What is KNOWLEDGE?

1. This difficulty regarding defining knowledge is known as the problem of the criterion, and it dates right back to antiquity. We can roughly summarise the problem in terms of the following two claims:

1.1. 1 I can only identify instances of knowledge provided I already know what the criteria for knowledge are.

1.2. 2 I can only know what the criteria for knowledge are provided I am already able to identify instances of knowledge.

2. It is gained through the senses.

2.1. It involves making sense of the world

2.2. It can be personal

2.3. It can be learned by compensatory means through a multiple of medium, and through a variety of types of senses

3. It involves forming neuro-connections

3.1. It builds new schema based upon each past idea

3.1.1. in turn, it creates a new perspective

3.2. It can be progressive and follows a developmental baseline

3.3. Some knowledge may be deemed innate (cell memory)

4. It can be gained / influenced by social constructs

4.1. It can be taught through the experiences of others, particularly sources of trust

4.1.1. It can be passed on through technology

4.1.1.1. It can be stored externally, and beyond human intellect (AI)

4.1.1.2. It's access can be inequitable for some

4.1.2. It can be altered and fluid

4.2. It can differ by culture

4.2.1. Common knowledge forms a sense of belonging

4.2.1.1. It can adversely create an us and them mentality and a sense of non-belonging

4.2.1.1.1. It can cause judgment, differing options, war, religion, cultural divergence...

4.3. Some forms are universal truths

4.3.1. global.collective knowledge

4.4. It can be lost and rediscovered

4.4.1. It can be gained authentically, and recalled when relevant

5. It involves metacognition and reflection

5.1. It is influenced within a personal state of consciousness and awareness and involves perspective

5.1.1. Different value is perceived regarding knowledge and reasoning

6. INTRAPERSONAL

7. INTERPERSONAL

8. Prichard Defines Knowledge as having two types: "truth" and "beliefs

9. Prepositional Knowledge vs. Ability Knowledge (p.4)

10. "The thought is that all one needs to do is determine what is common to each of these paradigm cases and one will be well on one’s way to discerning what knowledge is." (p.16)

11. The problem with this suggestion, however, is that if one doesn’t already know what knowledge is (i.e. what the defining characteristics, or criteria, of knowledge are), how can one correctly identify cases of knowledge in the first place? After all, one cannot simply assume that one knows what the criteria for knowledge are without thereby taking a definition of knowledge for granted from the outset.

12. This is essentially why there were so many questions and very few answers as to what knowledge is - the criterion are not clearly defined, nor are they a finite line. In a sense, once you draw the line of a circle, it is no longer a perfect circle due to the line. The same holds true for knowledge, and there are clearly no definitive taxonomy from which to deal with the answer of defining such a fluid item. This is like catching a rain drop and holding its structure to true form, or like witnessing Schrodinger's cat.

13. The Paradox of Knowledge:

13.1. p.20

14. Perhaps we can understand knowledge as Prichard states, by Particularism "...one can correctly identify particular instances of knowledge and proceed on this basis to determine what the criteria for knowledge are." Or perhaps by Methodism where "One of the main advantages of methodism is that it doesn’t begin by assuming the falsity of scepticism (i.e. the worry that we might not know anything much at all), since it leaves it an open question whether there is anything that meets the criteria for knowledge." (21)

14.1. Classical account of knowledge/tripartite