I’m beginning to think that knowledge is a belief that things work a certain way, the belief that they will continue to work that way until they no longer work that way. Once that belief is shattered, it is no longer knowledge. The belief must have its foundation in empirical experiences.

An example is the function of bows and arrows. Properly functioning bows if used properly will continue to shoot arrows away from the user. As long as this is the case it is knowledge given someone believes this. There can be knowledge of proper use of bows and arrows, the making of bows and arrows, and the repair of bows and arrows. As long as these things continue to work and someone believes they will continue to work, then they know about the use, construction, and repair of them.

Scientific knowledge is something else. It employs explanatory models. Once something doesn’t fit into that model, the model is modified or scrapped. Scientific knowledge is much more tenuous and less useful than the example I gave above, but this needs justification:

Technology precedes science in a lot of cases. Bows and arrows preceded F=MA, for example. However, E=MC^2 preceded the atom bomb. Bows and arrows will continue to work even without scientific knowledge. Atom bombs can be built by step-by-step instructions (simplistic, I know) without understanding E=MC^2 as North Korea probably did through the aid of Russia. Explanatory models are modified all the time. Sometimes they are even scrapped. However, the knowledge of the steps to build an atom bomb are true as long as atom bombs continue to work, regardless of whether E=MC^2 is modified or scrapped for something that works better as an explanatory model.

Thus, useful knowledge is more compelling than scientific knowledge.