Theory of Knowledge

Question 3 1 out of 1 points Correct Ambiguous figures show that having the same sensory input is sufficient for seeing the same thing. Answer Correct Answer: False

Localization is ability to tell what part of the body is affected by any sensation.

Author, Kevin Carley, discusses the evolution of the human brain and how the history affects the unconscious use of our brain when one makes decisions. This article emphasizes on Gestalts principals of awareness, senses, and the technique in which the human brain aligns with these principals. Correspondingly, Carley, expresses the links between Gestalts principals, evolutionary biology, and cultural psychology (Carley, 2014, p. 80).

5. Therefore, you can’t know anything about the external world based on your sensory experiences.

3. When you first put your clothes on this morning you felt them on your skin, but within minutes you no longer noticed them. This is an example of _____.

Huxley illustrates perfectly how with the advancement of technology; society is incapable of seeing what

The purpose of this study is to determine the combined relationship between connected knowing (CK), separate knowing (SK), and epistemological beliefs with student’s academic performance. These variables look at understanding how students acquire knowledge and their attitudes towards thinking and learning. As mentioned in the study done by Schommer-Aikins and Easter (2006) this study would provide future benefit to how students are being taught along with how to manage their time while studying. In addition, this study could result in students acquiring better study habits earlier on, data collected from Wood and Kardash (2003) study showed that there was a large difference between the level of education in the participants and their level of epistemic cognition, which means that if students were to increase their level of epistemological thinking earlier on in their college career through workshops or seminars that taught them this way of thinking, theoretically student’s study habits and learning habits would improve significantly throughout their time in college.

In this paper, I will discuss the truth-belief-justification conceptual analysis of knowledge, which I will refer to as TBJ, Gettier cases, and an example that refutes TBJ. Conceptual analysis is an analysis of a proposition P with given premises to acquire knowledge of that P. The truth-belief-justification analysis of knowledge fails to provide sufficient conditions for someone to possess knowledge. For a condition to be necessary, it has to be satisfied to have knowledge of a proposition. If a condition is sufficient, then the person x will have some information to know something about proposition P. Jointly sufficient conditions are conditions that all need to be satisfied together to have knowledge about some P. They are necessary and supposedly jointly sufficient, but Gettier cases prove that extra conditions on top of TBJ are required to be jointly sufficient.

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

The concept of knowledge, justified belief and truth has been a primary focus of philosophers for a long time and I believe will continue to be. What I consider to be the biggest issue when it comes to Epistemology is how we justify our beliefs. How can we be sure that our justifications for our beliefs are sufficient? Also, how do we ensure that our sources of knowledge have sufficient justifications for their knowledge and beliefs? Distinguishing between reliable sources of information and unreliable sources of information is an issue that will never be solved. We have a duty to question the credibility of our sources of information in order to know if we can believe the information they share with us. If we do not question our beliefs and our sources of information then can we really know anything for sure?

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

Knowledge is defined to be facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. There are two categories that fall under knowledge; personal knowledge and shared knowledge. Shared knowledge refers to what “we know because.” It can also be defined as communicated and constructed knowledge; within culture, social norms, and semiotics. Personal knowledge refers to “I know because.” An expanded definition of personal knowledge refers to personal experiences, values, and perceptions. Shared knowledge changes and evolves over time because of methods that are continuously shared. It is assembled by a group of people. Personal knowledge, on the other hand, depends crucially on the experiences of a particular individual. It is gained