Various concepts that revolve around knowledge - Essay Example

Introduction Customarily, philosophers have defined knowledge as justified true belief (Papanutsos and Anton1968). However, this has always been seen as a general definition which requires more articulation to have a comprehensive meaning. Nevertheless, if the above definition is something to go by, then it can be argued that one can acquire knowledge believing in things that one doesn’t know. Perhaps, knowledge can be termed as a basic mental state and instead of analysing knowledge in terms of beliefs; the concept of knowledge can be used to elucidate the concept of belief. For people to claim to know something, it is evident that they must be in possession of evidence on the same (Papanutsos and Anton 1968). With these benchmarks, it can be argued that knowledge actually requires foundations. However, to some extent, not all knowledge should have foundations. It depends on the kind of knowledge in question. Summary The association of knowledge with true belief forms the basis of foundations of knowledge. However, the nature of belief is what actually authenticates possession of knowledge. This paper is going to articulate on various concepts that revolve around knowledge. The knowledge people have on what is happening currently is based on assumptions and beliefs of previous happenings. Something that forms foundation of what one knows. Nevertheless, there are individuals that acquire knowledge on the basis of strong believe they have with or without having had past experience with such happenings. However, their strong believe could be as a result of relation of similar occurrences or happenings in past. Therefore, it can be argued that one can acquire knowledge from a direct or indirect foundation. On the context of epistemology, belief deals with when to believe something based on the cognitive content held as truth. Meaning that what one counts as knowledge based on what one believes is truth forms the foundation of ones knowledge. Moreover, what we believe as knowledge and its sources affects what we accept as valid evidence and that forms another foundation of knowledge. Argumentation Going by various theories of knowledge, it is clear that knowledge has a foundation. In most cases, what matters is how knowledge is acquired (Bernecker and Dretske 2009). New born babies have little to contemplate on. Due to interaction with the environment, they learn new things depending on their senses. In some instances, they imitate what others do and repeat familiar words. In this sense, it can be argued that knowledge has actually to have some foundations. It is through memory that people perceive about things. For example, one can be able to tell or predict existence of a lion even without seeing it by just hearing its roaring sound. This can be linked with past experiences where one saw a loin roaring. Therefore the past experience or encounter with a lion could act as a foundation of knowing what a lion is and how it roars. On the other hand, the past encounters with a lion and knowing that that was a lion can be linked with some past images seen on pictures or stories told by other people. Therefore, it can be argued that although one could have knowledge of what a lion is through other means, the personal encounter with it enriches the knowledge. With this in mind, it is apparent that knowledge has to begin somewhere. The concepts and theories below are well articulated to bring out this argument to light. The philosophy of the social sciences is considered to have played a key role in the development and formation of the knowledge (Papanutsos and Anton 1968). Theories that explain knowledge does not have a sole issue to explain about. Instead, they present meta-theoretical debates. Meta-theory does not explain a specific object, event or activity; it involves a series of empirical real world practices as the object analysis. In early learning theories, main focus is on behaviorism. For people to be able to learn and remember new things, some things are considered to take place in the learning process (Gerhard and Bernhard 1994). Some of these things are explained by behavioral and constructivism theories which focus their attentions on acquired factors that help the learner acquire knowledge. These two theories use idea of external factors that affects ones capacity to acquire and store the new knowledge. To these two theories, mental representations are the real images that we see around us which we perceive (Billie, Bette, and Wolfe 2006). The storage and interpretation of those images would not be possible without our mental representations. The mental representations are the ones that help us learn, store, and remember the information. The principle of simplicity states that subjectivity is the best and simple hence economical than many competing and complicated theories that explain morality Metaphysics is the branch of philosophical thought that deals with issues of fundamental nature of reality and what lies beyond the experience (Hasker 1983). It is the foundation of the worldview and encompasses anything that exists together with its existence. It is the foundation of philosophy since without a clue of the world around us; we cannot act to preserve ourselves and our knowledge (Patricia 1987). Some of the questions that metaphysics addresses include the question whether human beings do have souls. Do human beings have will and are we free to choose any cause? Is there God? Is there life after death? Subjectivity as a philosophical view denies the existence of objective knowledge. It views truth as depended on a person’s beliefs or the subject but not an object. The view postulates that what is referred to objective truth is just an expression of attitudes. According to subjective Metaphysics, the rules made by the authority do not reflect the truth but they are only wishes, beliefs and experiences of the people (Patricia 1987). According to subjective metaphysics, the main problems are in understanding the aspects of freedom, immorality and God. According to philosophers, if we cannot know things we should at least appreciate that they are things in themselves (Timothy 1995). Subjective metaphysics argues that human being structure things in a way that their minds make them appear to but not as the things appear. The subjective nature of metaphysics is evidenced by the