Talk:Knowledge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proof

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

I was taking my lead from the "what this article is not" section of propositional knowledge... but yeah, hmm... :-/ Martin

The problem seems to be a faulty assumption that knowledge = truth. If we eliminate that and begin with a reverse definition of knowledge as "confidence in the truth of something, after subjecting it to rigorous proof," the question is then "what constitutes proof?" Standards of proof have changed historically, as have, as a result, our standards for what constitutes knowledge. For example, most people no longer accept as proof that Aristotle wrote it in a book or that it appears in the Bible. At another time, historically, that may have been considered sufficient proof for the validity of an assertion. (Of course, a problem remains--who determines standards of proof--but that is a question of POV.) Danny

On the contrary, it is not a matter of opinion, what qualifies as proof is not point of view (in other words, bias), proof is a well-defined term meaning the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a statement, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. See any reputable dictionary. That is what the term, 'proof' means. Statements like, "Aristotle wrote it" or "The Bible says so" just do not qualify as proof because there is nothing compelling acceptance of the statements, and neither is either statement derived frorm other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. --207.200.116.198 17:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But see the Regress argument Banno 21:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Wiktionary does not qualify as a good dictionary if people such as 67.182.157.6 are editing it to support their arguments. Quoting a dictionary definition you wrote yourself is not going to help. Try an actual good dictionary, such as the OED (OED 2nd ed, proof,n. B.1.a): That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something.

Rotem Dan's criticism of philosophy removed at his request

---

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)

That is what I used to think, but this caused a huge flame war. A very small number of people began turning the "Knowledge" article into a treatise about sexuality, sexism, politics, environmental ethics, etc. Our discussions about "knowledge" were attacked as censorship, because the article wasn't discussing what they wanted it to discuss. The Wikipedia community gave in to this pressure, and allowed them to redefine what the word "Knowledge" means. The same thing is also currently happening in the ethics article. It is shameful that people with no background in philosophy are letting themselves be tarred as bigots and censors, when in fact they are not. RK 23:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article wasn't meant to be a pure disambiguation page. However, neither should it be a duplicate of knowledge (philosophy), as the current "overview" section appears to, to some extent. Rather it needs to discuss knowledge from the most general perspective possible.

This is difficult, so I expect this page to remain a stub for some time. Also, Procedural knowledge is currently empty. Martin 15:28, 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.

Huge see also list!

Does anyone else thing to see also list is getting a little out of hand? --Ryguasu 03:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cleaned up. I don't know how it got that way, looks like a crazed bot. Several entries were repeated many times. --Kzollman 06:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

dis is the most borinest homework i ave ever done lol how is every1

knowledge(philosophy)merge

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.

That merge was the stupidest thing you could have done, the two were separated to avoid EXACTLY the kind of problems that follow. knowledge is a homonym, accept it. The merge has resulted in absolute garbage like THIS being left in:

"Aspects of knowledge exhibit a social character. For instance, Knowledge is a form of social capital. Sociology of Knowledge examines the way in which Society and Knowledge interact."

A priori and a posteriori merge/section removal

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

Knowledge may be factual or inferential. Factual knowledge is based on direct observation. It is still not free of uncertainty, as errors of observation or interpretation may occur, and any sense can be deceived by illusions.

Inferential knowledge is based on reasoning from facts or from other inferential knowledge such as a theory. Such knowledge may or may not be verifiable by observation or testing. For example, all knowledge of the atom is inferential knowledge. The distinction between factual knowledge and inferential knowledge has been explored by the discipline of general semantics.

--Kzollman 20:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal of general interest

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)

Category:Belief?

"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? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 14:08, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

That would be somewhat misleading. Knowledge is not the same as belief, since it must also be (at the least) justified and true. Banno 08:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

They don't have to be the same - all we need is for knowledge to be a subset of belief (Category:Algebra is under Category:Mathematics but noone would claim that they are the same thing).

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)

Category:Knowledge is not on the main page and is currently only under Category:Fundamental. Putting it under Category:Belief and something else if necessary (to make it easier to find, we could leave it in Category:Fundamental, but I don't think it belongs there) would be better than what we have now.

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)

Knowledge is definitely not "a subset of belief" - no argument presented, not cogent point made. Consider, do you know things that you don't believe? How could that make sense? But you might believe things that you don't know. So the set of things you believe includes those things you know.

I guess the misunderstanding here is that belief is sometimes mistakenly thought to exclude justification, as if to believe was to hold something to be true without justification. Probably from too much Sunday School. Banno 12:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

If the 'fallacy' of conflation of knowledge and belief is common and/or accepted, it deserves mention in an encyclopedia article regardless of whether it is correct or not. Writing a paragraph about why this conflation is a fallacy would be useful. Simply deleting things you disagree with/believe to be wrong is unacceptable. WhiteC 04:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But provide a citation. That might be an interesting challenge. Banno 12:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

If it's such an "odd notion", why not change it? The category still contains the ("common") definition of "justified true belief". Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 05:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Section deleted

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)

Plato's theory of knowledge is by far the most important in philosophy; and it does not conflate knowledge and belief but carefully distinguishes them; showing that knowledge is a sub-set of belief. Banno 20:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

See talk:truth for other edits by .6 - Such extraordinary behaviour may need to go to arbitration. Banno 21:04, July 21, 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)

Full agreement with Banno. I feel that .6's edits constitute vandalism, largely because of the amount of deletions, and have reverted to the previous version of this article. WhiteC 19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

.6 has been by Epistemology today. I reverted the edits and added a note to the talk page encouraging .6 to take up discussion here. --Kzollman 00:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was a different ip address that seems to have made some good edits in the past, but the same MO removing the section on Plato and complaning of conflation of knowledge and belief. --Kzollman 00:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Circumventing policy. Banno 12:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Systematic-summarizing Approach

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)

You didn't search well. Its a summary of lots of definitions. So you have to adapt your search to prove the facts included here. Multiple referencies follow if you type "knowledge data information" in google, i.e.: [2] or [3] or "knowledge is a process". Do not remove it until you are sure, that it is not true! I've a section in my user discussion page for this too. User_talk:Wissenslogistiker --Wissenslogistiker 21:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither of the references you provide refer to "Systematic-summarising Approach". My problem remains - is the term your own? if so, it should be replaced by something a bit more widely used. if it is not, can you provide a reference for the term being used? Frankly, if I search for a key term and don;t find it, I think that the key term is not a key term. Banno 22:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I understood your point. :-) Yes, this term in the subtitle is my own, if anyone has a better one, feel free to change it. But please inform me, so i can prove it. The aim should be to find a term which describes that this approach is system-based and a summary of other definitions to give the reader a brief definition and not pages to read. It has also a logistics point of view included. Wissenslogistiker 14:11, 24 July 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)

No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

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.

miss-use

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)

It's not a very clear expression (what does "sees it as juxtaposed to belief" mean?). It's a blanket statement. It's one person's opinion. It states something to be "clearly absurd", but then you go on to say the opposite. I'm going to remove it again. MickWest 21:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstood the argument. When time permits, I'll have another go. Thanks for providing a comment to explain your edits. Banno 22:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I partially retract the statement about "clearly absurd", my logic was mixed up. But either way, it does not clarify the point. I think you were trying to say it's a mistake to EQUATE belief and knowledge, yet that's a common debate in pholosophy, and you can't just say it's "clearly absurd". A full reading of the whole article gives enough context on the various viewpoints on the distinction between the words/concepts "belief" and "knowledge". You can't add statements like "Some consideration will show this to be a misunderstanding", to a philosophical article which is essentially an exposition of the terms of debate. There is contention and different viewpoints on the usages of the words, and you can't simply claim there is not, nor that the answer is clear. MickWest 22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

So, in what way would you explain the misunderstanding expressed by the anons on this page? Banno 05:31, July 27, 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)

Banno, I generally agree with sentiment regarding DotSix on the RfC page. But the issue here was with the paragraph. I deleted it because it was confusing and unnecessary. Most people take "juxtapose" to mean something like "compare and contrast, especially by placing side by side" (or they don't understand the word at all). So your initial statement seems to make no sense. Then it reads like you are setting out a proof that knowledge must be (at least) a subset of belief. Yet your argument is circular, as to agreed with the absurdity of knowing things you do not believe, you need to agree on what it means to "know" something. Yet, we agree that the definitions are varied and contentious. One could also come up with a weak counter example ("I know it is safer to fly than drive, yet I don't believe it").

But you ask how I would explain the misunderstanding. I'm not sure it needs explaining, in that the misunderstanding is not of a simple debatable concept ("knowledge is a subset of belief"), but rather a totally misunderstanding of the problem of philosophy in general, and specifically epistemology. To explain the misunderstanding would be to explain epistemology. MickWest 17:17, 27 July 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)

Overlap with Epistemology, merge?

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 think Knowledge and Epistemology should be merged but Gettier problem has enough to warrant its own article. Epistemology has a section on the definition of "knowledge". Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 07:50, 31 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)

But, after thinking about it, I've moved two sections to epistemology with the view to seeing if they work better there than here. The idea is to separate out the philosophical implications and place them on one page, leaving this page for less- or non- philosophical uses. Good, Bad, or just Ugly? Let me know. Banno 21:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle the empiricist?

