Talk:Knowledge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
- This article covers many aspects of knowledge. For the philosophical areas of knowledge please use epistemology.
[edit] Defining knowledge
Main article: epistemology
While knowledge is a central part of daily life, the actual definition of knowledge is of great interest to philosophers, social scientists, and historians. Knowledge, according to most thinkers, must be justified, true, and believed. Meeting these qualifications may be difficult or impossible. It is also common to weigh knowledge in how it can be applied or used. In this sense, knowledge consists of information augmented by intentionality (or direction). This model aligns with the DIKW hierarchy which places data, information, knowledge and wisdom into an increasingly useful pyramid.
The motivations
- it is not clear and includes such strongly subjective opinions as increasingly useful
- the theory mentioned is not sufficiently grounded in the subject matter literature
- there are many other theories, more or less formal, dealing with knowledge (see for example the discussion above).
- the terms used for the explanation of knowledge are not referenced to the Wikipedia articles (it is lack of congruence and creates a confusion).
In general, I think, the framework used in the article on information could be also useful in the case of knowledge and applied to an insertion of the above intuitive "DIKW hierarchy".
- Adam, the main article for the philosophical definition of knowledge is epistemology... the section here that you're talking about is mainly just a summary of what it says in that other article. If you want to get into the philosophy of knowledge - that's where to do it (which is why the two articles were split anyway!). The phrase "increasingly useful" was intended to illustrate that each stage in the DIKW pyramid is more useful than the lower stage. E.g. Knowledge is more useful than wisdom. I copied your comments on DIKW (below) to that article's talk page, which is where it would be better to discuss them. Sbwoodside 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, the definitions in DIKW are not the same and are not congruent with those presented on the first Google page: search "information, knowledge, wisdom"
See in: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm
According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories:
1. Data: symbols
2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions
3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions
4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"
5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.
The definitions used in the Wikipedia DIKW article are completely different and evolved to the IPK definitions, what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference).
Comment: The IPK meta-ontological definitions are integral part of the TOGA meta-theory of goal-oriented knowledge ordering.
A meta-comment: We should always remember that definition making is not an art but has to be governed by a set of explicite professional rules.
--Adam M. Gadomski 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
And also, the definition for knowledge in this article is highly political. It seems more like a definition for "military intelligence" or something similar. I think it needs a much less biased and open definition. Just a thought. --Eridani 2308, 14 September 2006 (EST)
[edit] Philosophical links
Folks, the philosophy links are intended to be inclusive, not exclusive. The philosophy project is not building an empire - hell, we can't even agree on a format, let alone a colonisation strategy!
Knowledge is an important concept in Philosophy. When the KM folk get their act together enough to make a Wiki project, they are most welcome to put their banners here, too. It's just a link, my friends. Banno 20:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Richard L. Ballard
Why do we care how he defines knowledge? He isn't even famous enough to have his own page on the Wiki - removed this section. Banno 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do we care what Banno writes? Why do we care what Wikipedia says? Hmmm. So when you say " famous enough" do you mean that fame is what you need to sell your ideas?
- I care what Banno (or Ballard or anonymous users) say in the talk page. But I don't think that any of them deserve mention in this article. Fame is what you need to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. A philosophical journal might enjoy original contributions from talented but unknown writers, however. WhiteC 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge (Knowledge - Epistemology)
- some heavy discussions going on here - I believe the knowledge article should remain distinct from the science that studies it. People will search for and link knowledge and not the rather exotic field of epistemology. Iancarter 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- We could always put all the information under Knowledge. This idea of putting the thing separate from the science that studies the thing is not followed at Mathematics, I think. Brian Jason Drake 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree to Iancarter, I do not want to see this merged too for the same reasons. --Wissenslogistiker 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questions
Could somebody explain why do we have Chabad reference in See also section?--66.41.162.254 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are there mentions of sources (e.g., Worthington, 2005) without the complete citation? For a professional researcher this is deeply frustrating. Could someone out there please add the citations to this page?
[edit] What is knowledge?
This section was added in this edit. It struck me as a load of crap when I first saw it and it still strikes me that way. Brian Jason Drake 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The confusion here is perhaps due to some unfamiliarity either with the Sanskrit terminologies included here (although their English equivalents are also given) or with different possible types of definitions for any concept, viz utilitarian, prescriptive or descriptive: the definition here 'describes' what Knowledge can be, in general terms.== PPRao
Here the objective features of knowledge are more emphasized whereas this descriptive definition of knowledge is suited more to clarify the concepts such as truth, justification etc encountered under Epistemology. Hence I wish to remove this definition over to Epistemology.=== PPRao, Aug 18, 2006.