phenomenal world and the structures supplied by the mind. According to subjective metaphysics, a system can only function properly if all the sub-systems and components complement each other. These sub-systems should be aware of each other and function harmonious in order to accomplish the goal (Timothy 1995). Metaphysical subjectivism is concerned with what we perceive to be real. The principle of progressive transformation states that all human acts including the act of speculation must be to their real source in order for them to be a source of joy. According to subjective morality, there is no truth that exists without perception. Metaphysical subjectivists postulate that reality is real enough (Gerhard and Bernhard 1994). About probability, subjective moralists assert that probabilities are just degree of believe by the agent in a particular situation. Foundation of knowledge Knowledge differs from one individual to another. To some people, knowledge is basically what is said by people considered to be knowledgeable while to others, it is something they clearly understand (Timothy 1995). Traditionally, there are two sources of knowledge; experience and reasoning. Rationalists believe that knowledge derives from reason whereas experience believes that knowledge originates through sense experience (Gerhard and Bernhard 1994). Basically, it is believed that peoples’ knowledge is based on other things they believe or know (Bernecker and Dretske 2009). For example, when persons claim to know that they received a telephone call, it is because he or she saw a flashing light on the phone. The belief that someone called depends with the belief that answering flash light appeared on the phone. The knowledge people have on what is happening currently is based on assumptions and beliefs of previous happenings (Gerhard and Bernhard 1994). Similarities and differences of past happenings with current happenings highly depict peoples’ belief and knowledge of what might happen in future (Bernecker and Dretske 2009). When children are born, they are like blank writing pads ready to be written on. They learn new things depending on the residing environment. In this regard, the main focus on how people acquire knowledge is dependent on how people; acquire, process, perceive and store the information (Gerhard and Bernhard 1994). In the process of acquiring knowledge, the things that happen in the environment of individuals play a key role in creation of emotional response of the individual (Alister 2006). As the individual continue to acquire new knowledge; a powerful emotional response is created on that individual. The individual’s old knowledge continues to thrive unless they are subjected to new learning ideas (Bernecker and Dretske 2009). Individual culture determines how one develops learning techniques and what one believes in future (Alister 2006). However, some cultural factors affect acquire knowledge. These include beliefs, socialization and evidence. Theories by nature can be termed as simplified versions of complex reality (Alister 2006). They form basis of knowledge to many people. Theory development is simply breaking down the complex reality into manageable portion. A theory can be what one or more hypotheses produced after they have been verified and proved to be true (Alister 2006). In general terms, a theory can be said to be a set of similar observations and occurrences which are based on a proved hypotheses and are carried out by several researchers and several times before they can conclude that their findings qualify to be a theory. It is however normal for theories to receive criticisms about what they cover and this depends with the belief and knowledge of the critics. Critics normally focus on what the theories covers, their in-depth and how they can be applied on the said coverage. It is evident that different scholars would come up with different theoretical frameworks even when they research on the same scenario (Alister 2006). It is worth noting that no theory can cover and explain everything in the world. However, with or without the critics of theories and theorists, it is important to understand what revolves around knowledge in relation to theories. Firstly, before one goes into details of what knowledge is, one has to think about reality and truth (Alister 2006). However, it is difficult to explain which of the existing theories contains the truth and fiction but all in all, it depends with what people perceive about the findings of the theory. With this in mind, it is right to argue that theories are devices in which the world is explained in different view of many people (Alexander and Bennett 2005). Regarding development of a theory from case studies, it is different from what general scientific theory is developed. Although a case study is a research strategy, that is said to be rich in its specific findings, it is a deferent method through which a theory can be developed. For one to be able to understand the concept of theory development from a case study, it is important to first understand what a case study is. A case study can be termed as one which investigates behavior or occurrence of a particular person, group of persons, such as a family, a group of youths, or even an institution that share some common similarities (Alister 2006). These findings are the ones that constitute knowledge. Once the research is complete and the results are out, then the researcher may develop a theoretical construct from his findings. In this case, it is presumed that these findings are absolute and that the only findings that can be used to develop a theory are the findings at hand (Alexander and Bennett 2005). Since a case study does not rely on earlier findings to draw its conclusions, then the findings of the case study are used to make conclusions and develop a theory that is supported by the findings of the case study (Alister 2006). Case study can arguably be best method of studying human phenomena and behaviors due to its naturalistic. For believers of such theories, their argument is that the theory is something to go by because it’s derived from real findings of the case. Positivists’ philosophers of case studies argue that it is the only method that can be trusted in developing credible theories (Alister 2006). They further assert that, the only method that has information that is observable, and verifiable is the one to produce