Hi - I reverted an edit which added the parenthetical remarks in this sentence:

One of the fundamental questions in epistemology is whether there is any non-trivial a priori knowledge. Generally speaking rationalists (platonics) believe that there is, while empiricists (aristotelians) believe that all knowledge is ultimately derived from some kind of external experience.

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)

Banno, your opening statement, using terms like 'awareness', and 'information' reveals your cognitive bias

See Cognitivism (psychology)

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)

What garbage. Any mention of "awareness" or "information" implies a "bias towards" a particular theory of psychology? That's hardly what NPOV means. There is probably no serious investigator of any theory of knowledge who does NOT accept modern cognitive science as the basis for looking at knowledge. Anyway the article does not have sections on "Biblical knowledge" and such stuff in it, and those are also valid points of view to major audiences.

The Wikification of Knowledge

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)

Knowledge (Info Science / Knowledge Management)

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.

The article used to be separate from knowledge (philosophy) which was the correct approach. A moron merged the two. That will have to be fixed again. You are quite right that actionable colloquial situated knowledge has nothing to do with the various confused abstract theories from Western scientific rationalism.

--- 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.

That was exactly why knowledge and knowledge (philosophy) were separated.

---

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)

Dickering, somewhat, but certainly not philosophical. Banno 07:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh got it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Evidence ... when you manage to lock him out drop me a line good luck :) Sbwoodside 07:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be long now. The direction you suggest is I think entirely appropriate - with this article containing a lead into and link to epistemology, and more material from Info Science and KM - although I think the KM article itself rather poor. Banno 08:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I second this request. Philosophy is getting in the way, and preventing us from really understanding, because they lack practice, the key ingredient to knowledge. Knowledge should be taken out from the project, it is a simple word, with a really simple meaning. The problem is you think too much, and do not practice it. In IT we are learning that is information combined with experience. You can visit a "book" I am creating with this simple theory and practice with a lot of lessons from the experience of dealing with it. I will post it soon.

Don't pay any attention to Banno's lame argument _ad hominem_

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)

Things to do when the page is unlocked...

1. re-write of intro (that is always fun) so that it reflects the content of the article
2. Remove section "adoption of knowledge"?
3. add stuff about and link to Information science contact user:Sbwoodside

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)

Sociology/Adoption of knowledge

These sections sound like the same thing. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 09:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - done. Banno 23:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Dot Six temporary injunction

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)

User 209.191.143.129 contributions

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)

By the way, if you do feel there are problems with the article, you can discuss them here. That way everyone can agree to the changes and they won't be reverted by other editors. Cheers. --PhilipO 18:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice. I love wikipedia. I think is great. But I think you lost the true meaning of a Wiki. I think you can not grasp the meaning of anything until you PRACTICE IT. What I mean is you'll understand a lot better something when you learn a theory and then practice it. All that is writen here in my mind is pure blablabla. There is nothing practical about it. There is no simplicity. Less is More many people say. Stop bluffing and stop trying to control knowledge. You can't, and you will probably learn the hard way. Maybe someday someone will take Wikipedia to a new level, where true collaboration is encouraged. “Leaders can no longer keep information under lock and key, nor should they: Networks are faster and more productive than hierarchies.” Business 2.0. You are fooling yourselves. I am writing about all I have to say, I am just letting you know from now that this(Controlling) won't work. As Devorak says, self indulgence and individualism takes you nowhere. I was trying to share my experience, but you basically shut it off and pretend to run it through a "filter". The "filter" of what? Histor? Philosophy? 2000 years and still figuring it out. Maybe you'll spend the next 2000 explaining why nothing works.

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)

Hi. Thanks for explaining the rules. Those rules are what I am questioning. There are no "perspectives" about knowledge. Either you understand or you don't. Is not only saying you are wrong, but it looks likely you will not learn about any thing beyond your perspectives. You see, life is simple, and any definition should be readable by a ten year old kid. That should be your rule. Making the word knowledge part of a philosophy or psicology is the problem, not the solution as we can see for the last couple of centuries. Nothing that explains in less than 10 words what is it. For now I like not signing, so that the ideas are debated and you do not enter in a character assasination mode, which is what we see a lot around. Is the ideas and collaboration that matter, not the background of the person. If you really want to make this work, there should be a voting system, where people vote for definitions and those are the ones that get publish, the current system does not promote real collaboration. You need to be part of the group, so that something called credibility can be created. As someone said, every ground breaking invention seemed to be made by a crazy guy for its time. Leonardo Davinci comes to mind, and many others. Someone was complaining that Wikipedia did not take into account "Experts", this is proof that it might not work either way. In this case, the people that have and are gaining a lot of EXPERIENCE dealing with information and practice are getting the boot. The area that deals with knowledge like anybody else is called INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. Why? Just look at this site, and the Internet, and every digital place. If you want to practice, you need to learn how to deal with terabytes of information. Plato, Aristotele, had nothing like what we have today. I question your concepts, just trying to make you think and realize if there is something wrong with it. Nothing more. Have a good day.

Hello, also and welcome. I will try to argue about your points--although I disagree with some of them, that doesn't mean I think you are a bad person, or that I'm trying to insult you personally... (I put my signature at the bottom of the last paragraph I write here)

Regarding the general policy for editing articles, the idea is that there should be reasons for disagreement, not just voting on a yes/no basis. The theory is that this encourages more discussion and eventually a consensus will be reached, until there is another disagreement, so articles are continually evolving and never completely finished. You can find general information about how this works at Wikipedia, and the many links from there about editing.

Regarding making this easy to understand, I (personally) think the introductory paragraph gives a basic definition and describes the focus of the rest of the article and does this well. So the introduction contains the simple definition. Of course you may disagree with the slant of the article as a whole, so...

Regarding the body of this article... Perhaps there should be links to data and/or DIKW, possibly even information technology which deals with how to process information and generate knowledge (at least that is my take on it). If you think the term 'knowledge' has a different meaning in general, or in Information Technology in particular, and enough other people agree, then the article will evolve to include your point of view. WhiteC 03:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, you see, the bad use of words is the reason why we cannot find easy solutions to the problems. One of the problems I see is using the word "Discussion". If you believe that this is what you need to come to an agreement then let me tell you that discussion comes from the Greek words percussion and concussion. A heaving of ideas where I try to persuade everybody that I am right, which is a Winner-takes-it-all approach, which in my mind is 100% ineffective. To really reach agreement, you need to DIALOGUE, check the meaning, where you actually start thinking together, not battling it out. Now, lets define a base for reasoning.

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.

I agree that we need dialog/dialogue. I was not aware of the word origin of 'discussion' or its combative connotations, so dialog is pretty much what I meant.

Regarding the second paragraph, I disagree entirely. But, since this is an encyclopedia article, that doesn't really matter. What matters, at least if you want your definition (or other contributions) to become part of an article, is whether your views are shared by any published experts, or represent a common view. Are your views important to people other than you, for the sake of defining knowledge? If not, they may remain important to you, but not to the encyclopedia, regardless of their objective correctness. If it is any consolation, I have many personal beliefs that won't make it into an article here, either. WhiteC 08:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you answer.. I imagined you might respond something like that. Now I understand even more why humanity is helpless without a "higher intelligence" guiding us. That is a personal opinion not intended to be published. We seem not to be able to get to higher grounds on our own, and we cannot figure it out between our selves. You did not gave your reasons as to why you disagree or don't understand. When you say "Published Experts" what do you mean? Someone that read 2000 books and wrote articles about it in a famous magazine or book? Or spent thousands of hours "thinking" ? Or someone that dealt with millions of records (Pieces of information) trying to figure out how to create, organize, share, retrieve and had actual practice with knowledge? Or both? What exactly is your definition of Published expert? That I believe is the game and trap everybody falls into, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia was created so that THE people (you and me and millions more) could contribute, experts included, but what you are maybe implying is that a (2)"Published Expert" what ever that means has to ok my thoughts. In other words you may want to imply the experts desire to "control" knowledge or in this case what gets published. Remember this: KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE CONTROLED. That is the exact reason why the voting system is needed. We elect our leaders by voting, why can't we vote for the definitions that make more sense to the majority of people? Nothing personal. Same old same old. You still seem not to understand what the Internet is all about. But I hope someday you do. Stay tuned if you are willing to learn something from this exchange. Thanks again for the dialogue. Really nice. 209.191.143.129

I think Wikipedia probably has a definition of 'published expert' or something similar on one of its pages about article standards. I would probably defer to that if there were a serious disagreement and neither side in a dialog could agree as to whether a particular source was valid or not. Wikipedians sometimes refer to 'original research' as a criteria for removing content--meaning that the content is not yet accepted by the mainstream, and therefore does not belong in this encyclopedia (although it could easily be put on someone's homepage or perhaps published somewhere else, even an academic journal). There was an interesting article called 'ontological guilt' that I was involved with a while ago, but since the term had very few uses, even on the internet, the article was judged not to belong in an encyclopedia. Nobody could agree what the term meant, or who apart from the article's author had used it to mean what. The article was deleted after some discussion, which unfortunately the article's creator chose not to participate in. (I thought it might be similar to angst, but couldn't find any definition, just a few hits on google).