[edit] Levels of Knowledge
The new section, Levels of Knowledge (revision), appears to be original research by the author. The image upload identifies the creator of the chart to be John Jan Popovic. -George100 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Appears to be original research? This article could serve as a good example of the bad stuff in wikipedia... it is a shocker. Most of it deserves oblivion. Banno 11:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Limits of knowledge?
Don't you think that limits of knowledge (of the present) should be mentioned in the article. e.g. uncertanty principal where the position and velocity of an electron can never be known simultaneously?--Matt H. 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Levels of Knowledge
The same knowledge may be present on various levels in different systems [citation needed]. Acquisition of knowledge may be represented as successive cascade like transformation of signal (0) to data (1), then classification of data into knowledge (2), and at the end arriving sometimes to wisdom(3) which successfully describes generalized knowledge of particular topic.
The same information may be existent on different 4 levels:
Signal -> Data -> Knowledge -> Wisdom
And during the information refinement, there are 3 types of transformations
Reception -> Perception -> Cognition
Example: to Listen -> to Hear -> to Understand
Inverse example would be: Thinking -> Grammatical Formulating -> Pronouncing
It is clear that there are different qualities of reception, in terms of sensitivity or wave spectrum, like ability to see different colours, or faculty to hear ultrasound, but there are also different qualities of perception and cognition.
Signal examples are: sound, light or some other wave form energy, while corresponding data examples are recorded sound and photographic image. Articulated human voice may generate intelligible sound which may be used as the information carrier.
Levels of knowledge:
0. Signal - as physical waves or complex pulse information: Level 0 knowledge
1. Data – is captured, coded and recorded signal: Level 1 knowledge
2. Knowledge – systematized, classified, structured and interrelated data: Level 2 knowledge
3. Wisdom – generalised knowledge presented as coherent system: Level 3 knowledge
The intelligent information processing evolves by stages, and the "processed data" from one stage may be considered the "raw data" of the next. So perception is process which transforms input>"raw data" to output>"knowledge"; while cognition transforms input>"raw knowledge" into more abstract and generalized output>"Wisdom".
Reception is the process which transforms signal into data, while inverse process of reception is interpretation of data, i.e. Reproduction of original signal, and recording and reproduction of signals easily achieved by technological devices.
Perception is the process which transforms data into knowledge, and inverse process of perception is interpretation of the thought, i.e. more or less successful Creation of Structured Ideas. For more than three decades [Artificial Intelligence] is trying to emulate human intelligence, but with inadequate results. There are some voice recognition systems and OCR, but they are still much inferior than humans.
Cognition is the process which condenses and generalizes knowledge of one or different correlated topics, into one coherent logical system. For instance Geometry represents a type of knowledge and it has existed before Euclides, but Euclides in his Elements, represents geometry as a coherent collection of definitions, axioms, theorems and proofs thereof, and is one of the oldest example of pure wisdom.
Banno 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
The claim that knowledge is a relative concept needs justification. First off, dear anon, what is my knowledge that I am writing this relative to? What does it mean to say "knowledge is relative"? And secondly, if knowledge is a concept, what is it a concept of? I understand having knowledge of a concept - is that what you meant to say? "Vague" is the wrong word, I think. What is vague about Plato's "justified, true belief"?
I have also removed some repetition. Banno 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Banno,
- From the cognitive perspective, knowledge always is a property of a certain physical system, what is knowledge for a person/robot A can not be knowledge for a person B.
- What is knowledge for the domain of activity D1 of A is not knowledge for his/its another activity domain D2.
- A real-world/physical object which is a knowledge does not exist.
- Therefore knowledge is a relative concept.
- In the modern science, the terms true and belief are ill defined - they have many essentially different definitions.
- In common parlance (what, I suppose, is important for Wikipedia), the term knowledge denotes a mental product which enables to be efficient, such as, justified/validated information, rules, methods, theories and procedures.
- - I suggest to insert this explenation to the article.
- User:192.107.75.158, 02:39, 27 September 2006
- By justification, I of course meant some sort of citation. What you have written here does not address the issue I raised. Banno 10:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ballard
Is there any evidence of noteworthiness for this character? If this is not provided over the next day or so, this section should be removed. Banno 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to see one or two articles/reports of Ballard. Google search: "Richard L. Ballard",publications - no concrete results! only a publicity.
I also think, the article "Richard L. Ballard" edited by 66.75.88.152 and Dxthom in Wikipedia could be a mistake (?) - no references!
--Adam M. Gadomski 07:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I've removed the material. If support is forthcoming, it can be re-inserted. Banno 10:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views - Guidance Required
Hello All
I'm trying to develop Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Gutenberg and Wikipedia information and make it available to the community for free.
My initial post to External Links was deleted so obviously I didn't get it right. I thought the Knowledge Community on this page might be able to assist me and provide quidance.
I've posted my comments, goals and objectives at *Knowledge Generation and Dessimination.
I would appreciate any comments the Knowledge Page community can give me.
