Study of Knowledge

Epistemology The Study of companionship Jeff Castro PHI cardinal hundred Dr. Akins February 4, 2013 Epistemology The Study of Knowledge The study of association has al appearances been the journey toward legality and intelligence. Epistemology deals with the creation and distri hardlyion of fellowship in certain atomic number 18as of inquiry. Humans should be disembarrass to gain, study and question haveledge and claims without repercussions in any social, cultural or religious setting. As we move forward in our understanding of life, religion and nature, we have changed our bearing of thinking through and through philosophy.We are less(prenominal) ignorant and uneducated to the highest degree the integritys of the human race and how we as human beings carry through in it. Knowledge and the confirmation of realiseledge gougeful be substantiate by bidal and procedural noesis or companionship by acquaintance. Propositional cognition is expressed in declarative sentences or indicative propositions of hotshots knowledge based on the cognize or knowing that. If soul says exclusively birds have feathers they are stating or asserting a proposition that is factual or roughlywhat factual. Procedural knowledge is the knowledge employ in the performance of a task, such as knowing how to counterchange brakes on a vehicle.It is learned knowledge through doing that act. Knowledge by acquaintance is experience based knowledge learned through casual interaction, such as knowing a place or person well (Mosser, 2010). Knowing for certain is al federal agencys questionable because eachthing can be ch all in allenged. For the three identified ways of attaining knowledge, the most gainsayd unity is propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge receives the most irresolution because of the statements it brings forward, like I believe that, I know that and I think that (Steup, 2005). These statements are based on superstars beliefs, thoughts an d ideas which can be questioned.If knowledge is based on ones beliefs or opinions it pull up stakes bring challenges, still remember an individuals ideas based on beliefs or opinions should respected. We are certain of the other two due to experiencing or performing acts to solidify the knowledge. only then silence can be questioned because of different procedures or experiences can still expiration in a different or validation of an outcome or solution. To justify what we really know is inherited, learned or experienced. We can non really be certain of our knowledge because we can be tricked or limited by our sense that provides us this information to confirm or deny what we know or learn.Knowledge at one point is imperfect, but the truth at that point and is reinforced by the progress of science to be an dictatorial truth to some degree and as Vladimir Lenin says, There is no unsurmountable boundary between relative and absolute truth. (Bogdanov, 1908). The normal order of the reality is how we perceive it through our senses. It can play tricks on us and snitch through illusions that the mind receives from sight, sound, taste and touch. How humans recognize what is real and non real through their senses is known as empiricism (Mosser, 2010).Empiricists view that in that respect is no such thing as innate knowledge, but kinda knowledge is truthful from experience. On the argument side you have freethinking which view knowledge to be innate. It argues that the knowledge of God, mathematics and science cannot be explained by the senses (Mosser, 2010). But this does contradicts how we learn, because without the senses how do we learn mathematics, science or the knowledge of God (the bible). Innate knowledge is derived from the mind, but requires other things to support or build the mind, the senses.Lets break down the five senses (vision, sound, touch, smell and taste) and try to understand what can be limited and wherefore. Vision can be rece ived or altered based on the ability to fall upon objects, the depth or field, color, contrast, or even color blindness. Sound can be affected by the volume or pitch that is received by the ears. Touch can be affected by your tactual scholarship and how sensitive ones outer skin is. belief and taste can be affected by our bad habits (smoking and drinking), ailment or medications. So the limitations of ones senses can fool and be limited by our own doings and by the aging move (Gwizdka, 2010).Cognitive relativism is the idea of the knowledge we hold of the real world requires assistance from our rational/mind to build and support and that things being the truth or incorrect are relative to a society, group or individual. I in addition realize that there are cognitive bias, notational bias and culture bias, which prevents us from check intoing or analyzing something objectively with our senses (empiricism) which we cannot discount. So to really assert a position of truth woul d depend on who interprets it based on moral, ethical, or social view (Slick, 2012).Friedrich Nietzsche developed perspectivism which supports cognitive relativism in that there are many possible perspectives to determine any possible assessment of the truth to be determined. This means that there is doubt and uncertainty about how we see the world and the truth about it based on perspectives. The limits to human perception or cognition are bounded by each individual and how they can comprehend or process what they are receiving. The processing of the knowledge can be expanded upon through the use of ones innate knowledge.We limited ourselves based on what we only know and what is in front of us. If we can make sense of the world beyond what our senses micturate in we would be much better off, but remember it is all based on ones perspective of faith, ideas, thoughts and knowledge. Skepticism is primitively was defined as soulfulness who simply looked at things and now it is some one who doubts claims. Skepticism forces claims to be justified (Mosser, 2010). When assessing epistemology on the bases of what is known and the unknown we will still question everything for it is uncertain that we really know the truth about something.Yet there will still be limits on what we question because some are based on faith, which is an individuals belief in their religion. There are several types of suspense moral, religious, metaphysical and scientific. Each identifying