If you disagree with any Wikipedia standards, you could discuss them on the talk page for the relevant standard (sorry, dialog isn't a verb yet :-) ). The reason I did not give my reasons for disagreement with your claim in this dialog is that they are irrelevant to the content of this particular article (knowledge), since your argument appears to be ONLY your personal opinions ('only' being the important word, not 'your'). And this talk page is about this article, and should really be limited to dialog about its contents.

If you want to continue this dialog, but move onto other topics than what should be in this particular article, feel free to drop by my talk page at User_talk:WhiteC. (That is another thing you get with membership and a user name--a space to put your own views if you can't put them anywhere else, and a talk page.)

WhiteC 07:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

::: Hi.. since I think is important to understand what logic means (See Math Logic) because as you know there is a relation between words (Thinking) and math. If you look closely, you will see that with words we can build a lie. With numbers... you can't!. How many interpretations of 1+1=2 can you come up with?. In Math Logic there is something called Negating an affirmation. So I found interesting to apply it to your suggestion "I disagree entirely". Here it is.

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)

Alright, I put a few arguments about it on my talk page (sorry it took so long)... feel free to continue the dialog over there at User_talk:WhiteC. (I also put a few statements about the value of argument in general and the Socratic Method in particular on my user page.)

Removed content from knowledge managment

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 Energy?

There is a view from information science that says exactly this and uses analogies to entropy. That section should be restored once knowledge (philosophy) is re-created to keep the absurd abstraction out of this article.

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?

Situated knowledge

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.

This article now has such a section. Brian Jason Drake 06:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

new summary & rewrites

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)

Who here knows?

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:

Defining knowledge

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".

Adam, the main article for the philosophical definition of knowledge is epistemology... the section here that you're talking about is mainly just a summary of what it says in that other article. If you want to get into the philosophy of knowledge - that's where to do it (which is why the two articles were split anyway!). The phrase "increasingly useful" was intended to illustrate that each stage in the DIKW pyramid is more useful than the lower stage. E.g. Knowledge is more useful than wisdom. I copied your comments on DIKW (below) to that article's talk page, which is where it would be better to discuss them. Sbwoodside 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

- 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)

Philosophical links

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)

Richard L. Ballard

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?

I care what Banno (or Ballard or anonymous users) say in the talk page. But I don't think that any of them deserve mention in this article. Fame is what you need to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. A philosophical journal might enjoy original contributions from talented but unknown writers, however. WhiteC 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge (Knowledge - Epistemology)

• some heavy discussions going on here - I believe the knowledge 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)
• We could always put all the information under Knowledge. This idea of putting the thing separate from the science that studies the thing is not followed at Mathematics, I think. Brian Jason Drake 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree to Iancarter, I do not want to see this merged too for the same reasons. --Wissenslogistiker 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions

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?

What is knowledge?

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.

Levels of Knowledge

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)

Appears to be original research? This article could serve as a good example of the bad stuff in wikipedia... it is a shocker. Most of it deserves oblivion. Banno 11:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Limits of knowledge?

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)

Levels of Knowledge

The same knowledge may be present on various levels in different systems . 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)

Introduction

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)

Dear Banno,

From the cognitive perspective, knowledge always is a property of a certain physical system, what is knowledge for a person/robot A can not be knowledge for a person B.

What is knowledge for the domain of activity D1 of A is not knowledge for his/its another activity domain D2.

A real-world/physical object which is a knowledge does not exist.

Therefore knowledge is a relative concept.

In the modern science, the terms true and belief are ill defined - they have many essentially different definitions.

In common parlance (what, I suppose, is important for Wikipedia), the term knowledge denotes a mental product which enables to be efficient, such as, justified/validated information, rules, methods, theories and procedures.

- I suggest to insert this explenation to the article.

User:192.107.75.158, 02:39, 27 September 2006

By justification, I of course meant some sort of citation. What you have written here does not address the issue I raised. Banno 10:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ballard

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)

I agree. I've removed the material. If support is forthcoming, it can be re-inserted. Banno 10:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views - Guidance Required

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)

'lost' knowledge is still knowledge.

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:

Banno. Can you provide references of works that support the assertion that 'lost' knowledge is still knowledge. At best it can only be possible to say that it 'was knowledge'. My reasoning for this is mainly consistency with the rest of the article - if 'knowledge' that is not held by a person then it cannot fill Plato's criteria of being 'believed'. Also, although the previous passage about Indian thought has been removed, it also suggested that knowledge has no isolated existence - there has to be a person who wants to know it rgds, ||:) johnmark† 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Banno, whilst agreeing that the grammar is clumsy and requires attention I think you are maybe sidestepping the issue. I really must get more into reading the talk pages as well as the articles - earlier you added 'Knowledge – systematized, classified, structured and interrelated data'. How can 'lost knowledge' be any of those things? I take your point about my failure to provide evidence to support my suggestion. Will think some more and provide such if I can although from my memory it was derived from rather tortuous philosophical arguments that you are, no doubt, already aware of. rgds rgds, ||:) johnmark† 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully I didn't write that. It was part of some unsupported text I removed. Banno 11:04, 28 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)

Defining knowledge

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)

Knowledge Management section

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)

Plato's definition of knowledge

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?

See: SEP 1Z 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

.

Pitiful purges

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)

idiot's talk

"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)

Definition of Knowledge

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

I amended the text above to remove the definition of knowledge. It is a contradiction to say in line three that there is no single definition of knwoledge, then provide one (and a controversial one at that) in the first line. The final sentence is also controversial. The idea of a Wikipedia page is not to use the article to express a partisan opinion. --Snowded 12:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

re recent changes to first paragraph

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 guidelines are not designed to allow a partisan defintion and the assertion of something as a fact (outside the boundaries of language for example). I have put the OED definition in place so you can be happy that there is an upfront statement. That is at least neutral. If you are not happy with that then discuss it here, otherwise we will get into three reversals.--Snowded 05:36, 2 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)

Religions and Knowledge

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)

Theatetus

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)

knowledge = Wissen?

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)

defining "knowledge"

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)

Object, based on the history todate and the continued production of definitions and defence of different definitions this is an accurate statement. --Snowded (talk) 05:32, 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 above represents a set of assertions which are bold in nature and unsupported by citation. Many would be contested by Cognitive Science as well as philosophy in general. For example the set of rules called "entropy minimax" makes assumptions that knowledge is solely obtained by deductive knowledge a claim that is controversial in science let along Philosophy. At best this material might justify a paragraph in the main text. --Snowded (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

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)

I applaud an attempt to define knowledge on the knowledge article, if only to say this is a difficult thing to do with several perspectives on the subject, to include ... (and then link to epistemology, constructivism, etc.) Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Article fails to address the following

• What are the parts of knowledge?
• What things are not compared to knowledge?
• What things are not connected to knowledge?
• What things do not affect knowledge?
• What forms are not of knowledge?
• What things do not qualify to substitute knowledge?
• What things do not require knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What knowledge is applicable to more than one thing?

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. --Cumputers (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Science and Knowledge

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)

The Wish to Know we Know

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)

The Scientific Method

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)

What is the use of the knowledge which cannot be repeated?

• What is the use of the knowledge which cannot be repeated?
• What knolwedge can be repeated?
• What knolwedge cannot be repeated?

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)

Plato and Joyce

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)

The Knowledge Which No One Can Have

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)

1. Can a thing which cannot exhibit divisibility be made?
2. Can a thing which cannot exhibit comparability be made?
3. Can a thing which cannot exhibit connectivity be made?
4. Can a thing which cannot exhibit disturbability be made?
5. Can a thing which cannot exhibit reorderability be made?
6. Can a thing which cannot exhibit substituability be made?
7. Can a thing which cannot exhibit satisfiability be made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 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)

What is the suitable article to add this as subsection, if not in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me that a series of statements from a cult of some type. It has no place here --Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brand it as cult? Wow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think issues around atomism should be brought into this article then there may be a case, but the nature of your edit was 'Cult" like and the tedious video with its slogan kinda confirmed that. Please read the advise on your talk page on how to edit. --Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Types of knowledge

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:

---

Types of knowledge

Different types of knowledge can be distinguished. De Jong and Hessler (1996) proposes the following types of knowledge:

• The conceptual knowledge
• The procedural knowledge
• The situational knowledge
• The strategic 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).

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 .

Conceptual knowledge

Conceptual knowledge is about meaning and understanding. Typical examples include theories and models.

Situated knowledge

Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation . 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)

To reply to a comment from Snowded: 'There is a danger in bringing KM stuff into a philosophy article' (which was actually done for another input). Yes, indeed I also felt a little uncomfortable to bring in here too much of KM stuff (although KM it is supposed to be pluridisciplinary). However De Jong theory comes from another 'Universe' (education). In any case it would be useful to have in this article at least a stub creating a bridge between the different domain. Note: actually, I stumbled upon De Jong theory as I was writing a report about e-learning. I needed a categorisation of knowledge to explain the needs of different learning approaches and tools.

