The complex dilemma that we have to face from the readings is essentially how to define knowledge and differentiate it from true belief.<\/p>\n
After completing the readings, I was eager to claim that someone can know something without having full knowledge of it. For example, while I know that (-b\u00b1\u221ab2<\/sup>-4ac)\/2a and that a2<\/sup>+b2<\/sup>=c2<\/sup>, I do not have a full understanding of why these are true and accepted mathematical equations. I would have gone so far as to argue that I do not have knowledge of these. Certainly, I know how and when to use them, but by Pritchard\u2019s standards in What Is This Thing Called Knowledge<\/i>, I do not know why<\/i> I use them and therefore lack knowledge on both the quadratic formula and Pythagorean\u2019s Theorem. The evidence and reasoning that I needed to justify my true belief (which even then is not enough to be knowledge as noted by Edmund Gettier) stems merely from the fact that I learned these theorems in class and had practiced them enough to know that the answers I derived from such equations were true.<\/p>\n When does simply accepting something that we\u2019ve learned in class become knowledge? Or does it ever?<\/p>\n Due to these questions, I decided to do some research and came across the terms \u201ca priori knowledge\u201d and \u201ca posteriori knowledge.\u201d A priori knowledge is independent from personal experience while a posteriori knowledge is developed from our personal experiences. These were fully discussed by Emmanuel Kant, a German philosopher, and he held that fields such as mathematics, physics, and metaphysics fall into this umbrella of knowledge. Therefore, the concepts that I have come to learn and accept in mathematics are examples of a priori knowledge, that I have gained independently and which are accepted universally.<\/p>\n Yet this makes me think of the Ptolemaic system (or geocentric model) which states that the Sun revolves around the earth. Of course, we now know this to be false due to the work of Nicolaus Copernicus. However, before his discovery, it was a system that was generally accepted in the Roman and medieval worlds. While we know it was a false belief, for those during ancient times, it was accepted and considered true. There are people who have long been dead who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. This now transitions us into the topic of belief versus knowledge. Belief, even true belief (as discussed in the readings, particularly in The Meno<\/i> by Plato) cannot be considered knowledge. Belief can simply give more credibility to knowledge that one has gained because one cannot truly purport to know something if they do not fully believe it. To know is, in a sense, to believe. But, conversely, it does not mean that to believe is to know.<\/p>\n Knowledge cannot be narrowed down so easily to \u201cgetting things right\u201d because aside from the possibility of one merely being lucky (which was discussed by Pritchard and Gettier), there are many things that we as humans do not fully understand. For example, when we begin to approach questions that no one truly knows the answers to, such as whether or not there is a god or whether or not abortion is ethical or what is our purpose in life, we reach an area in which knowledge is difficult to determine. They may feel that they know and perhaps they may<\/em> be right, but that does not necessarily mean that these beliefs are knowledge. When can (assuming they can) any of the answers that people develop to these questions cross the barrier of belief and transition into the knowledge we as humans naturally seek? Sure, we certainly have a slew of theories with plenty of evidence that would typically justify such theories as Plato suggests. But while we have evidence for theories such as evolution, that does not stop people from whole-heartedly believing in God and decrying the alleged falsity of such a theory. Will the answers that we develop for the questions that we have yet to find concrete evidence for remain beliefs forever? Until we find concrete evidence that “ties them down by (giving) an account of the reason why”, we can never gain knowledge on the answers to these questions (Plato, The Meno)<\/em>.<\/p>\n There was, I felt, an important line to note in the last section of the first chapter in What Is This Thing Called Knowledge<\/i>: \u201cwhether or not the world is round, for example, has nothing to do with whether or not we think that it is, but simply depends upon the shape of the earth.\u201d I know that we will discuss truth throughout the semester, but this begs the question of whether or not we can know if something is really true. We can be misled and deceived, we can be wrongly taught and filled with fallacies, accepting these lies as true. We can live a life devoid of truth if we so choose it or even if we do not choose it. How can we ever really know the truth if we are only taught lies?<\/p>\n From these readings, the only thing that I can firmly conclude is that I do not really know anything. None of us do.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sources (other than the readings):<\/p>\n “a priori knowledge.”\u00a0Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition<\/em>. Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 08 Sep. 2014. <http:\/\/www.britannica.com\/EBchecked\/topic\/117\/a-priori-knowledge<\/a>>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The complex dilemma that we have to face from the readings is essentially how to define knowledge and differentiate it from true belief. After completing the readings, I was eager to claim that someone can know something without having full knowledge of it. For example, while I know that (-b\u00b1\u221ab2-4ac)\/2a and that a2+b2=c2, I do … Continue reading We know nothing.<\/span>