How should "knowledgeability" be defined?
Is it merely w.r.t. to best scientific knowledge? What about things that science cannot measure?
Or are there other "reasonable" forms of knowledge? Why are they "reasonable"?
How should “knowledgeability” be defined? Is it merely w.r.t. to best scientific knowledge? [closed]
0
closed as off-topic by Conifold, Mark Andrews, curiousdannii, christo183, Bread Apr 9 at 10:35
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." – Conifold, Mark Andrews, curiousdannii, christo183, Bread
-
scholar.google.com/… Googling knowledgeability on Scholar brings up several academic papers that use the term. You might like to start there. – Bread Apr 8 at 1:34
-
I think this is certainly philosophical question. – mavavilj Apr 9 at 8:55
-
It may be, however I haven't been able to find anything on it in the usual philosophical literature. There is no mention of it in etymology either. It seems to be a term coined and used by the government, CIA, and a few educational researchers. It would be nice if you could provide us with an instance of the word used in philosophical literature. That would give us something to work with. Otherwise, I think this question is more suitable for the English Language and Usage SE. – Bread Apr 9 at 9:54
-
archive.org/details/texts?and%5B%5D=knowledgeability&sin= – Bread Apr 9 at 10:29
-
scholar.google.com/… googled "knowledgeability in philosophy", shows papers on the subject of teaching philosophy to children. – Bread Apr 9 at 10:33
3
Well, mavavilj, definitions are easy - dictionaries are teeming with them. None of them is right or wrong, they're only more or less agreeable to whomever interprets them!
However, 'knowledge' isn't a scientific term, it's a philosophical issue. Science is more concerned with evidence, theory and statistical analysis.
Are you keeping in mind the contemporary (postmodern) approach to the limits of human comprehension? Karl Popper acknowledged (in his 1972 book Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach, p. 75) that the inductive inferences (objective knowledge) which science generates should not be regarded as "true" claims, writing, "...there simply are no sufficient reasons for holding those hypotheses to be true, let alone certainly true.”
Maybe this will clarify what you're asking(?): Popper also proposed that two different kinds of knowledge exist: conscious experiential (subjective) understandings (one's beliefs, opinions and theories) and abstract linguistic sets of ideas ( "objective") knowledge). Neither type is noted for consistency, although scientists and philosophers should certainly focus on coherency!
-
-
Thanks! I appreciate that; language and knowledge do appear weird sometimes...paradox, ambiguity, interpretation...what a mess! – Rortian Apr 9 at 17:09
