Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    we as humans like to believe we have a lot of knowledge and accepting otherwise would be hard to swallow. But when coming to the roots of it all, do we really have certain knowledge about anything ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Try studying epistemology!! This is what we learn (or talk about I guess.. less of learning) in TOK if you took IB haha
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r.a99)
    we as humans like to believe we have a lot of knowledge and accepting otherwise would be hard to swallow. But when coming to the roots of it all, do we really have certain knowledge about anything ?
    Strictly speaking, no, we can't 'know' anything about what we understand to be the 'real world', Matrix stuff innit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On the contrary id wager the general consensus is that we know very little
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No, we don’t have certain knowledge of everything. But that knowledge is useless. We may not have a real understanding of anything but we don’t need to.
    The knowledge we have now may not be certain but it sure is helpful and good for us. And with that knowledge we have now we grow our understanding of the world so that maybe one day if necessary we will have true knowledge.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Go and research ontology and epistomology
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we do. There are all kinds of arguments as to what counts as knowledge but one argument I personally believe in and definitively allows for knowledge is a theory called "infallibilism". This theory of knowledge states that the only thing that can count as knowledge is that which is rationally proven for example: 2+2 = 4, anything else is uncertain and doesn't count as knowledge. I know this may worry people as that would mean very little actually counts as knowledge. However, this doesn't mean anything else that we can't be certain of should just be discarded, we should just keep believing in it until a better idea of it comes along which has been a common occurrence in the world of science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    yeah im studying epistemology currently
    thts why i want more views and opinions on this
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostmaster475)
    Yes we do. There are all kinds of arguments as to what counts as knowledge but one argument I personally believe in and definitively allows for knowledge is a theory called "infallibilism". This theory of knowledge states that the only thing that can count as knowledge is that which is rationally proven for example: 2+2 = 4, anything else is uncertain and doesn't count as knowledge. I know this may worry people as that would mean very little actually counts as knowledge. However, this doesn't mean anything else that we can't be certain of should just be discarded, we should just keep believing in it until a better idea of it comes along which has been a common occurrence in the world of science.
    yeah but theres argumetns agaisnt this as well. take the fake barn case for an example : in which LUCK is involved in making ur assumptions correct
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r.a99)
    yeah but theres argumetns agaisnt this as well. take the fake barn case for an example : in which LUCK is involved in making ur assumptions correct
    This could be me just not completely remembering fake red barns but how would luck be involved for infallibilism to show that fake red barns counts as knowledge or not. Surely if you see a red barn, there is no rational way to undoubtedly prove its real or fake, even if you go up to it to check (according to infallibilists anyway)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostmaster475)
    This could be me just not completely remembering fake red barns but how would luck be involved for infallibilism to show that fake red barns counts as knowledge or not. Surely if you see a red barn, there is no rational way to undoubtedly prove its real or fake, even if you go up to it to check (according to infallibilists anyway)
    I agree with you to an extent
    But there's also the clock argument which also shows that usually we can be said to have had knowledge on something but in reality it's just luck that we said or thought something at the right time . Eg, if a clock stopped working at midday and you happened to look at that clock at precisely midday then you would have the knowledge that it's midday but only because you were lucky with your timing .
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r.a99)
    I agree with you to an extent
    But there's also the clock argument which also shows that usually we can be said to have had knowledge on something but in reality it's just luck that we said or thought something at the right time . Eg, if a clock stopped working at midday and you happened to look at that clock at precisely midday then you would have the knowledge that it's midday but only because you were lucky with your timing .
    Again, I don't see how this harms infallibilism. Infallibilism would just say that any time provided by any clock cannot be rationally proven to be true, therefore it doesn't count as knowledge never mind what the time actually is. I don't think accidental knowledge or "luck" as you call it can work against infallibilism since even if you somehow by luck come across something that is rationally true and therefore knowledge ( I don't think such a thing is possible ), I don't see how that creates a problem for infallibilism
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ghostmaster475)
    Again, I don't see how this harms infallibilism. Infallibilism would just say that any time provided by any clock cannot be rationally proven to be true, therefore it doesn't count as knowledge never mind what the time actually is. I don't think accidental knowledge or "luck" as you call it can work against infallibilism since even if you somehow by luck come across something that is rationally true and therefore knowledge ( I don't think such a thing is possible ), I don't see how that creates a problem for infallibilism
    Infallibilism would rule out all our knowledge as being false . So are you saying knowledge is not possible?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What context do you mean this in?

    A humans general conception of knowledge is just say having an average, its impossible for humans not tonhave knowledge because its a human word within are boundaries anything beyond, say beyond space and time, we wouldnt even have a concept or even the mind capacity to with hold things beyond the earth.

    TLDR you don’t need to have knowledge of anything else than the average, non skeptic joe, because we live on planet earth with a simple society and structure
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jgiff7)
    What context do you mean this in?

    A humans general conception of knowledge is just say having an average, its impossible for humans not tonhave knowledge because its a human word within are boundaries anything beyond, say beyond space and time, we wouldnt even have a concept or even the mind capacity to with hold things beyond the earth.

    TLDR you don’t need to have knowledge of anything else than the average, non skeptic joe, because we live on planet earth with a simple society and structure
    I meant the "average" knowledge yeah , knowing whether any of our beliefs are legitimate
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The only knowledge which is eternal is Islam and the Qur'an.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r.a99)
    Infallibilism would rule out all our knowledge as being false . So are you saying knowledge is not possible?
    No, I think you misunderstand my argument. Infallibilism doesn't rule out all knowledge, it just claims that only that which can be rationally proved can count as knowledge which in the broader sense of things, doesn't cover much, meaning that a lot of what we normally call knowledge is not. An example of this is science: Many scientific theories we have of the world or even the universe are guesses, good guesses but guesses all the same, they are not completely certain hence them being theories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh you're already studying it umm
    Personally I like to think of it this way
    We cannot be certain of a lot of the knowledge that we have right now, although it seems practical that we believe they are true to some extent,
    and what academic disciplines are trying to do is to increase the certainty of it by using better methodology as time goes.
 
 
 

2,650

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.