Is knowledge something you have...

[Doreen]

or something you do - or could do?

Does it reflect 'reality'?
or
Does it unravel like an instructions pamphlet?

How do you know someone knows something?

Examples are appreciated. Abstract to concrete, concrete to abstract. Let this be our mantra.

[glaucon]

Dare I?

I suppose I shall..... though, with the caveat that all of these are massive topics that could each fill volumes of space...

or something you do - or could do?

Yes.

Does it reflect 'reality'?

Yes.

or
Does it unravel like an instructions pamphlet?

Yes.

How do you know someone knows something?

You cannot.

Abstract to concrete, concrete to abstract.

To the former, I disagree. To the latter, I agree.



I know you're looking for much more than this Doreen, but I'd like others to have a go at this.
I'll expand upon my comments here at a later date if needed...

[Sarkus]

Doreen - could you start by giving us your understanding / definition of what "knowledge" is, please.

[glaucon]

Doreen - could you start by giving us your understanding / definition of what "knowledge" is, please.

I suspect that that's exactly what Doreen is looking for....

[Sarkus]

She has no current understanding of her own?
I highly doubt that.

In response to the questions:

Is knowledge something you have...

Yes.

or something you do - or could do?

I would say no. Knowledge can be acted upon, though. And you may not be aware that you know.

Does it reflect 'reality'?

Yes.

or - Does it unravel like an instructions pamphlet?

Yes.

How do you know someone knows something?

They can impart their knowledge to you.


So, Doreen, what is your understanding of knowledge? What do you think knowledge is?

[Spud Emperor]

Of course I do.
I've got shitloads of it. Specialised knowledge in specific areas, amateur botany, professional dental technology, amateur icthycology, professional solar technology, amateur child psycholgy, amateur sexology, professional photography, amateur proctology (oh you're still reading), lots of general knowledge (although I can access less of this than I'd forgotten I don't know).
Tautology, reflexology, geology. Gee, I'm a veritable prodigy of ologies.

[cosmictraveler]

Knowledge is something that you acquire throughout life. Stupidity is having the ability not to acquire knowledge and do idiotic things.

[Baron Max]

Knowledge is something that you acquire throughout life. Stupidity is having the ability not to acquire knowledge and do idiotic things.

Can one have knowledge and still do idiotic things? If so, then the knowledge didn't appear to help that person much, did it?

If one has ONLY enough knowledge to kick back with a cold beer, and have someone else provide for his basic needs, isn't he far better (and perhaps more knowledgeable?) than the person who works his ass off to gain knowledge so that he can continue to work his ass off?

I don't know, boys and girls ....I worked my ass off for years and years, then one day I decided to retire. Wow! I can tell y'all right now, all that bullshit about knowledge and hard work and all that crap ain't all it's cracked up to be! Kicking back with a cold beer and watching a good football game is where it's at.

Baron Max

[cosmictraveler]

Can one have knowledge and still do idiotic things? If so, then the knowledge didn't appear to help that person much, did it?

Of course, knowledge is very important in life but how you use it is just as important. We all know that drinking to much causes many medical as well as mental problems with people but still many drink themselves to death every day....don't they. So even though they are aware of what alcohol can do they refuse to use that knowledge wisely to only drink responsibly and within their own limitations. The brightest people sometimes get into many problems because they fail to realize they are digging their own graves with things they do and they know they shouldn't.

[glaucon]

She has no current understanding of her own?
I highly doubt that.

I'm sure she does.
Obviously, the question was meant to elicit responses from others, so as to compare her understanding of what knowledge is, to that of others...

Of note here: "understanding" is different from "knowledge".



Or is it???

[Doreen]

Doreen - could you start by giving us your understanding / definition of what "knowledge" is, please.

The word seems to mean a number of things:
1) (the commonest) - can accurately describe the way things are - and more fussy versions include something about one have arrived at this description appropriate reasoning praxis.
2) can function effectively, achieve certain material goals

my everyday way of describing declarative and tacit/procedural knowlege - which I am keeping together in this post - done off the top of my head.

But please, before you eat into my versions. I am interested in your version. I have had too many long rambling posts and I would like to play a demonic - but hopefully interesting - socrates and see if I can flesh out some of the problems with representationalism, should that come up.

Humor me, what the heck.

[Doreen]

Of course I do.
I've got shitloads of it. Specialised knowledge in specific areas, amateur botany, professional dental technology, amateur icthycology, professional solar technology, amateur child psycholgy, amateur sexology, professional photography, amateur proctology (oh you're still reading), lots of general knowledge (although I can access less of this than I'd forgotten I don't know).
Tautology, reflexology, geology. Gee, I'm a veritable prodigy of ologies.

Can you describe what it means to have knowledge of (amateur) botany?

Thank you and thanks for concrete examples, now we can get down to brass tacks - I realize that wasn't one of your areas of expertise.

[Doreen]

Knowledge is something that you acquire throughout life. Stupidity is having the ability not to acquire knowledge and do idiotic things.

Acquire, as a verb, puts you, so far, in the 'have' knowledge camp. Can you give me an example of knowledge you have acquired. The more specific, the better. And how would I know you have this knowledge, whatever it is?

[Doreen]

[QUOTE=glaucon;2452072]

Dare I?.

Apparantly

Yes.

On one of your yesses you seem to be in disagreement with Sarkus who said No. I'd be interested in seeing what your difference of opinion is. It had to do with knowledge being something you do.

You cannot.