--Nabeth (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The very idea of "categories" is an issue in knowledge anyway (and increasingly in knowledge management). In a philosophy article you can't take one position and list categories identified by one author --Snowded ^TALK 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I read the article, it is not crystal clear that this is only about philosophy, in particular when I read the definition ((i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education;). If it was really the case, I would suggest to have another article about knowledge that is not about philosophy. Actually it may even help in the articulation of concepts (including epistemology). To finish, I am relatively neutral about typologies, and I added this because I needed it was not present (but I found theories). For an encyclopedia I expect to find the different (serious enough) theories, even if (actually I find this very useful) there limitations are pointed. Indicating that there are several theories but no agreement on them is something useful since it indicate the limit of our knowledge. Other example to look at: E-learning: It is indicated that there is no really agreed definition.

Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the number of authors, I had cited two different papers (and authors) from De Jong and from Jonassen. If you look at learning theories and papers you will see that they are far from being the only ones. --Nabeth (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And the number of authors for Platonic concepts of knowledge is myriad --Snowded ^TALK 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

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)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

All Human Knowledge

A section discussing how to measure "all human knowledge" would be great. emijrp (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it was impossible a priori, however if you can find any reliable third party sources that talk about it we can take a look. --Snowded ^TALK 20:13, 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)

Its not a reliable one I am afraid --Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of the first paragraph

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)

Umm. OK if we go with Aristotle then we have Sophia and Phronesis and that would conform with your statement, but would exclude forms of of knowledge that don't fit. Intuitive knowledge for example may be neither. I'm not sure why you says its incorrect? --Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Further, if we go with simple common sense, knowledge can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It need not refer to both at once; there are cases of practical knowledge unaccompanied by theoretical understanding as well as cases of theoretical knowledge without the ability to demonstrate a practical example. The use of 'can' acknowledges both of those possibilities. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 05:36, 22 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)

However the philosophy does not really permit of the Greengrocer example. In this case it CAN but to does not necessarily mean .... --Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

wikia

I've removed once again the sentence

Living is learning, and the things learned should be shared and passed on, for a society to move forward.

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)

1, Philosophy is always vague, and the higher the standard, the higher the vagueness. 2, Philosophy is meant to be Preachy, and an encyclopedia needs to quote the musings on a particular subject, in an article for that subject. 3, I thought it was wikipedia norms to cite quotations, unless ofcourse you are one of those who have the power to Ignore all rules, and want to use it.--Ne0Freedom 20:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly dispute assertions 1 and 2. Philosophy doesn't need to be vague or preachy and philosophers that have a clear idea of what they want to say express things clearly. But the sentence we're discussing is something you'd find in a fortune-cookie. Moreover, I have no problem with including a reference to note that you're copying a sentence from Wikia. My problem is that you simply should not be copying a poorly phrased sentence from Wikia, in other words from an anonymous source with no credentials. Pichpich (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that western philosophy, like Bible can be straight to the point, but not so with eastern Philosophy. Personally, I catagorize Sanatan Philosophy into four levels. 1 Bhagvad Gita, 2 Yoga Vasistha, 3 Ashtavakra Gita, 4 Vedas & Upanishads. Try reading something from level 3 or 4, and it will confound you. My next point is, every religious philosophy preaches! Or are you going to tell me that Bible and Quoran don't preach? My third point, "poorly phrased"? You want to rephrase it, ?...give it a try. Or is it "poorly phrased" because you can't understand it?--Ne0Freedom 21:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article on the topic of knowledge. As such it has no room for vague preachy sentences whether they're vague preachy sentences inspired by the Bible or vague preachy sentences inspired by Vedic texts. If you want to cite a credible expert on the subject saying "in Eastern philosophy living is learning, and the things learned should be shared and passed on, for a society to move forward" then I'm ready to listen, but you're lifting that sentence from Wikia which is about as far as you can get from a credible expert. Pichpich (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time for your petty arguments. My time is much better used making articles, than getting caught up in useless arguments like this one. --Ne0Freedom 09:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

change "data is" to "data are"

128.36.175.156 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Modern usage of the term typically treats data not as the plural of datum but as a mass noun. So "data is" is grammatically correct. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, per Pich--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This page broke the philosophy game.

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)

Nice of you to ask, but too much time is spent dealing with this nonsense ----Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, you could just consider this page the ending page in the "Philosophy Game". Smortypi (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite

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)

Sounds like Citizendium is the place for you then. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Writing as the "primary technology of knowledge transfer" (disputed text)

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)

Last time I looked people wrote (or at least typed) on the internet using written language. Per Boisot (if we need a source) codified knowledge diffuses faster ----Snowded ^TALK 00:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if you consider typing a form of "writing", mention of the Internet is not included in the section anyway. Some clarification should be added to this statement, then. The incorrect usage of the word "all" should be replaced with "many or "most" as well. And nonetheless, the text remains completely uncited. — |J~Pæst| 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think its a little perverse not to see the internet as writing, its just one medium for the written word with illustrations. I'd agree that the oral tradition also has value, but it does not diffuse outside of its community. Codified knowledge can be cited (Boistot Knowledge Assets) as enabling rapid diffusion and that would reference the written work in various forms. One could then add some of the cited stuff on internet growth and compare with a similar explosion when the secret of how to make cheap paper was stolen from the Chinese. From memory there are sources on that----Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, both of your points have merit. Written is clearly superior to in-person communication of knowledge across distances, but not always superior with regards to more tacit forms of knowledge where visible emotions, body language, and other cues need to be communicated (and nowadays the internet can convey either written or oral communication asynchronistically). So might I recommend a compromise of taking out the phrase "unchallenged"? It has generally been my experience that when philosophical debates claim something is unchallenged, that's usually reaching a tad to far for the field :-) Harvey the rabbit (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC) also, let's not forget memes and subconscious fads!

This section has problems indeed. (1) First and foremost, huge WP:OR red flags in the passage JPaest highlighted. E.g. "Unchallenged" but also unsupported here. "...primary technology of knowledge transfer down through the ages and to all cultures and langauges of the world"?? For WP's sake, who cares how true that statement is if it's unreferenced (and thus clearly OR). (2) Why is Plato cited through Postman without actually drawing on any of Postman? (3) Why even bring up Robinson if his argument is going to be treated as a straw man. Another example of OR, perspectives are not stated objectively with supporting or criticizing sources cited; a single source is cited and then the author of the section declares it wrong.

As to the truth of the statement in question... I agree that it's silly to say so matter-of-factly that written language is "the most available and most universal of all forms of recording and transmitting knowledge" when in fact we still speak language and there are entire cultures and populations (including in, for example, the US) who cannot read/write? What about the first years of our lives before anybody can read? In many ways you could argue we gain more knowledge during that period than at any other time in our lives. There are good arguments for and against; my point isn't to absolutely say anybody's wrong, but that it's easy to "challenge" writing as "mankind's primary..." I do have to disagree with JPaest about the Internet, though. The Internet is a means of production and transmission, which is important, but it can't exist without written language (and if we focus on such means, it's hard to say the Internet in its short history is more worth of mention than papyrus, movable type, or the printing press in "recording and transmitting"). --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy game

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)

It's not always that single word swap, players of the game have tried whatever change occured to them, and it varies which article they try to fix - the Truth article actually gives a very grumpy edit notice when you click "edit". Perhaps we need a more sympathetic edit notice ("if the Philosophy Game is broken right now, click here to discuss it") applied across a few endgame articles.

I'd guess that "facts" is listed before "information" because it's a neater progression of explanation - "statements which are true, but also the wider category of raw data" rather than "raw data, and its subset of true statements". But the whole sentence ("Knowledge is an (A, B or C) of a (D or (E, such as F, G or H,)) which is acquired through (I or J) by (K, L or M)") does seem a bit overwrought and could probably use a rewrite. --McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! You make excellent points. I am very much fond of a friendly edit notice, but even more so keeping awareness linked. Then we have the progression we want, and the game can be played. We're not going against WP:MOS, at least to a drastic extent. And best of all, anyone can still edit the article. No need for semi or pending changes protection. I'll draft an edit notice and share it for everyone here. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Another solution is to agree a new opening which misses the list all together. Normal definitions would include both knowledge through reflection as well as knowledge through experience. There are plenty of third party sources with better definitions ----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Snowded: I'm not sure if I follow. What was wrong with linking awareness? Remember the goal is to allow this silly game to be played so we don't have to put up with more disruption – but without a cost to the article's integrity. One little link doesn't seem to matter much, at least considering the amount of disruption it will prevent. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The point about a link is that it adds meaning. The article concerned is not really awareness in the sense that it is used here (or would need a lot more explanation). At the moment the term in ordinary language use is, in my option, enough and excessive linking is discouraged but MOS ----Snowded ^TALK 04:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Snowded on this one. I'm also in favour of an edit notice, though perhaps not as "grumpy" as the one existing on Truth. I don't think it makes sense to threaten editors with a block and I believe it's sufficient to say "please don't" and "it will be reverted quickly". Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at Truth's edit notice. I quite like it and believe it would be a welcome addition.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit notice

