series of short and piplinked sections.
If other editors are unhappy with this then we can revert to the prior stable version and discuss. -- Snowded ( talk) 06:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wished to chime in on the subject of knowledge versus epistemology.
It would be useful to have two different articles -- the one, describing what is acceptable by the reader as a description of knowledge (a kind of helpful definition) versus epistemology (which is a description of how various philosophers challenge or challenged the shorthand description of knowledge found in the former article.)
Perhaps the two articles have very different utility. The article on knowledge is a help to the person who believes that they know, and the article on epistemology is a help to the person who would like to challenge the first assertion.
Most humans are filled with doubt as to whether they really know certain things. But they certainly don't appreciate being reminded of that doubt, just as uncertainty is disconcerting at best and frightening at worst. -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 00:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not have the Scientific Method mentioned in an article on Knowledge ?
Then, if there is a particular philosophical hole that needs coverage, that could be included in the article on Epistemology.
By the way, if we can't cite Plato, is that because the Dialogues aren't peer reviewed, or because they are self published ?
(Or perhaps more ominously, anonynously published). -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If there a section which addresses these question, this article would be wonderful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 ( talk) 08:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of Plato, let's for the sake of argument say that there is a current textual check as to the veracity of textual transmission of the Dialogues. Does that allow us to cite only the most recent text ?
In other words, does the check of textual transmission have more value than an earlier text, on which the textual check is based ?
(or, alternatively, can we directly cite an old copy of Ulysses if there is a newer critically edited version ?) -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 01:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
What will you do if no thing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability? Anything which one can identify has: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability.
No one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Virginexplorer (
talk •
contribs) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
references: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_divisibility
2. Analytical Thinker's Manual (2009) published by Intellectual Development Foundation
3. Research and Rediscover: http://www.archive.org/download/ResearchAndRediscover/ResearchAndRediscover.wmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is some input that I did in this page about a typology of knowledge. I understand that there may not be a accepted typology of knowledge, but this is something that should then be indicated here (well, I am not sure this is indicated).
I also feel that we should provide some reference to the work of respected academics (Nonaka, De Jong) even if it is to indicate the shortcoming of their approaches.
Any suggestion about how to proceed? Thanks. -- Nabeth ( talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Section added that was reverted:
Different types of knowledge can be distinguished. De Jong and Hessler (1996) [2] proposes the following types of knowledge:
Other categories / classifications of knowledge have been advanced such as socio-cultural knowledge (knowledge about beliefs and attitude in a society), declarative knowledge (facts) or structural knowledge (how concepts are articulated) [3].
Knowledge can also be explicit (articulated, codified and stored in some media) or tacit (e.g. when present in people head). Knowledge in organization can also be transformed in a form to another: Tacit knowledge is then say to be externalized into explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is said to be internalized into tacit knowledge [4].
Conceptual knowledge is about meaning and understanding. Typical examples include theories and models.
Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation [2]. What is the knowledge which is applied (repeated) on different things by different people in different ways? Identify it in "Analytical wiki".
--
Nabeth (
talk) 15:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A section discussing how to measure "all human knowledge" would be great. emijrp ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
here is 3 party souce http://questioncentre.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/knowledgee.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.10.240 ( talk) 12:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains the sentence, 'It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject' (where 'it' stands for 'knowledge'). In its present form this is incorrect, and although I changed it the original version has been restored. Writing 'knowledge can refer to...' implies that it may do, but it may not.
'It refers to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject' is a better sentence and means what it says. The 'can' is neither necessary nor correct.-- Chris Jefferies ( talk) 20:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not the philosophy I'm struggling with, it's the sentence construction. Let's take a really simple example. Imagine a shop that sells only two products - apples and pears.
'The shop sells apples and pears' is concise and accurate in meaning. It sells either or both.
'The shop can sell apples and pears' is longer than necessary and unclear. Does it mean it sells only one or the other? Maybe.
