Looking at the dictionary definition of 'knowledge', I see I could be conflating knowledge with facts. Oy, where are Speakie and fast when you need them?
The Merriam Webster def of knowledge:
Definition of knowledge
1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding
answered to the best of my knowledge
c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
a person of unusual knowledge
2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b archaic : a branch of learning
3 archaic : sexual intercourse
4 obsolete : cognizance
Obviously the bolded bits are problematic for the stance I have taken in this thread: if something can be considered knowledge even if it amounts only to a body of 'information', and since much 'information' can be false, then by MW's definition items of belief (even falsehoods having nothing to do with religion) can be thought of as knowledge.
"Understanding" doesn't help my view either. How can one's 'understanding' be considered knowledge when one's understanding can be so utterly incorrect, like a flat-earther's understanding of the shape of the planet? Or a YEC's understanding of the age of the planet?
Even more strange (to me) is that, according to the above definition, simply being 'aware of something' can be considered knowledge. So, if a mentally ill person is aware of a six-foot rabbit named Harvey who goes everywhere with him, and with which he can have conversations, this can be considered 'knowledge'?
My opinion is that knowledge should be thought of as (and defined by) that which can be objectively verified, and not just 'information' in the mind gleaned from experience and learning - since experience and learning can
potentially lead one down the rabbit hole of total silliness.
WAB's New Revised Theory of Knowledge [in direct defiance of accepted definitions] (and this is my view, and you're all entitled to disagree with me - which no doubt you will):
We all have assumptions and beliefs, and those are fine; but to
know something is to know a
fact. If it is not a fact, we do not
know it.
***
One more thing, lest I be misunderstood:
I can know MW's definition of knowledge as a verifiable, objective fact - but this has no bearing on the truth value of that definition. The definition can be too liberal and I believe it is.
The first line of Keats's poem "Endymion" is
A thing of beauty is a joy forever
1) That this
is the first line of said poem is a fact, in that it is objectively verifiable.
2) Whether or not the line is
true is a matter of subjective opinion, hence
not a fact.
Hence, according to my theory (lol), my knowing that the line exists is an item of knowledge; but if I were to say that the line is 'true', that is a matter of opinion.
Ergo, religious people can quote from scripture till the cows come home, and said text is objectively verifiable; but the fact of the existence of the text has no bearing on its truth value.
Maybe a good idea for a thread would be:
Knowledge, facts, truth: compare & contrast.
