Study of Knowledge

Epistemology The Study of friendship Jeff Castro PHI 200 Dr. Akins February 4, 2013 Epistemology The Study of Know conductge The work of experience has al counsellings been the journey toward uprightness and sympathiseing. Epistemology deals with the creation and distri only ifion of friendship in trusted argonas of inquiry. mercifuls should be relinquish to gain, study and disbelief noesis and claims without repercussions in some(prenominal) social, ethnical or ghostly setting. As we start forward in our savvy of life, religion and personality, we prevail changed our room of esteeming by dint of philosophy.We are less(prenominal) ignorant and uneducated rough the veritys of the demesne and how we as human beings perform in it. Knowledge and the confirmation of noesis force out be confirmed by propositional and adjective tell apartledge or intimacy by acquaintance. Propositional intimacy is expressed in indicative objurgates or indicative proposition s of aces feelledge base on the cognize or knowing that. If almost hotshot says every last(predicate) birds have feathers they are stating or insist a proposition that is factual or somewhat factual. Procedural cognition is the experience used in the performance of a task, such(prenominal) as knowing how to put back brakes on a vehicle.It is well-educated knowledge through doing that act. Knowledge by acquaintance is experience establish knowledge admited through casual interaction, such as knowing a speckle or person well (Mosser, 2010). knowledgeable for certain is alship adviseal refutable because everyaffair asshole be ch bothenged. For the three identified ways of attaining knowledge, the virtually challenged hotshot is propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge receives the most in finis because of the statements it brings forward, like I look at that, I know that and I think that (Steup, 2005). These statements are based on wholenesss beliefs, thoug hts and ideas which rear be top doged.If knowledge is based on ones beliefs or opinions it result bring challenges, alone remember an individuals ideas based on beliefs or opinions should respected. We are certain of the different two due to experiencing or performing acts to solidify the knowledge. provided thence calm can be inquireed because of contrastive procedures or experiences can still will in a different or validation of an outcome or answer. To release what we really know is inherited, learned or experienced. We can non really be certain of our knowledge because we can be tricked or confine by our signified that provides us this culture to confirm or deny what we know or learn.Knowledge at one manoeuver is imperfect, hardly the truth at that promontory and is reinforced by the progress of cognizance to be an absolute truth to some degree and as Vladimir Lenin says, There is no impassable boundary between sex act and absolute truth. (Bogdanov, 1908). Th e normal order of the piece is how we perceive it through our senses. It can scat tricks on us and deceive through illusions that the mind receives from sight, sound, taste and touch. How homo severalize what is real and not real through their senses is know as empiricism (Mosser, 2010).Empiricists descry that at that place is no such thing as innate knowledge, exclusively preferably knowledge is received from experience. On the joust side you have rationalism which hear knowledge to be innate. It argues that the knowledge of God, math 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, exclusively requires other things to hurt or build the mind, the senses.Lets break buck the five senses (vision, sound, touch, smell and taste) and submit to understand what can be express mai l and why. mint can be received or altered based on the tycoon to distinguish objects, the depth or field, color, contrast, or even color blindness. Sound can be affect by the batch or pitch that is received by the ears. Touch can be affected by your haptic acquaintance and how polished ones outer strip down is. Smell and taste can be affected by our bad habits (smoking and drinking), distemper or medications. So the limitations of ones senses can fool and be limited by our own doings and by the aging process (Gwizdka, 2010).Cognitive relativism is the idea of the knowledge we hold of the real serviceman requires tending from our mental/mind to build and support and that things being the truth or senseless are intercourse to a society, theme or individual. I also regard that there are cognitive diagonal, notational bias and culture bias, which prevents us from looking or analyzing something objectively with our senses (empiricism) which we cannot discount. So to real ly submit a position of truth would wager 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 to a greater extent assertable perspectives to determine any possible assessment of the truth to be determined. This government agency that there is doubt and uncertainty rough how we see the world and the truth about it based on perspectives. The limits to human perception or cognition are leap 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 take in we would be frequently(prenominal) better off, but remember it is all based on ones perspective of faith, ideas, thoughts and knowledge. scruple is original ly was defined as mortal who simply looked at things and now it is someone 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 headway everything for it is uncertain that we really know the truth about something.Yet there will still be limits on what we straits because some are based on faith, which is an individuals belief in their religion. There are several types of suspense moral, sacred, metaphysical and scientific. Each identifying a special(prenominal) area to question or doubt, but what I find most questionable or intriguing are the apparitional disbelief or theological mental rejection which examines faith-based claims and scientific disbelieverism or empiric 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 practices. iodine 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 affirmation forwards pass judgment any knowledge in any area, such as health 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 active skepticism who seek to expose or prove false publicly what they see as the truth behind sinful claims (Klein, 2000). Socrates claimed that he knew one and only one thing that he knew nothing, which was in broth with being a Pyrrhonist.He questioned everyone who claimed to have knowledge, hoping to learn from them, but he neer 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 possibilitywhich is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticismespecially rejection of new ideas in the lead they are adequately runneledand youre not only unpleasantly grumpy, but also closed to the advance of science.A saucy mix is what we need. (Sagan, 1995). Both men were skeptics who believed in question and challenging claims and exhibited a bewitchment with discovery. I believe it is in our nature to question everything to ensure we have authorise 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 sk epticisms try to get at the answer of how humans came to being. The religious skeptic will question all religions 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 examine and form a more off set of questions to develop a more sensible truth or scheme behind the human existence would by chance help me understand or rationalise 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 ascendant relativism. It is good defendable in their culture and uncouth because it is viewed as a norm or way of life, but not so within most other countries. It is all about perspective because we to at one time burned people at the stake for being witches. Ignorance and lack of upbringing 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 transparent to most people because they only do without thinking. We have gotten so busy with our tethered lives we do not take the time to question why something is true or not, we move some like mindless beings. Epistemology gives us that way to question and seek knowledge to validate truth and to hope to unfeignedly 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 rel igious setting. But this is an current 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 gothic and barbaric manner at anything that does not fit their way of life and interactions, but it is all relative and it still fall within 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/archive/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 temperament of Academic Skepticism. Retrieved from http//www. jsto r. 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 religion 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). ask 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/