Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Arguments from self-knowing take the form: If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true. If Q were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore Q cannot be false. In practice these arguments are often unsound and rely on the truth of the supporting premise.
This includes clarifying the distinction between knowing something and not knowing it, for example, pointing out what is the difference between knowing that smoking causes cancer and not knowing this. [1] [2] Sometimes the expressions "conception of knowledge", "theory of knowledge", and "analysis of knowledge" are used as synonyms.
The "whole truth" is defined as learning "something about everything", "everything about something", or "everything about everything". In reality, a historian "can only hope to know something about something". [36] Homunculus fallacy – using a "middle-man" for explanation; this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding.Deliberate ignorance is a culturally-induced phenomenon, the study of which is called agnotology.. The word "ignorant" is an adjective that describes a person in the state of being unaware, or even cognitive dissonance and other cognitive relation, and can describe individuals who are unaware of important information or facts.
The first condition is logical as people compare new information with what they already know to be true and consider the credibility of both sources. However, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality—so much so that repetitively hearing that a certain fact is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge.Also called theory of knowledge, it explores different types of knowledge, such as propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity through experience.
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
To know where we have a dispute and where a simple mistake, consider whenever the author is really an expert on the topic (and not an expert on another topic, making a brief reference to something beyond their area of expertise), or if the text that breaks the mainstream knowledge is provided on purpose or as a mere passing-by comment. For ...