I just think the sentence could be better. And in Wikipedia if it could be better, it should be changed. It's not worth a long discussion, I'm simply expressing my opinion.-- Chris Jefferies ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed once again the sentence
and the reference to Wikia. The content of Wikipedia articles has to be attributable to a reliable, published source which obviously excludes Wikia. The sentence is in any case too vague and preachy to constitute encyclopedic content. Pichpich ( talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "data is" to "data are"
128.36.175.156 ( talk) 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This page links to Fact which gets in a loop back to Fact when playing the philosophy game on Wikipedia. This might seem trivial, but I hardly believe that over 94% of all articles link back to philosophy now. It is either this page's fault, or the fault of Fact, because every page that I haven't gotten to philosophy with, I've gotten to this one. I propose we make the first linked word be Philosophy, possibly by just adding it in front of the word "fact" in the first sentence. This would not significantly change the meaning of the sentence or the summary, but would make a lot of bored Wikipedia browsers a lot happier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgopack4 ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that this page be replaced by views of 10 or more solicited top thinkers and people of knowledge, without pay. One of the major problems of Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopedia is the lack of top authorities, who avoid the open environment of Wikipedia. Here is one page that can take some solicited top authorities in knowledge, who can be criticized by the regulars. Jumpulse ( talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The following text of section Communicating knowledge is not completely factual: "Writing is still the most available and most universal of all forms of recording and transmitting knowledge. It stands unchallenged as mankind's primary technology of knowledge transfer down through the ages and to all cultures and languages of the world." This is far from the truth, as many cultures and languages have not ever used—and still do not use—written language: a fact that this statement denies. In addition, writing is likely not humankind's current "primary", "unchallenged" technology of knowledge transfer; the Internet is arguably replacing writing in informational importance at an exponential rate, thus the claim that writing alone is unchallenged in this way is utterly false. This material, as well as the rest of the section, is completely unreferenced and should be modified or otherwise partially removed from the article. — | J ~ Pæst| 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
So what exactly is the problem with putting information first? To be clear, I'm not in support of turning Wikipedia into a game, I'm in support of ending an edit war that's been going on for years. — MusikAnimal talk 19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The edit notice ( Template:Editnotices/Page/Knowledge) can only be created by an admin or a template editor. Nevertheless, I propose the following (less grumpy but hopefully effective):
{{editnotice
| id = faqedn
| header = "Philosophy" game editing
| headerstyle = font-size: 120%;
| textstyle = background-color: #fee;
| text = Please note that altering the order of wikilinks or otherwise editing the lead of the article for the sole purpose of playing the Get to philosophy game is considered disruptive. These edits will be quickly reverted.
}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pichpich ( talk • contribs)
The article states: "Plato famously defined knowledge as ´justified true belief.´" No citation is given, however. While this definition (known as the classical definition of knowledge) is commonly attributed to Plato, it is unclear wheather he actually ever presented or subscribed to such a definition. The exact formulation commonly used is not found in either the Theatetus or the Republic, nor in any other known work of Plato. Historians of philosophy usually take the closest assimile to the classical definition to be Theatetus 201c: "...knowledge was true opinion accompanied by reason". It is not established that Plato means to accept this as a definition of knowledge.
I suggest that the reference to Plato be removed or else that at least the relevant section of Theatetus be cited. Reference to Plato could be removed by simply saying that the definition in question is the classical definition (instead of claiming that it is the definition given by Plato). If deemed important, it can be stated that this definition is commonly attributed to Plato (some citation would be needed then to credit the the statement that this practice is indeed common).
I will not edit the page, but I strongly suggest that some editing be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.2.243 ( talk) 11:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Used in the introduction to The Politics of Knowledge ISBN 0415704758 What is that? That "knowledge." How would it be treated, as the subject, of a Wikipedia article? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is about knowledge, not epistemology, philosophy of knowledge. Sophisticated treatment of epistemology belongs there. The subject of the article is much more ordinary. By the way, the material deleted regarding the origin of ordinary knowledge in authority and division of labor had 3 footnotes in the cited reference. They include Coudy, Tony, Testimony, A Philosophical Study, Princeton University Press; Audi, Robert, 1997, "The Place of Testimony in the Fabric of Knowledge and Justification," American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (No. 4) 404-42; and Adler, Jonathan E., 2002, Belief's Own Ethics, MIT Press User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The heading "Theories of Knowledge" ought to include Timothy Williamson's view on knowledge, at least in brief. If this page discusses issues concerning why and how an agent has knowledge, then Williamson needs to be included. Though his view may be controversial, it is still a recent theory of how agents have knowledge. If this article includes a theory of knowledge from someone who is not an epistemologist (i.e. Wittgenstein), then surely this page should accept a view from a leading epistemologist. Also, if we look at the SEP article on "The Analysis of Knowledge" we will see Williamson mentioned. I request the following additional paragraph to be inserted under the heading "Theories of knowledge":
Timothy Williamson, on the other hand, posits a claim about knowledge. In his book, Knowledge And Its Limits, Williamson says that knowledge is not a combination of justification, belief, and truth. Instead, Williamson argues that knowledge cannot be broken down into concepts or analyzed. In fact, he claims that knowledge is a basic, factive mental state--i.e. a mental state that entails truth. Williamson further claims that justification, [5] evidence, [6] and belief are not requirements for knowledge. He says justification and evidence require knowledge. Tlendriss ( talk) 15:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Knowledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the awareness to link to the Wikipedia page on awareness. 129.21.94.40 ( talk) 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
80.82.24.143 ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simple syntax correction request,
From: to be problematic because of the Gettier problems while others defend the platonic definition. To: to be problematic because of the Gettier problems,<-(insert comma) while others defend the platonic definition.