favorable theory. In this case, a cases study stands to win since its findings are based on specific observable data. Research is all about findings answers to unclear questions, providing solutions to problems investigated upon, and to create new knowledge. In this regard, the research findings are supposed to be supported by tangible evidence and not notions of how situation is supposed to be or presumed to be (Alister 2006). Foundation of theories in relation to knowledge To develop a theory in a case study approach, the detailed examination of a certain case with a historic background, a test is carried out through conduction of a case study (Alexander and Bennett 2005). This is aimed at generalizing other similar events. The researcher explores the possibilities of statistical methods in which deductive logic is used to develop instinctive and counter instinctive hypotheses about the dynamics and causal mechanisms (Alister 2006). The systematic development of case study methods are most preferred in development of social science theories. As researcher carries on his research, he uses process tracing, which is used to examine histories, interview records, among other sources, to evaluate whether the casual process theory hypothesis has any implication in the variables in case under investigation (Alexander and Bennett 2005). However, process tracing can only be used in certain conditions where link causes fail to give specific guidance to the researcher. In developing a theory, developers and researchers may decide to evaluate the outcomes of the study in a more comprehensive way. In case they fail to be satisfied with the findings, they are at liberty to conduct another case study and apply the role of process tracing (Alexander and Bennett 2005). Formation of new hypotheses is also important as this could lead to different method of study that could bring about credible findings. Rather than generalizing cases without due investigation process, a case study emphasizes on focusing on hypotheses and historical explanation of individual cases (Alexander and Bennett 2005). However, critics of theories generated from cases studies argue that a case study can not be credited in developing theories. They believe that a case study is just meant to investigate isolated phenomena of a given group or area and can not provide credible knowledge. They believe that these findings can not be generalized to develop a theory that covers the broader aspect of a similar cases investigated upon (Alexander and Bennett 2005). On the other hand, a researcher may allow vague evidence provided in his research which may end up influencing the findings of his study. Case studies offer little room for generalization which is used to develop a comprehensive theory. Given that the goal of a case study is to generalize theories based on their findings, critics argue that case study findings are expected to enumerate frequencies on their findings but not generalize theories. They assert that a theory is a broader concept that doesn’t need any research but generalization of phenomenon depending on frequency of occurrence ad historical occurrences (Alexander and Bennett 2005). Although case studies are research mythology, the generalizations are based on individual experiences but not on general phenomena. According to critics of case studies, theories are supposed to be based on facts on certain phenomena that don’t require any research to prove its authenticity. Therefore, case studies should be used to solve a problem of a given phenomena for a given period of tome. They believe that theories are carried forward from one generation to another. Behaviorism In the late 19th century, the study of learning was articulated by some theorists such as Ivan Pavlov who studied how humans could be taught to remember what they are taught. In his study Pavlov found out that there was a relationship between a stimulus and a response known as classical conditioning (Billie, Bette, and Wolfe 2006). He asserted that classical conditioning occurs when a natural reflex responds to a stimulus. However, Pavlov’s work was continued by John Watson and B.F. Skinner who argued that environment shapes behavior. They focused on students’ behavior that occurs due to learning. In this theory, mental processes including how people think, perceive, remember and learn things are involved (Billie, Bette, and Wolfe 2006). The main focus of behaviorisms on how people; acquire, process and store the information. Constructivism In constructivism theory the things that happen in the environment of individuals play a key role in creation of emotional response of the individual (Billie, Bette, and Wolfe 2006). As the individual continue to acquire new knowledge; a powerful emotional response is created on that individual. In this theory, the individual’s old knowledge continues to thrive unless they are subjected to new learning ideas. In this theory, individual culture determines how one develops learning techniques and what one believes in future (Billie, Bette, and Wolfe 2006). Some of the cultural factors that affect peoples’ learning include language, morality beliefs, socialization and religion. Constructivists believe that the study of cultural influence of theoretical learning can not be solely used to understand learning theory. Some aspects like consistency in attitudes, and among attitudes and behaviors affect peoples’ acquisition of knowledge greatly (Billie, Bette, and Wolfe 2006). This theory also examines the relationship between attitudes and believes. Conflict is seen when an individual’s attitude towards a certain matter is not consistence with knowledge of that matter. Reliabilism Reabilism is a theory that is advocated for only if it is constructed by processes that characteristically sanctions adequately high percentage of truth to falsehood (Dancy, Sosa, and Steup 2010). This means that this theory consent that a true belief counts as knowledge only if its production is from a reliable belief-forming process. Belief varies from one individual to another. In general, believe is considered to be peoples faith that something would be successful (Dancy, Sosa, and Steup 2010). However, on the context of epistemology, belief deals with when to believe something based on the cognitive content held as truth. For example, to believe that the earth is round is to think that the proposition “the