Sylph Angel

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Hey people. I find that my POD essay is off point, so I have to redo it. First thing's first I guess...

What is knowledge? People have been asking this question for centuries, yet no attempts to define knowledge have gone uncontested. We value knowledge, we spend our lives seeking it, but somehow knowledge remains an enigma. How can we not have knowledge about what knowledge is? It is this desire to clarify the doubt of what we think we know that sparks off the intense debate on the nature and identity of knowledge.

Plato defines knowledge as Justified True Belief, which basically means that for something to be knowledge, it has to be true and believed to be true, with the belief justified. However, with the discovery of the Gettier problems, where the scenario meets all the criteria of Justified True Belief, but still may not be able to be considered knowledge, as the arrival of the conclusion, which is true, has been based upon unknowingly mistaken premises. A number of other definitions have risen in an attempt to counter this problem, including the Justified True Belief plus no Gettier problem model. However, what is stopping another Gettier problem-like predicament to crop up? Seemingly, if we keep to this notion of Justified True Belief, we may have to keep refining it over and over again.

Take "dinosaurs lived on Earth millions of years ago" for example. Most people think they know this as a piece of knowledge they possess. It may be Justified True Belief, because dinosaurs living on Earth millions of years ago is a possibility, and people do believe it, with justification in forms like fossils left behind by them. However, upon closer inspection, there are many loose ends to tie up. How can we be sure fossils came from dinosaurs? Do fossils mean dinosaurs? So the truth bit of Justified True Belief may be compromised, yet there are still so many people on the planet who do not know anything about Justified True Belief and take the statement "dinosaurs lived on Earth millions of years ago" as knowledge, not doubting it one bit.

This brings up an important question: can information considered to be knowledge by one person, but not by another, be considered knowledge? In my opinion, as long as someone believes wholeheartedly in his or her own stance, it is true. Others may contradict, but others have their own beliefs, their own truths. Can we not have more than one truth in the world? Of course, this is my own belief, which states that there may be other beliefs different from my own which could also be correct in their own way.

Ultimately, I feel the most important thing is to be open minded, never condemning others as wrong, because they may be right in their own way. As such, I will create my own definition for knowledge: Knowledge is whatever the individual believes knowledge to be.

Done.

I need to leave soon for dinner at my grandfather's house... My Sunday's already dead crammed, don't cram in any more things - I'll seriously be very unhappy about it.

Try this quiz =P http://www.whattheyplay.com/contest/streetfighterIV/quiz/
I got Dhalsim, by the way.

Haha I think I'm going to be eventless this year. YAY!!!!!! That's saved me quite a bit of torture and stress... OWNAGE!

Bye.

vεﯠαחƒőχ @ 1:58:00 PM.