I am sure that there are limitations of our current knowledge. — Jack Cummins
I am sorry that I have started poorly, and it may be that my thread will not work at all. My point is probably that many think we have such great knowledge in our grasp. I am not denying that, but I think that it is possible to become inflated and not recognize the limitations — Jack Cummins
My initial thinking was about epistemology and how much we really know, but with the implications in people's lives and a veneer of knowledge based on science. — Jack Cummins
In some ways, I think that knowledge is socially constructed and is not absolute. — Jack Cummins
So ask a simple question: "what is gravity?", "what is a particle?", "what is magnetism?". The answers given are only the effects we can perceive of the phenomena. As to what these things are, we don't know. — Manuel
Yes, we approach and try to surround these events thanks to science. — PoeticUniverse
Without science I can approach and try to surround these events too. So can my dog. — MikeBlender
In some ways, I think that knowledge is socially constructed and is not absolute. — Jack Cummins
So ask a simple question: "what is gravity?", "what is a particle?", "what is magnetism?". The answers given are only the effects we can perceive of the phenomena. As to what these things are, we don't know. — Manuel
G]ravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter — Zugzwang
How much of what (we think) we "know" is just illusions of knowing?
What role do illusions of knowing play in living contemporary lives (e.g. ideology, spectacle-simulacra)?
And to what degree does this agnotology occlude understanding of oneself-with-others-in-the-world?
It would be interesting to be able to have knowledge of the actual thing or phenomena that produces these effects in us, that is, what grounds the effects that we perceive as laws of nature or even ordinary perception. — Manuel
There was a time in which this was the aim of science, roughly Descartes' time up until Newton. The Universe was comprehended as a universal machine - like a giant clock - if you can build it, you can understand it. It appears to be our innate way of understanding our given common sense world. — Manuel
Thus science was forced to reduce it aims: from understanding the world to understanding theories of the world. That type of knowledge Descartes and others wanted, would be nice to be able to access. But is beyond our comprehension. — Manuel
Mankind's capacity to store the colossal amount of information in the world has been measured by scientists.
The study, published in the journal Science, calculates the amount of data stored in the world by 2007 as 295 exabytes.
That is the equivalent of 1.2 billion average hard drives.
The researchers calculated the figure by estimating the amount of data held on 60 technologies from PCs and and DVDs to paper adverts and books.
"If we were to take all that information and store it in books, we could cover the entire area of the US or China in 13 layers of books," Dr Martin Hilbert of the University of Southern California told the BBC's Science in Action. — BBC
That's only information, not knowledge; even less a measure of (anyone's) understanding. — 180 Proof
1. Understanding denotes conceptual reflection (i.e. metacognition) by which knowing is distinguished from, and contextualized by, not knowing.Mind if I pick your brain on,
1. What is understanding?
2. What's the difference between information and knowledge? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.