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)

 Done — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Classical definition of knowledge

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)

I would have thought there were more than enough third party sources that attribute that to the justification dialogues of Socrates in Theatetus for us to be comfortable with it. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Production and distribution of knowledge

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)

Ordinary knowledge

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 PressUser:Fred Bauder Talk 09:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the subject of this article is knowledge, not how a sophisticated epistemologist knows something. People, in general, know things. How, why, and the implications of that knowledge is also part of this article. BTW, Russell Hardin is, for the most part, a political scientist. Do you see how what people "know" relates to politics? User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You have several problems. Its a single sourced addition, you've added it as a section right up front elevating the status, the source does not establish that it is a sub-division of knowledge as a field, its just a title used by one author in the context of a thesis in economics. Please note WP:BRD, you have been reverted you now discuss and don't reinstate until there is consensus on the talk page. From what you have placed there I see no justification for the addition. A wider section on knowledge in economics (if referenced as a field) might justify some reference. But its not a major section upfront in the article ----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point about placement in the article, Not really a theory of knowledge. Definitely holds itself out as economics. By the way this is not a new discussion. Discussed, hotly, with User:Larry Sanger a decade ago. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Ho! You describe "Knowledge" as a field. If there is such a field, it is epistemology, or sociology of knowledge, or simply Anthropology. Knowledge as an Wikipedia subject is not about a field of study but about a subject which is part of the everyday life of all beings. Even a worm knows and acts on that knowledge.

A question: What is the body of knowledge that forms the basis for the questions, and correct answers, in a quiz show on popular television? What is it called? How and where does it fit into this article? Name an epistemologist who has qualified as a contestant on Jeopardy!. Is a degree in epistemology and 10 years of experience and 30 published articles a qualification? User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Anthropological treatments of knowledge fall in the epistemological tradition as does most sociology, similar references etc. I'm less expert on worms but the idea that a genetic or even an epigenetic response to sitimulus is knowledge is questionable. I'm not sure how many 'ordinary' views of knowledge would not be covered in philosophy anyway, that is not confined the the pin head dancing of analytic philosophy. The point is that we need some third party source to establish the significance of something. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Theories of Knowledge Addition

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, evidence, and belief are not requirements for knowledge. He says justification and evidence require knowledge. Tlendriss (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524081117/http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/2022/1/Gottschalk-Mazouz.pdf to http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/2022/1/Gottschalk-Mazouz.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504201314/http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#1804 to http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820205238/http://vhp.org/news/news-regional/delhi-seva to http://vhp.org/news/news-regional/delhi-seva

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

Change the awareness to link to the Wikipedia page on awareness. 129.21.94.40 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No. ElKevbo (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

80.82.24.143 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

For other uses, see Talk:Knowledge/Archive 1 (disambiguation).

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.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ToThAc (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear. This is a "get to philosophy game" edit. The link to awareness is not useful and its addition has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018

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)

 Partly done. I implemented the first part, but the second part changes the meaning to something that doesn't seem to be what's intended, so I left that one out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

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 removed the whole paragraph. It looks like material has been dumped here from a deleted article and we really shouldn't have a whole section based on one modern author -----Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Section on classifications of the knowledges

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:

• Plato: episteme and doxa (see Gorgias)
• Aristotle:
  • theoretical (episteme), practical (phronesis), and productive (techné) (see Nicomachean Ethics)
  • historia and episteme (see The Parts of Animals, link)
• Bacon: history, poesy, and philosophy (associated with the three fundamental faculties of mind – memory, imagination, and reason) (see The Advancement of Learning)
  • inspired Diderot and d'Alembert figurative system of human knowledge (see the Encyclopédie)
• Kant: division according the type of objects studied (zoology, botany, geology...), according to a temporal dimension (history), according to spatial relationships (geography, with a number of sub-disciplines) (see Physische Geographie, link)
• Comte: religious, philosophical and scientific (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology) (see Course in Positive Philosophy, link)
• Windelband: nomothetic and idiographic (see Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft, transl. History and Natural Science, link)
• Other distinctions: physics and metaphysics (Aristotle, Boyle), empirical/positive and rational/non-empirical knowledge, spirit sciences/humanities/Geisteswissenschaften and natural sciences/Naturwissenschaften (Dilthey), pure/basic and applied/techne, library classifications (Dewey, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.121.96.22 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Some sources for this planned section:

• Burke, Peter. "Classifying knowledge: curricula, libraries and encyclopaedias". In: A Social History of Knowledge: from Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. link.
• Graziano, E. E. Hegel's Philosophy as Basis for the Dewey Classification Schedule Libri, vol. 9, n. 1, pp. 45‑52, 1959. link.
• Henderson, K. L. (ed.). Major classification systems: the Dewey centennial, 1975.
• Kedrov, B. M. Classification of Sciences. Moscow, 1961-1965, 2 vols.
• Parrochia, D. & Neuville, P. Towards a General Theory of Classifications. Birkhaüser, 2013.
• Peirce, C. Classification of the sciences, 1902-3.
• Piaget, J. Le système et la classification des sciences. In: Piaget, J. (dir.). Logique et connaissance scientifique. Paris: Gallimard, 1967, pp. 1151-1224. (Encycl. de la Pléiade).
• Sagaut, P. Introduction à la pensée scientifique moderne. Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 2009, link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.60.158 (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. We might also include that work in Outline of knowledge. Ambuj Shukla 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

one dead link found plz add my website link https://www.technical-education.com/ Talimam (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:ELNO. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"Awareness" hyperlink has been removed

"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)

No. We're not here to play silly games; cut out the disruptive editing. ElKevbo (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

No, that link was not helpful. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The removal of this link has broken the phenomenon of "Getting to Philosophy" by clicking the first link in every page. I'd argue that removing it has removed an integral part of Wikipedia community. KalleJoKI (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Using Knowledge

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)

We rarely if ever include "intuitive content" in an encyclopedia article. If it's important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article, it should be explicitly linked to high quality references. ElKevbo (talk) 22:06, 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)

See WP:POINT for why mass deletion of unsourced sentences is not to be encouraged. Also see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Truth/es accepted as knowledge/s ?

Are truthes knowledges or this question better to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ? --Visionhelp (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

subject The subject of science is what discussed in that science معین پورصادق (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not clear what change you are asking for -----Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo suggestion

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)

Done, thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Knowledge > Understanding

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)

I was going to mention this as well, as new to editing I am not sure what to do apart from talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyHatcher (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You could propose something else! :) Make a specific proposal of a sentence you want to change and your new formulation (with sources). Also be aware that the lead paragraphs (see WP:LEAD) are just a summary of the article. Best — Mvbaron (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Makes my question seem silly know but will get to something :) User:DannyHatcher 6 November 2021

Don't worry DannyHatcher! feel free to either (i) work on the text in your sandbox, or (ii) propose something here, or (iii) be WP:BOLD and edit the article directly. -- Mvbaron (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Mandaeism

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)

SO we just had a section on Gnostics added and I left that; this is a summary level article after all. If anything the religions section is getting disproportionate anyway and we can't list every group and sect that uses the knowledge word or makes a knowledge claim. So while Gnosticism deserves a mention I can't see a case for Mandaeism being notable enough for inclusion -----Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mandaeism has a greater connection to the religious concept of knowledge than all the other religions that are already listed since it is literally their namesake. If the most important aspect of a religion is knowledge in order to achieve salvation, that is more than enough to be notable in order to be included in the list of religions. I was actually surprised it was not already listed Mcvti (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OK that is your opinion, but you've already said it is a subset of Gnosticism, Have you got a third party source which establishes its importance in the context of an article on Knowledge? -----Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People, New York: Oxford University Press 2002.

• Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstruction Mandaean History, Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005.
• Deutsch, Nathaniel (1999). Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice-regency in the Late Antiquity. BRILL. ISBN 9004109099.
• Ethel Stefana Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran (1937), reprint: Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002.
• Ethel Stefana Drower, The Secret Adam: A Study of Nasoraean Gnosis, Oxford: Clarendon, 1960.
• Edmondo Lupieri, The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
• Rudolph, Kurt (1977). "Mandaeism". In Moore, Albert C. (ed.). Iconography of Religions: An Introduction. Vol. 21. Chris Robertson. ISBN 9780800604882.
• Rudolph, Kurt (2001-06-20). Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. A&C Black. pp. 343–366. ISBN 9780567086402.
• Andrew Phillip Smith, John the Baptist and the Last Gnostics: The Secret History of the Mandaeans, London: Watkins Publishing 2016.
• Edwin M. Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts (1967), reprint Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005.
• Edwin M. Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins (1970), reprint Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004.