Arnold Villeneuve 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'lost' knowledge is still knowledge.
The question to hand is if the article should commence with Knowledge is what is now known" or Knowledge is what is known". From my talk page:
- Banno. Can you provide references of works that support the assertion that 'lost' knowledge is still knowledge. At best it can only be possible to say that it 'was knowledge'. My reasoning for this is mainly consistency with the rest of the article - if 'knowledge' that is not held by a person then it cannot fill Plato's criteria of being 'believed'. Also, although the previous passage about Indian thought has been removed, it also suggested that knowledge has no isolated existence - there has to be a person who wants to know it rgds, ||:) johnmark† 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but then which foot is the shoe on - can you provide references to support the assertion that knowledge that has been forgotten is no longer knowledge? But this is looking in the wrong place. Look at the use of the word: "Knowledge that has been forgotten in no longer knowledge" - what is it then? What was it? Is there something wrong with saying " I used to know her phone number, but I forgot it"? I don't think so. I once had a justified true belief about a particular number, but now I don't remember which number it was I had that belief about.
In the end, the distinction introduced by adding now counts as original research. Banno 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Or to put the point another way, "Knowledge is what is now known" just seems ungrammatical to me. Banno 08:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Banno, whilst agreeing that the grammar is clumsy and requires attention I think you are maybe sidestepping the issue. I really must get more into reading the talk pages as well as the articles - earlier you added 'Knowledge – systematized, classified, structured and interrelated data'. How can 'lost knowledge' be any of those things? I take your point about my failure to provide evidence to support my suggestion. Will think some more and provide such if I can although from my memory it was derived from rather tortuous philosophical arguments that you are, no doubt, already aware of. rgds rgds, ||:) johnmark† 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thankfully I didn't write that. It was part of some unsupported text I removed. Banno 11:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/wwwerg26701/gad-dict.htm IPK definitions], what is not original and ethically not correct (if without a reference) article should remain distinct from the science that studies it. People will search for and link knowledge and not the rather exotic field of epistemology. Iancarter 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Defining knowledge
The definition has become the target of Wikirot, what with everyone adding their favorite philosopher's pet theory. Some culling is needed. Banno 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC) We are all learning to be better.
Knowledge is the matching and combination of information, context and expectation to effectively recreate. The recreation could be time, space, energy or new information. Context as used here describes the mindset of the individual.
I agree with Banno's assessment that most of the entry has become Wikirot. There is much talk of the USES of knowledge but virtually nothing of what it IS. If it is not defined, then it cannot be effectively used. Prof 7 09:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Knowledge Management section
I moved this section down in order prominence and then on reflection, tagged it for discussion, and then untagged it. The relevance tag I placed does not exactly fit what the concerns I have. Clearly Knowledge Management is relevant to knowledge, but my concern is that placing this section in the main article on knowledge gives it excessive weight? Knowledge Management is a body of management consultancy paradigms/theories which emerged in the 1990s (along with ideas of "Knowledge Society" and "Knowledge Age" and "Knowledge Citizens" etc. which didn't last as long). Basically, its corporate and management speak. I'm in two minds about this. Bwithh 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree to this move, the Knowledge Management article appears still in need of an overhaul to shed buzzwords (not the technical language) and clear up confusion that seems to be the root cause of ongoing contention there. It would fit this article on knowledge, though, to offer a clarification for the layperson, the likes of, the distinction between 'knowledge' (what I know) and 'information' (what I am able to convey about what I know), as it appears in Wilson's paper, largely a critique on the indiscriminate use of the term "Knowledge Management". Bernd in Japan 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plato's definition of knowledge
I've just read the following statement: "The classical definition, found in Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed." Since this definiton refers to the Theaetetus dialogue and I've just had a philosophical course about it, I cannot make much sense out of it. Where and how does Plato states these criteria?
In accordance with Cornford the criteria for knowledge are: 1) knowledge must be real 2) knowledge must be unmistakable. Within the dialogue Socrates states this in the beginning of the first thesis (knowledge is perception): "SOCRATES: Then perception is always of existence, and being the same as knowledge is unerring?" Perception fulfills the second criteria, but not the first one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.5.59.150 (talk • contribs) ThT 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Pitiful purges
How come that Peterdjones deletes something he may not agree with. I am disgusted. Inducer 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please ensure content is verifiable, discuss changes on talk pages and write edit summaries.
See Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP:OR
1Z 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] idiot's talk
"Knowledge is what is known." This circular definition does not stand any rational test. See definition in wikipedia. For a hypertext lexicon to remain consistent you should at least concord your defintions all the way round. To push Plato or anyone writing two thousand years ago in the 21th century environment of knowledge is downright ridiculuous. Hiding behind wikipedia editing principles puts you in a very bad light. Why not write a dictionary of quotations from classics instead? Inducer 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