From: However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist. To: However, several definitions and theories of knowledge have attempted to explain its existence. English Correctorer ( talk) 16:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a comma splice in the 'Situated knowledge' section: 'This knowledge is not knowledge that one can "forget", even someone suffering from amnesia experiences the world in 3D.' Please replace the comma with a period or semicolon, or add a word (maybe 'because') after the comma to make it grammatical. 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 17:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the article needs a section on classifications of the knowledges. There is an article similar to that, Branches of science, but with a minor scope. Some sugestions:
Some sources for this planned section:
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
one dead link found plz add my website link https://www.technical-education.com/ Talimam ( talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
"Awareness" was originally the first descriptive link. Is it possible to reinstate this as was initially in place? Etaripcisum ( talk) 19:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like the Knowledge page to have an encyclopedic section on Using Knowledge. I have added some intuitive content on good-knowledge vs bad-knowledge. I have connected this to a relevant source reference. I would like feedback from the community for this page to refine this section before it is boldly attacked by overzealous deleters.
Openyk ( talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If we hold the entire article up to that standard, I have a lot I can delete with justification, including the entire first paragraph, several sections, etc. simply because they have not been source-linked. What is your solution to someone deleting every sentence in Wikipedia without a source link? Official Wikipedia policy states that unsourced content should be improved-by-default, not deleted-by-default.
Openyk ( talk) 00:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Are truthes knowledges or this question better to /info/en/?search=Epistemology ? -- Visionhelp ( talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Knowledge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
subject The subject of science is what discussed in that science معین پورصادق ( talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In the wikiproject table found in external link section, it says small "knowledge" and must begin with capital letter "Knowledge". 196.188.240.85 ( talk) 16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines knowledge as a understanding, but it isn't the same thing. Knowledge needs to be revised to exclude understanding. Eliasladd ( talk) 21:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Aramaic manda means "knowledge," and is conceptually related to the Greek term gnosis. This means the Mandaeans or 'knowers' are the only surviving Gnostics from antiquity. Mandaeans also refer to themselves as Nasurai (Nasoraeans) meaning guardians or possessors of knowledge. This has a clear connection to the religious concept of knowledge. As a Gnostic religion, "Mandaeanism stresses salvation of the soul through esoteric knowledge of its divine origin." (Encyclopedia Britannica) Mcvti ( talk) 17:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
They are a type of Gnosticism, in fact the only surviving Gnostic religion from antiquity. They can be listed under Gnosticism section and described if that would help solve the issue. Mcvti ( talk) 18:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. The talk page of one or more directly related articles.
Copied from Wikipedia:Canvassing
WP:POVRAILROAD (Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing) Mcvti ( talk) 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the position as I understand it
So - I have not disputed the addition of a section on Gnosticism but I am disputing giving privilege to one sect in that entry, and I am very dubious as to if any sect should be mentioned.
Per standard practice I have restored to the previous stable text to allow discussion takes place; the onus is on those proposing an addition to justify the new material. If we can't reach agreement then we call an RfC although this really is a minor issue but that is proper process, not edit warring.