earth is round” is true, even when the earth is oval. Truth is much different from belief. Things that people tend to believe in could at one point turn to be wrong or correct. Things that people tend to know about could be termed as truth (Douglas 2006). However, truth can be defined in many ways depending on the individual person. It could be established thought and reasoning, conformity to a fact or a statement that is proven and accepted to be true (Dancy, Sosa, and Steup 2010). It could also be what our sense of smell, sound, touch and taste depending on individual persons. This is what we would call humanistic reasoning- The truth that is right for you. The beliefs, practices, and the concept of right or wrong of the person in subject are all valid in those people’s settings (Douglas 2006). In some instances, truth is considered to be the extreme reality and that which has ultimate meaning and value of the existence. It should also be appreciated that truth is reality and reality never change. When a young man marries a young lady, he always sees her as young even some years down their marriage. It is not his wish that his wife will grow old but remain to be young. Ten years later, the wife is ten years older and that is the reality-truth though the husband believes that the wife is still young. Truth is viewed as what works. Whether or not knowledge corresponds to external reality and whether it is consistent or inconsistent with other knowledge does not count in ascertaining the truth (Douglas 2006). The basis of assessing the truth is if it works for you regardless of whether it is the truth for someone else (Dancy, Sosa. and Steup 2010). The ultimate test of truth is directly through intuition or revelation. Absolute truth is impossible and human beings should search for the truth that can meet their specific needs (Dancy, Sosa and Steup 2010). Empiricism Epistemology is the belief about the nature and sources of knowledge (Dancy, Sosa, and Steup 2010). It explains how we think and it is required in order to determine the truth from false. Without epistemology, people cannot think nor have a reason to believe that our reasoning is correct. Epistemology helps us promote our goals. According to epistemology our senses is the only way to get information from the environment after which reasoning is the only method of understanding the information (Dancy, Sosa, and Steup 2010). Logic helps us avoid contradictory identities and acts as the standard of thought. According to epistemology, the reasoning uses ideas, memories and senses and it is usually organized and purposeful (Dancy, Sosa, and Steup 2010). Knowledge is gained through a successful critique of ones perceptions. The subjective view of epistemology states that it is impossible to make comparison without a particular criterion. The understanding of the arrangement of knowledge is necessary in understanding how a concept is linked to lower level concepts. After combining two or more premises, one can deduce a conclusion from the statements if they are correct and non-contradictory. What we believe as knowledge and its sources affects what we accept as valid evidence (Douglas 2006). Knowledge influences the significance that we give to the authorities, intuition, and reasons. According to the subjective view, beliefs and acts are valid to the extend that they correspond to the reality (Dancy et al., 2010) Sensory knowledge should be tested empirically before it forms the basis of the actions or thoughts. If one relies on intuition or revelation or depend on authority then in that case one will act on external sources of knowledge. If one believes the knowledge at hand is certain, he will be confident in the validity of the thoughts. According to Dancy et al (2010), all the doctrines of subjective epistemology and all the truths are subjective to persons or they are relative to a belief, culture or time period. Proponents of subjectivism have argued that nothing exists and if really anything existed, we are not aware of it. They further argue that if someone realized that anything existed, they would not explain it or communicate that to someone else. Conclusion According to the findings of this paper, it is evident that knowledge has a foundation. However, it is how different individuals acquire knowledge determines the authenticity of the knowledge. Basically, knowledge comprises of beliefs and truth. The ability of individuals to acquire knowledge is based on what those individuals believe or what they know. To claim to know something, there is an element of past encounter with similar things or a belief that that thing might be true. This assertion is supported by levels of information-processing ability. In this regard, one or a combination of the following abilities lays foundation of knowledge for different individuals. Sentience-this is the capacity by individuals for sensation. There is also a cognition processing ability- this is the ability held by different individuals for learning, reasoning, and knowing. Different individuals also possess intelligence ability- this is the ability to make, test and apply inductions concerning perceptions of both self and world. Bibliography: Alexander, L. and Bennett, A. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT Press. Alister, E. McGrath. 2006. A scientific theology. London; New York: T&T Clark. Bernecker, S and Dretske, F. 2009. "Knowledge – readings in contemporary epistemology" Oxford: Orxford university press, Billie, J. E., and Bette, B. and Wolfe, M. 2006. Learning to Teach. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company Blackwell publishing ltd. Dancy, J., Sosa, E. and Steup, M. 2010. A companion to epistemology. Oxford. Douglas, E. Mitchell. 2006. New foundations for knowledge in educational administration, policy, and politics: science and sensationalism. N.Y: Routledge Gerhard L. and Bernhard, N. 1994. Foundations of knowledge representation and reasoning. New York: Springer-Verlag, cop. Papanutsos, E. P., and Anton, J. 1968. The foundations of knowledge. N.Y: Albany. Patricia. S. Churchland. 1987. Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience. The Journal of Philosophy, 84, 10: 544-553 Sosa, E. and Jaegwon, K. Matthew, M. 2000. Epistemology: an anthology. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Timothy, J. McGrew 1995. Foundations. Lanham, Md.: Littlefield Adams Books. Read More