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)

You're just listing sources that talk about Manadaens and we don't accept original research or interpretation or synthesis of primary sources. Request was for a third party source which says in some way, that their take on knowledge has high significance -----Snowded ^TALK 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If you looked at the sources, they all discuss the importance of knowledge in Mandaeism as a key aspect of the religion. Please do not accuse me of providing original research which is false. I have provided enough references to show the significance of the religious concept of knowledge in Mandaeism. I have even offered to add them under Gnosticism which you did not acknowledge. I find you will continue to make excuses not to add them showing you do not have a neutral point of view on the topic. Mcvti (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of disputing the importance of knowledge in Mandaeism. I am saying that you have not offered any source which establishes that Mandaeism's take on knowledge has any special notability. We have brief descriptions of major religions perspectives which can be justified and I'm OK with Gnosticism being added. If you think it should be a part of Gnosticism then again we need a source that shows it is notable. If you can't source it then it doesn't go in - and please don't speculate on my motivation that really doesn't help -----Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Britanicca says it's a "Gnostic sect" and says its origins are disputed. Also it is very much a minor sect. Nothing to support your claims for notability. Either way its tagged - I'll give it a day or so and if there is no new evidence or work on gaining a consensus I'll restore the article to its previous consensus position -----Snowded ^TALK 19:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not original research so the tag you applied does not belong there. Reliable sources have already been cited. Being the only surviving Gnostic religion from antiquity makes it very much notable. From Mandaeism, the religion is at least 2000 years old and scholars specializing in the religion believe it originated in the Palestine / Israel region. The renowned scholar of Mandaeism Jorunn J. Buckley believes Mandaeism is of Judean or Israelite origin. I don't understand the rationale behind refusing to mention the last surviving Gnostics with a few sentences under Gnosticism backed up by reliable sources and pertinent to the religious concepts of knowledge. Are you questioning the origins of the religion or whether you recognize them as a religion and worthy of being mentioned or the relevance of the religious concept of knowledge to the religion. In any case, you do not have consensus to remove the section and I advise you to look at some of the sources I listed to get a better understanding of how important the concept of knowledge or gnosis (manda) is to the religion. Mcvti (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I provided a third party source which said it is a minor sect and the origins are disputed. You are arguing a position from primary/secondary sources which is original research. You are also failing to follow normal practice you were bold, you were reverted, you now discuss you don't assert you are right without gaining consensus. You do not remove tags without agreement. Without a source establishing NOTABILITY the material will be deleted and if you restore it without consensus on the talk page you will be reported for edit warring. I will repeat that I am not disputing knowledge is relevant to an article on the religion but I don't think that the religion is notable enough for this article and it certainly fails any test of balance.-----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just gone through the discussion above. I've read through dozens of sources about Mandaeism and will be happy to share a few of my observations and thoughts.

• This is definitely not original research.
• The sentences are correct and do not reach original conclusions from WP:SYNTH.
• Manda does indeed mean 'knowledge' and/or 'gnosis'. I am familiar with Mandaic and can confirm this.
• Mandaeism is certainly not a non-notable minor sect. It is one of the major ancient religions of Mesopotamia and western Persia and is absolutely crucial to understanding the origins of Christianity, Islam, and Manichaeism. See for example Psalms of Thomas#Mandaean parallels. Mandaeans form one of the most notable Gnostic groups. If most scholars had to pick and choose a few notable notable Gnostic groups to analyze, they would be Mandaeism, Manichaeism, Nag Hammadi Gnosticism, and Catharism. The Gnostic Archive at gnosis.org also has dedicated collections for these groups, but not for the other truly minor sects. The less notable Gnostic sects are the Elkasites, Quqites, and dozens of other minor groups that were only given passing mentions in historical sources; and of course, certainly not neo-Gnostic New Age groups. If someone were to write a paragraph making spurious claims about the Quqites in this article, then I would keep the OR tag, but basic facts about Mandaeism are all right.
• There is wide consensus among historians of religion that Mandaeism is in fact the only surviving Gnostic religion, although Gnosticism itself is a fuzzy category. Its importance and comparative notability have been confirmed by nearly all scholars of Mandaeism, including Torgny Säve-Söderbergh and Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley. I would actually pick Manichaeism, Mandaeism, and Nag Hammadi Gnosticism to include if I were to choose just a few Gnostic religions to mention in this article.

Verdict: Mcvti's contributions look fine to me. These are basic facts mentioned in multiple existing articles and are not fringe theories, and they are also notable enough to mentioned. Nebulousquasar (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well its hardly a 'verdict' when the pair of you are active on articles about this particular sect. The one third party source I have found says that it is a minor sect - third party sources are what we use here. In the context of this article, each major religion gets a couple of lines and that we have for the Gnostics. We are not mentioning any of the sects - look at the one of Christianity, it doesn't even distinguish between Catholic and Protestant. You have to establis weight through citations and nothing in what you say above does that. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Snowded for keeping a close eye on this article and closely analyzing everything though, or otherwise these kinds of articles would be bombarded with random spurious or non-notable claims by barely mentioned minor historical sects, or small New Age fringe groups. However, Mandaeism is certainly not one of them. We're not talking about Martinism or Knight Templars here. Mandaeism is in no way a minor fringe sect, as "third-party" Protestant Christian scholars such as Edwin Yamauchi and many others clearly state. Another "third party": Even Islamic scholars have clearly listed Mandaeans among the People of the Book, a category that does not include the many hundreds of minor religious sects out there. Nebulousquasar (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well as I say the one third party (please note THIRD party) says it is a minor sect (not a fringe). Whatever it is a part of Gnosticism and doesn't deserve singling out. Each major religion gets a couple of lines. There is no reason to single out one Gnostic approach over the others. And by the way Mcvti has now broken the rule on canvassing by asking you to support him here -----Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

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.

• On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
• On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• Editors known for expertise in the field

Copied from Wikipedia:Canvassing

WP:POVRAILROAD (Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing) Mcvti (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I rest my case - this article is about Knowledge not a Gnostic sect but it won't be me that makes the call. Please focus on trying to find an argument on source that satisfies the requirements of WP:WEIGHT -----Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think a compromise will be good. I don't want to take sides or get into edit wars. Although it might be great to expand the paragraph about Mandaeism, I think we should keep it as and not continue expanding it in order to make sure that we meet WP:WEIGHT requirements. Maybe a few more sentences about Manichaeism and Nag Hammadi Gnosticism can balance things out, and we shouldn't include unnecessary details about Mandaeism. Thanks for everyone's comments. Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

An "additional citations" tag might be more relevant than the OR tag, but I'll leave that up to the other editors. Let's just leave it at here for now. Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

And I tagged rather than get into an edit war when Mcvti broke WP:BRD. I'm open to a descrition of Gnostic approaches to knowledge which is no longer than those for Islam and Christianity. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Reset

This is the position as I understand it

1. This article is about Knowledge and has a section showing how major religions have treated that subject. These are brief descriptions of a few sentences and none of the entries has included different sect positions - for example the differences between Aquinas and Agustine in Christianity are not mentioned event though they had major implications in the Western Intellectual Tradition. The Islam section does not talk about Sufi, Shi'a and Sunni perspectices.
2. All of the references and statements given above relate to the etymology of the name of the religion and discussions about the significance of Mandaeism in the history of Gnisticism. All of that may be right (or otherwise if you believe Britanicca) but none of it is relevant here. Just because something is referenced doesn't mean that it is included
3. The proposal is to expand the Gnositic section to include one sect, its not clear why and Manichæism is probably better known, but that is beside the poin: no other entry for any religion containts details about individual sects or perspectices
4. No sources or material or argument has been advanced as to why the Gnostic section should be larger than for other religions or why different sects should be explicitly mentioned when they are not in the other entries

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 don't have much time today for discussion, but I see a problem with the way the religions are listed. You have a Dharmic religion (Hinduisim), three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and Gnosticism which is not a religion by itself, but rather a type or category of religions, however no Gnostic religion(s) are listed. Mcvti (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A good solution would be to either remove Gnosticism and add Mandaeism and perhaps Manichaeism instead as separate religions, or put Christianity, Islam and Judaism under Abrahamic religions and add Mandaeism and Manichaeism under Gnosticism. Hinduism would be under Indian (Dharmic) religions. Mcvti (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think editors would be open to rethinking it, but we need to remember that its not an article about religion, its about knowledge. The vast majority of readers will not really be aware of the 'three religions of the book' and anyway views on knowledge are not defined by origin. They will understand the major world religions listed there. The issue and test is significance to this article, not significance in the study of religion. We also need third party sources to establish significance and there we have an problem with giving any prominence to Mandaeanism. To quote in full from the Enclyopedia Britannica "Mandaeanism, (from Mandaean mandayya, “having knowledge”), ancient Middle Eastern religion still surviving in Iraq and Khuzistan (southwest Iran). The religion is usually treated as a Gnostic sect; it resembles Manichaeism in some respects. Whereas most scholars date the beginnings of Mandaeanism somewhere in the first three centuries AD, the matter of its origin is highly conjectural" -----Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Another idea could be to move the 'Religious concepts of knowledge' section into a separate article due its significance leaving this article to deal with the other aspects of knowledge. Mcvti (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Worth looking at as an option, it would need a few good third party sources to create a structure -----Snowded ^TALK 09:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Opening statement

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)

Without access beyond the abstract of the source, I am not sure what to do with the sentence fragment, "Facts ... , skills ... , or objects ... contributing to ones understanding."