Those who want to insert this material need to make a case about why a Gnostic sect deserves unique treatment in this article. I repeat, no other entry for more significant religions is treated in that way ----- Snowded TALK 07:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed the second sentence in the opening statement because it was a VERY DEEP philosophical statement that may be appropriate later in the article but doesn't really help elucidate the basic concept. Happy to discuss or be corrected. The statement might be appropriate later in the page, IMO. Alex Jackl ( talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead section of this article is currently in bad shape and needs a rewrite, in my view. @ Phlsph7: You have done a lot of work on other epistemology articles, so would you be interested in taking a look at the lead section of this article and making revisions? @ Snowded: You are the long-time top editor of this article and your input on revising the lead section would also be appreciated. Thanks, Biogeographist ( talk) 16:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Between Gettier-inspired concerns about the analysis of knowledge and the project of refuting the skeptic, epistemologists fell into two broad camps, depending on whether they considered knowledge to require an element of justification or understanding, or whether, contrary to tradition, true belief might be enough. The idea that knowledge requires only true belief, provided the cause of the belief is appropriate or reliable, is known as externalism. Such theories reject the traditional assumption that knowledge requires the knower to understand the reason why a belief is true. [...] [Later the topic changes from Gettier to knowledge and truth more generally:] Certainly there is some difference between knowing that the earth rotates around the sun (a true proposition) and knowing how to play the flute (a skill or art). But is the difference one in kinds of knowledge? What is obviously different about them is how the knowledge is expressed. In one case by producing a proposition, in the other by a musical performance. But that is a difference in the artifacts that express knowledge, and does not prove a difference in what makes these examples of knowledge at all. In both cases the knowledge concerns artifacts, constructions of ours, whether propositions or musical performances. [...] Heliocentric astronomy and musical artistry are therefore not so different as knowledge. Whether we speak of knowing that (such and such is true) or knowing how, we are qualifying capacities for performance at a certain high level with artifacts of some kind.
— Allen, Barry (2005). "Knowledge". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1199–1204. ISBN 0684313774. OCLC 55800981.
In the meantime, I restored an earlier version of the first paragraph as a better basis for future development. Biogeographist ( talk) 23:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
In the following sentence in this article: "These controversies intensified due to a series of thought experiments by Edmund Gettier and have provoked various alternative definitions." The hyperlink given to 'thought experiments' which is this link: /info/en/?search=Thought_experiment has nothing to do with Gettier or Edmund Gettier. It is a wrong linkage between these 2 topics or article. Mojtaba Mohammadi ( talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
My edit summary for this edit was supposed to say " hyphen to en dash", not em dash. I do know the difference, but apparently this is the day of sloppy edit summaries for me. Biogeographist ( talk) 00:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I did not remove anything from the lead but the second paragraph needs a lot of citations. It looks a little like Original Work. I added a more general common language definition at the start of the article. Alex Jackl ( talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Knowledge can be defined as theoretical awareness of facts or as practical skills. It may also refer to familiarity with objects or situations.It's based on your suggestion but makes a few adjustment. Besides some streamlining of expressions, it leaves the repeated reference to experience out, which seems to me not central to the definition of knowledge. Phlsph7 ( talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Knowledge can be defined as awareness of facts or as practical skills, and may also refer to familiarity with objects or situations.
Per
WP:ISAWORDFOR, I changed the lead sentence to: Knowledge is an awareness of facts, practical skills, or a familiarity with objects or situations.
[7]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 03:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
outlier, but as an example of a type of lead that is permitted by policy but
[C]hanging an article because it was used as an example of something of which you denied the existence on another Talk page is fairly disruptive. As I stated above, the reason I changed the lead was per WP:ISAWORDFOR. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
[A] type of lead that is permitted by policy but that you denied exists.That is a false statement. I did not deny it exists. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Please start by providing a single example of an article on a definable topic which does not begin with a definition to show that this actually represents an existing practice[10] reads as a denial that a lead without a definitional statement of the kind you prefer is
an existing practice- in other words, an initial presumption that such a practice does not exist. Pardon me if you meant something else by your request. Newimpartial ( talk) 04:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
false- was poorly formulated. I have now corrected it to read
something the existence of which you were questioning, rather than the more terse but potentially misleading
something that you denied exists. I didn't mean to get over my skis; you have my apologies. Newimpartial ( talk) 05:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
it's off to say it "can be" defined. It is sometimes defined certain ways.For that reason, I propose that "can be defined as" be replaced with "is often defined as" as Phlsph7 suggested. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)