Here you said know. That one cannot know another has knowledge - proctors and test makers worldwide are now gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair - and Sarkus said Yes. His criterion was that they could pass on the knowledge to you.

Note: having knowledge is still the ruling metaphor. It is like knowledge is a possession on has which can be passed to another. Or not.

I will add this clarification. I am not challenging the problem of other minds when I asked this. I do not mean 'know' in some ultimate 100% thing. But what would make you decide or accept that another person knew something? When would you refer to them as knowledgeable in a certain area?

To the former, I disagree. To the latter, I agree.

I assume this was a joke. I wasn't asserting anything, I was suggesting how the discussion might go. One makes an abstract assertion, then peppers support with examples. Sometimes one moves in the other direction, from the example to the abstract, rebolstering one's case.

[Doreen]

Everyone,
I think Baron's question opens a nice area.

Can one have knowledge and still do idiotic things? If so, then the knowledge didn't appear to help that person much, did it?

He's on a broad, general level, but I think on specific areas of knowledge the question is a very useful one.

Some examples could be that one knows that goats are herbivores and will answer this correctly on a test, but one pictures, every time, a sheep in one's mind. So, when at a farm, and asked to bring the goat into the barn, one brings in the sheep.

Then there is knowledge which is in the category wisdom or insight. You know that driving drunk is dangerous and you do not want to die. Yet you drive drunk on occasion. What do you know and not know?

[Doreen]

Of course, knowledge is very important in life but how you use it is just as important.

And this is interesting. We can have knowledge but not use if correctly.

That's me paraphrase and not necessarily quite what ct meant.

If one can have knowledge and not know how to use it is that knowledge knowledge?

A separate issue but connected issue - oxymoron time.....

Isn't how you use it knowledge?

In a way, I think I am asking, can one simply have declarative knowledge about something without auxiliary tacit knowlege? Would such knowledge really be knowledge?

[Doreen]

I'm sure she does.
Obviously, the question was meant to elicit responses from others, so as to compare her understanding of what knowledge is, to that of others...

Of note here: "understanding" is different from "knowledge".



Or is it???

The interesting thing is I would not say I have an understanding of knowledge. IOW that I have a position. Most of it is tacit or procedural, but certainly not organized into a whole, let alone a conscious one. I would guess my behavior and assertions - not so much here, but in person - reflect this. I find I am not a monad. I think if I could look at a transcript of myself in all instances over the last year where I am talking about knowledge, probably mostly implicitly, I would find a number of epistemological positions and criteria and not all of them fitting together perfectly.

Makes me want to ask the question of whether other people actually experience themselves as epistemological units. But I won't cause we might get off track.

By asking you all I can see the positions outside me, more clearly that is, and get my teeth into some of the problems and implications of our ideas about knowledge.

I do have some strong opinions about epistemology - no need to say this for your knowledge base, but I'm letting you know I am aware of this - but these are often about how more should be included in 'ways of acquiring/demonstrating knowledge' as opposed to some coherent overview.

[cosmictraveler]

Acquire, as a verb, puts you, so far, in the 'have' knowledge camp. Can you give me an example of knowledge you have acquired. The more specific, the better. And how would I know you have this knowledge, whatever it is?

Put hand into fire, get burned, learn that it is true that fire can hurt. Put your hand into fire and tell me what you learn.

[Baron Max]

And this is interesting. We can have knowledge but not use if correctly.
If one can have knowledge and not know how to use it is that knowledge knowledge? ...

If one has knowledge, but can't use it, the knowledge is still knowledge, but it's worthless in any real sense of living. From my own former profession, I can give you a real-life example ...many architects that I knew in my career had lots and lots of knowledge, but they couldn't have driven a nail or laid a brick or troweled concrete to save their lives.

Alone in the world, the architect's knowledge was worthless. But connect that knowledge with the knowledge to form and pour concrete, and lay up a brick wall and ...voila'... a building springs forth on the plains!

Our society usually gives all the credit for that building to the architect who designed it ...failing miserably in giving the tradesmen the credit that they're due. So, ...who has the knowledge in that little scenario?

Baron Max

[Doreen]

If one has knowledge, but can't use it, the knowledge is still knowledge, but it's worthless in any real sense of living. From my own former profession, I can give you a real-life example ...many architects that I knew in my career had lots and lots of knowledge, but they couldn't have driven a nail or laid a brick or troweled concrete to save their lives.

Alone in the world, the architect's knowledge was worthless. But connect that knowledge with the knowledge to form and pour concrete, and lay up a brick wall and ...voila'... a building springs forth on the plains!

I'm not sure that's quite the same thing, though I like the example very much. The architects could, no doubt, create the architectural drawing for the houses or buildings. So it not simply that they had ideas in their heads and could not do things with them. To me their knowledge would be useless if they always designed structures that were severely flawed, despite getting answers on tests correct about how much stress some support could take, etc.

Our society usually gives all the credit for that building to the architect who designed it ...failing miserably in giving the tradesmen the credit that they're due. So, ...who has the knowledge in that little scenario?

I think it is great you've brought class issues into knowledge. I would say boht have knowledge, if they are competent, and they are knowledge of different kinds. The interesting thing would be, for example, if the tradesmen could build a house intuitively without a design or only with a vague plan for the whole. IOW if their knowledge was almost entirely tacit, yet they could go ahead with the whole design as it came out organically.

Note: I am not saying tradesmen only have tacit or procedural knowledge. I know tradesmen who have built houses without the involvement of architects and I assume many could. I have also known lay people who became tradesmen, slowly, while building their own houses and learning as they went.