a particular area to question or doubt, but what I let on most questionable or intriguing are the religious hesitation or theological skepticism which examines faith-based claims and scientific skepticism or verifiable skepticism which uses the scientific method of examining claims.Religious skepticism does not mean one would be either an Atheist or Agnostic. These skeptics question religious authority, but are not anti-religious just because they question specific or all religious beliefs or practic es. One of the first religious skeptics was Socrates, he questioned the genuineness of the beliefs during his time of the existence of various gods and this led to his trial and execution. Scientific skepticism seek proof through deductive argument before judge any knowledge in any area, such as wellness claims, environmental claims, parapsychology, etc.Carl Sagan originated scientific skepticism and was a world-famous astronomer and astrophysicist well known for supporting the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) and questioned that there was more than earth in our and other vast universes. There is also a sub-set of scientific skepticism which is call activist skepticism who seek to expose or stir false publicly what they see as the truth behind wonderful claims (Klein, 2000). Socrates claimed that he knew one and only one thing that he knew nothing, which was in line with being a Pyrrhonist.He questioned everyone who claimed to have knowledge, hoping to learn fro m them, but he never claimed that gaining knowledge was impossible and never claimed to discover any knowledge. As such proof of never recording anything to prove or confute his knowledge (Mosser, 2010). Sagan wrote in his publications Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesiswhich is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticism particularly rejection of new ideas before they are adequately testedand youre not only unpleasantly grumpy, but also closed to the advance of science.A reckless mix is what we need. (Sagan, 1995). Both men were skeptics who believed in questioning and challenging claims and exhibited a fascination with discovery. I believe it is in our nature to question everything to discipline we have validated the claim, but as Sagan has stated there is a fine line before tilting it too far to the left or right. I believe the two skepticisms try to get at the answer of how humans came to being. The religious skeptic will question all r eligions by comparing claims and questioning why to find the ultimate truth of our existence and our true meaning.The scientific skeptic will require proof in the way of science before accepting knowledge to be true (Munchin, 2011). By taking the two and trying to analyze and form a more complete set of questions to develop a more commonsense truth or theory behind the human existence would peradventure help me understand or rationalize the questions of why and how in my mind. But I understand there are limits to what I chose to believe as my ideas or perceptions (Shogenji, 2011). The decision between right and wrong is relative to ones society or cultural background.Relativism in the Muslim world would be a death sentence (honor killing) and we would see it as basis relativism. It is easily defendable in their culture and country because it is viewed as a norm or way of life, but not so deep down most other countries. It is all about perspective because we to at one time burned people at the stake for being witches. Ignorance and want of education or knowledge made it defensible and accepted at that time. So is radical relativism defensible, it is all about an individuals or countrys perspective, religious beliefs and culture to decide one way or the other (Mosser, 2010).The basic understanding of philosophy and how it affects our lives is sometimes diaphanous to most people because they only do without thinking. We have gotten so meddlesome with our tethered lives we do not take the time to question why something is true or not, we move around like mindless beings. Epistemology gives us that way to question and seek knowledge to validate truth and to try for to truly understand the why and how of our lives and everything in and around us.Humans should be free to gain, study and question knowledge and claims without repercussions in any social, cultural or religious setting. But this is an ongoing battle to be free from repercussions or persecution of our thoughts, ideas and actions when publically projected. Some countries and cultures still lash out in the way of medieval and barbaric manner at anything that does not fit their way of life and interactions, but it is all relative and it still falls at heart the study of philosophy.Choosing to accept this or not, based on beliefs, ideas and religion is your choice, but to understand and have a greater degree of insight of knowledge and truth is true epistemology. References Bogdanov, A. (1908). Absolute and Relative Truth, or the Eclecticism of Engels. Retrieved from http//www. marxists. org/ history/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5. htm Gwizdka, J. (2010). Human Perception & Cognition. Retrieved from http//comminfo. rutgers. edu/jacekg/teaching/ITI230_HCI/2006_4f/lectures/Lecture3. pdf Klein, P. (2000).Contextualism and the Real Nature of donnish Skepticism. Retrieved from http//www. jstor. org. proxy-library. ashford. edu/stable/pdfplus/3050570. pdf? acceptTC=true Mosser, K. (2010) . A Concise Introduction to Philosophy. San Diego, CA Bridgepoint Munchin, D. (2011). Is piety a science? Paul Feyerabends anarchic epistemology as challenge test to T. F. Torrances scientific theology. Retrieved from http//search. proquest. com. proxy-library. ashford. edu/cv_756002/docview/894110952/fulltextPDF/13C00235777679CB0A0/4? accountid=32521 Sagan, C. 1995). Wonder and Skepticism, Vol 19, Issue 1. Retrieved from http//www. positiveatheism. org/ writ/saganws. htm Shogenji, T. (2011). Internalism and Externalism in Meliorative Epistemology. Retrieved from http//search. proquest. com. proxy-library. ashford. edu/cv_756002/docview/1111853938/fulltextPDF/13C06554AFF58193594/1? accountid=32521 Slick, M. (2012). Cognitive Relativism. Retrieved from http//carm. org/secular-movements/relativism/cognitive-relativism Steup, M. (2005). Epistemology. Retrieved from http//plato. stanford. edu/entries/epistemology/