It might be as simple as changing "contributing" to "contribute", but it could also be something a bit different. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have access to the cited source (Stephen R. Grimm's chapter "Understanding as Knowledge of Causes"), and I don't see why is cited there; that source is about the more specific topic summarized in its title. So I removed it. But part of the bigger problem that needs to be fixed, much more than the grammar, is that the definition of knowledge in the first sentence makes a number of philosophical assumptions about which there is not universal agreement, so the current definition is not nearly broad enough to encompass what follows, even just within the current lead section. For example, contrast the current lead sentence of this article ("Knowledge is a type of belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification") with some of the following passages from Barry Allen's article "Knowledge" from the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas that is reproduced on Encyclopedia.com:

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.

Whether one agrees with Allen or not, the relevant point for the issue at hand is that this article's definition of knowledge as "a type of belief" is just one view (akin to internalism) that could and should be subsumed under a broader and more inclusive definition of knowledge that more closely approximates to a neutral point of view, whatever that may be. (I'm not implying that Allen's view is broad enough for Wikipedia; it's not, but it's an example of one way that the current first sentence is inadequate.) Biogeographist (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am on board with this. It really needs some work! Alex Jackl (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hi Biogeographist and thanks for the heads-up. I agree that it's difficult to give a general definition of knowledge since there are many types of knowledge (like know-how vs know-that) and many theories about the essential characteristics of the different types. One way to do it would be to start not with a general definition but with the most well-known one, i.e. as justified true belief. For example, from the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "According to the most widely accepted definition, knowledge is justified true belief". The definition can then be qualified in the next sentence by pointing out disagreements and alternatives. From what I can tell, there is very wide consensus that knowledge involves true belief. There is some disagreement about whether justification has to be involved instead of just reliability (reliabilism/externalism) and whether justified true belief is also a sufficient condition and not just a necessary one (Gettier). Phlsph7 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It's true that many philosophers consider the definition of knowledge as justified true belief to be the standard definition for their purposes. Philosopher Barry Allen, whose article on Encyclopedia.com I cited above, is one of the vehement dissenters: "contrary to what is often said, the definition of knowledge as justified true belief is not in any sense 'classical'. It has never been widely accepted and first entered philosophical discussion (in Plato's Theaetetus) as a refuted theory."

Nevertheless, even if JTB is the standard definition of knowledge in philosophy, I agree with Snowded's comment below that this article is not (just) about knowledge in philosophy: the Epistemology article serves that purpose, and there is also the JTB section of Belief. So I would prefer to start with something more general than JTB. Biogeographist (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If we have sources for a widely accepted more general definition then I'm with you. But if we have to piece this definition together ourselves then it is original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. Probably the best source for a widely accepted general definition, before preceding to a summary of the article, is a dictionary like the OED. The first detailed definition in the OED that is not obsolete is: "II. The fact or condition of knowing something. 3. a. The fact of knowing or being acquainted with a thing, person, etc.; acquaintance; familiarity gained by experience." The usage examples for this definition in the OED are from a wide range of fields, so this seems to be the generalist definition. The current lead sentence of this article is pretty close to that, which is why I was comfortable restoring it from an earlier version. The next non-obsolete detailed definition in the OED is "4. b. The apprehension of fact or truth with the mind; clear and certain perception of fact or truth; the state or condition of knowing fact or truth." The usage examples in the OED for this definition are all or nearly all from philosophy, so this would be the standard philosophical definition.

Further definitions from the OED (omitting the obsolete ones): "4. c. With of. The fact or state of having a correct idea or understanding of something; the possession of information about something. Also with indefinite article; formerly also in plural. [...] e. Perception by means of the senses. [...] 5. a. The fact or state of knowing that something is the case; the condition of being aware or cognizant of a fact, state of affairs, etc. (expressed or implied); awareness, consciousness. [...] b. (A person's) range of mental perception; awareness; ken. [...] 6. a. Chiefly with of. The fact or condition of having acquired a practical understanding or command of, or competence or skill in, a particular subject, language, etc., esp. through instruction, study, or practice; skill or expertise acquired in a particular subject, etc., through learning. Frequently with indefinite article. Formerly also with †in or infinitive. [...] b. Without construction: the fact or condition of having become conversant with a body of facts, principles, methods, etc.; scholarship, learning, erudition. [...] III. The object of knowing; something known or made known. [...] 9. a. As a count noun. A thing which is or may be known; esp. a branch of learning; a science; an art. Usually in plural. [...] b. As a mass noun. That which is known; the sum of what is known. [...] d. Computing. Information in the form of facts, assumptions, and inference rules which can be accessed by a computer program (esp. an agent: see agent n. 5). Cf. knowledge base n." Biogeographist (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

One difficulty with using dictionary definitions is that they just list many different meanings without putting them into relation to each other or assessing their general importance. This is also apparent from the length of you last edit, which just lists all the version from one dictionary. The current 1st sentence would not be my first choice but I agree with that it is not too terrible either. The right way to go about this would be to first rework the relevant parts of the article, specifically the section "Theories of knowledge", and then summarize the results in the lead. But this would be a rather time-consuming project. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that revising the body of the article first would be advisable. Barry Allen's article cited above (which is mostly a history) starts by discussing four Greek words that could be translated with the word "knowledge" (epistēmē, technē, mētis, and gnōsis), which shows, like the OED definitions above, that the word "knowledge" does a lot of work in English. The SEP article on epistemology, for example, also notes this: "the English word 'knowledge' lumps together various states that are distinguished in other languages". I think it may be possible to identify a core that all the meanings have in common; for example, I like how the SEP article on epistemology describes the common core as "cognitive success": "epistemology seeks to understand one or another kind of cognitive success (or, correspondingly, cognitive failure). This entry surveys the varieties of cognitive success, and some recent efforts to understand some of those varieties." Reviewing the OED definitions of knowledge above, I don't think any of them could not be characterized as a kind of cognitive success. (I bet even Barry Allen could get on board with the "cognitive success" view, as long as cognition were conceived broadly enough, as in 4E cognition.) Biogeographist (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of cognitive success as a common element could be included in the lead, for example, in the 2nd lead paragraph, which talks about the different forms of knowledge. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur: give JTB in lede sentence and qualify later or in the appropriate section on propositional knowledge. This discussion began with my WP:Bold rewrite of the lede to make it so, and I later added relational knowledge as the second sentence, since the previous lede sentence that I replaced had emphasized familiarity. Also could mention practical knowledge and productive knowledge; order is negotiable.

Here was my proposed lede, using the platonic and aristotelian method of definition by diaresis:

Knowledge is a type of belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. Knowledge is a type of relationship distinct from mere acquaintance by virtue of familiarity, intimacy, or friendship. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Support I think this is elegant and sounds great and is better than the lead we have currently. +1 Mvbaron (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(Just to make this more clear: I support replacing the first sentence of the current lede with the proposed sentence. The rest would stay as is) Mvbaron (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the suggested first sentence is good, but I also agree with Biogeographist and Snowded that we have to take alternative definitions seriously. One way would be to qualify the first sentence, something like "According to the most widely accepted definition, knowledge is a type of belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification". An alternative would be to mention disagreements or alternative definitions in the next sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: I was one of the editors who reverted the proposed change, and I find it far from "elegant" as Mvbaron called it. Restating the proposal without any engagement with the objections does not make the proposal more convincing! As I said above, the proposed first sentence is inadequate because it is not general enough; as philosopher Barry Allen said in the Encyclopedia.com article quoted above, JTB "has never been widely accepted" as a definition of knowledge. The proposed second sentence is inadequate because it's not true that knowledge is "distinct from mere acquaintance": the OED, one of the English language's best dictionaries, uses the terms familiarity and acquaintance in the same definition, and the OED also says that the use of knowledge to refer to sexual intercourse is rare, and its use to refer to friendship is obsolete. We can do better than this proposal, and I would hope much better. Biogeographist (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I suggested reverting the proposed change for the same reasons as Biogeographist. We need a more general opening . The current state of the opening is superior in my opinion than what we had (which is what the proposal is). Alex Jackl (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's always been a problematic article as its not a pure philosophy one, it has overlaps with both common use and managerial use and that's before we get to the frequent problems on religious knowledge and some of the 'get to philosophy' gamers. So while JTB will be known to all philosophy under graduates (largely to dismiss it and move on) we probably need a lede that reflects that ambiguity -----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

'thought experiments' by Edmund Gettier

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Hello Mojtaba Mohammadi and thanks for pointing this out. Strictly speaking, it is not an error since Gettier's thought experiments are one type of thought experiment among many others and the linked article is on thought experiments in general. However, there is a more relevant link target available: Gettier problem#Gettier's two original counterexamples. I'll go ahead and replace the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. In my personal opinion, Gettier's 'thought experiments' is or let's say are relevant to 'thought experiments' but not to that page as that page was very niche and specialized to Gedankenexperiment, unless we have some reference to what Gettier is into in that page. I, personally went to that page hoping that I will gain some more knowledge about Gettier or related topic ... but unsuccessful. Thank you for your quick action and the new link is an excellent choice, as it keeps philosophical topics within the same domain or collection of articles. Thanks again a million for the change. Mojtaba Mohammadi (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

In which I correct my own edit summary

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)

Issues with the lead

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)

(EC) :The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and sources aren't required in the lead, provided the lead accurately summarizes content in the body, which is itself supported by adequate sources. Neither the original lead, nor the newly proposed lead provide any sources, nor is it clear to me whether either is an accurate summary of well sourced content in the body, so both might be objected to on OR grounds. Paul August ☎

Hello Alex Jackl and thanks for trying to improve the lead. I reverted your edit since it seems to mainly repeat information already present in the lead and has some linguistic issues. The lead section of this article only summarizes sourced information from the body of the article. In such cases, the sources do not need to be cited again in the lead, see WP:CITELEAD. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems Paul August was faster than me on this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate what you said Paul August but I had indeed discussed it on the talk page. Indeed the last time it came up more people were opposed to the current opening. I am going to revert it back again and we should discuss here. If you look up at the prior conversation there was NOT a consensus. Also this is a fairly broad topic and the current content of the lead takes a particular cut on it that may not represent the generality well at all. All I am suggesting is opening with amore general layman's definition and then work to the deeper conversations. This also- as far as I can tell- represents the consensus we reached months ago about this. I think people should weigh in on this. Alex Jackl (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The earlier discussion you mention was not about the lead as a whole but only the opening statement. The main question was whether the lead should start with a general characterization or with the justified-true-belief account. In its current version, it starts with the general characterization and gives the justified-true-belief characterization in the second sentence, which seems to be a good compromise. As I see it, the current first sentence is not perfect, but it has some good qualities: it is succinct and manages to introduce the topic by mentioning the three types of knowledge (propositional, practical, by acquaintance) mainly discussed in the academic literature. I think this approach is in principle a good idea but I'm open to reformulation suggestions. However, having both this characterization and yours is repetitive and therefore not a good idea. Another point is the linguistic issue already mentioned with your suggestion.

What do you think of the following as a replacement of the current first sentence? 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)

As someone who was involved in the previous discussion above and who carefully inspected Phlsph7's edits to the lead section and article body after that discussion, I agree with Phlsph7's summary of the situation, and I think Phlsph7's edits respected the consensus in the previous discussion. The current first sentence is already the more general characterization; it seems to do an adequate job of summarizing the major OED definitions in the earlier discussion above, although any proposed improvements are welcome. I don't think Phlsph7's suggested replacement is an improvement, since it narrows the scope of the first sentence; any change should keep the scope of the first sentence at least as broad as it currently is. Biogeographist (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay- I will wait for any other opinions. I believe the opening statement to be FAR TOO ABSTRACT. Wikipedia is not an academic paper- it is too provide encyclopedic overviews of topics and then dive deeper in the body of the article, however, that being said I bow to the current consensus. Alex Jackl (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion was intended as a compromise. But I'm also fine with keeping things as they are. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I prefer your suggestion to the current state - so if that is good let's go with that. Thanks Phlsph7! Alex Jackl (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The stated objection to the current first sentence is that it is "FAR TOO ABSTRACT". I don't think the alternative proposed by Phlsph7 is any less abstract, but I could accept it if the word "theoretical" were removed (since one is left wondering what "theoretical awareness" is?) and the two sentences joined into one:

Knowledge can be defined as awareness of facts or as practical skills, and may also refer to familiarity with objects or situations.

That's essentially just a rewrite of the current first sentence to make it easier to parse. Biogeographist (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't making something easier to parse part of what we should be going for? Alex Jackl (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That was meant to be implied in what I said; I wasn't implying that we should be making it harder to parse. The sentence I proposed is easier to parse but not any more concrete. It's still just as abstract. Biogeographist (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Your reformulation works for me: it contains more or less the same information as the current first sentence and is easier to read. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 Alex Jackl (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

Newimpartial, you pointed out this apparent outlier of a lead sentence at the Talk:Gender discussion, [8] so of course I carefully examined this lead sentence and the discussion leading up to it. I found the sentence to be problematic and changed it. If you do not have a policy objection, please restore my edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your change, as it appeared to me to be a WP:BATTLEFIELD/WP:POINT edit in response to the discussion here. As suggested by my comments in that other discussion, I did not find the sentence problematic. Chosing to edit the lead of Knowledge to make it less epistemologically modest seems ironic to me and an unfortunate outcome. Also note that I did not point out this lead as an outlier, but as an example of a type of lead that is permitted by policy but that you denied exists the existence of which you were questioning. Let's not cut down all the tall flowers by reflex. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC) amended by Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes you made that clear in your edit summary. [9] As I explained above, I found the lead sentence to be problematic. If you do not have a content or MOS PAG reason for your revert, please restore my edit. "Not problematic" is not a policy. I have cited policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

You cited policy on the other Talk page, and other editors have cited other policies. "You found it problematic" does not give you a veto over article text. And changing an article because it was used as an example of something of which you denied questioned the existence on another Talk page is fairly disruptive, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC) modified by Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

[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)

I'm afraid I don't see an ISAWORDFOR vio in the text you replaced. Newimpartial (talk) 04:43, 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)

At least to this naïve editor, 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)

I do see that my statement above - while I don't agree that it was 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)

You forgot one: [11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. Fixed now. I am trying to set a good example, here. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the difficulties when writing about knowledge is that many different definitions of it exist and they often are not compatible with each other. This is reflected in our definitions section and even more is found in the article Definitions of knowledge. The current phrase "can be defined as" is wordier than a simple "is". I would prefer the simple phrase if the above-mentioned problem did not exist. But as it stands, I think the longer expression is better in order to be on the safe side. It seems that the guideline WP:ISAWORDFOR does not directly apply here since the expression "can be defined as" has actual work to do here by making the reader aware of this problem and is not just a "cumbersome phrasing" without a proper function. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. "Can be defined as" does the same work as "can refer to", but that's just not how articles should begin. Many subjects have contentious definitions, such as Art. And it's off to say it "can be" defined. It is sometimes defined certain ways. "Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something. It is also other things." That's a form that doesn't violate ISAWORDFOR. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, we need an expression to signal that this is not the only way of defining. It seems that part of your objection is to the word "can". What about alternatives that use the word "is", like "is often defined as" or "is often understood as". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Defined as" definitely seems like ISAWORDFOR, not sure about "understood as". What about my rough example? And can you think of any Good level articles that have such difficult definitions? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Can be defined as" is about as far as we can go given the subject matter and the sources -----Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both Kolya Butternut and Phlsph7 that "Can be defined as" is doing work in this context because of the multiple ways approaching this topic. Alex Jackl (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't actually agree to "can be defined as". Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies Kolya Butternut - I meant to reference Snowded. I didn't mean to misrepresent you! Alex Jackl (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ISAWORDFOR policy is concerned mostly with concision of style, to ensure that the article begins "with a relatively short but discrete explanation of the subject of the article" and not with a "poorly written dictionary-style" sentence. The examples of improper phrases are "Dog is a term for" and "Dog is a word that refers to". The most unnecessary words in such examples are the predicates "is a term" and "is a word", which apply to all terms/words. That's not a problem here: We don't say "Knowledge is a term for" or "Knowledge is a word that refers to". Saying "Knowledge is often defined as" is sufficiently concise while not being inappropriately incontrovertible. The fact is not only that there are alternative definitions of knowledge, but the definitions we give can be considered overlapping/nonindependent (e.g. there are philosophers who argue that knowing-that is knowing-how), and furthermore could be subsumed within a more general but not sufficiently informative/explanatory definition (as cognitive success).

Above, Phlsph7 provided a fair summary of the reasons for the current first sentence, which was discussed extensively last year before a dispute from another talk page spilled onto this page on January 6. The previous version of the first sentence (this is the version immediately prior to the change) said "Knowledge is". When the sentence was changed to its current form, I privately considered whether WP:ISAWORDFOR was a potential problem—since I corrected such a problem in other articles where it was obviously a result of poor writing. At the time, I decided that the question wasn't important enough to raise on the talk page. Now that Kolya Butternut has raised the question, I agree with them that 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)

One feature that I liked about last year's version of the first sentence prior to the current one is that it started with a very general definition (the genus) of knowledge—"Knowledge is a familiarity or awareness"—and then specified several types of it (the species)—"such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge)". That general-to-specific structure was lost in the current version, which I think is unfortunate. I guess that's part of the reason why we resorted to the "can be defined as" or "is often defined as" construction: because we lost a general subsuming definition. Biogeographist (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In this context, I don't see much difference between "can be defined as", "is often defined as", and "is often understood as". So I would be fine with either option. Kolya Butternut seemed to prefer "is often understood as". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The latter two are stronger claims; "can be defined as" just says that the definitions are possible, the latter says that the definitions are common. One might assume that prevalence is implicit in "can be defined as", but it's better to be explicit about it. But I agree that "is often defined as" and "is often understood as" seem interchangeable. Since "is often defined as" is used again in the next sentence, "is often understood as" may be preferable in the first sentence for variety. Biogeographist (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I would say we go for "is often understood as" unless new objections are raised. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)