European Conference Knowledge Management: Definition, Concepts And Issues

Philosophy of Knowledge

Discuss About The European Conference Knowledge Management?

Knowledge may be defined as the insight into someone or something like information, facts, skills or description that can be gained by education or experience, by discovery, study or perception. It may involve a practical or theoretical understanding of any particular subject. Knowledge may be both implicit and explicit. Implicit knowledge refers to the expertise or practical understanding of a matter while the explicit knowledge deals with the theoretical comprehension of the concerned subject. The essay concentrates on defining knowledge from the philosophical point of view. It throws light on the tripartite definition of knowledge. The following essay mainly focuses on propositional knowledge. This essay also looks into the variations and counter-examples of propositional knowledge and tries to explain them as well.

According to the famous philosopher Plato, knowledge may be defined as any belief that is true and justified (Sisson & Ryan, 2015, September). The study of knowledge is known as epistemology. Knowledge is something that can be acquired and that can be acquainted with. Knowledge maybe derived from a variety of sources. These sources can be broadly categorized into perception, inference, testimony and similarity. Knowledge maybe acquired from the mentioned sources but knowledge does not depend only on these sources. Epistemology includes a person`s belief and what a person believes. Thus, the idea of truth and beliefs incorporated in the concept of knowledge (Pritchard, 2013).

Knowledge, according to many philosophers, may be defined as justified true belief. It holds the view that for ‘a’ to know ‘s’ there must exist an entity ‘s’; ‘a’ should believe in ‘s’ and the belief of ‘a’ should be justified. This definition of knowledge is also known as the tripartite definition of knowledge. This definition of knowledge defines propositional knowledge but not knowledge gathered by virtue of acquaintance. There are philosophers like Edmund Gettier who put forward the theory that the tripartite definition is insufficient (Gettier, 2007). He further argues that the concerned observer may be unaware of the fact that all the clauses of the tripartite are fulfilled.

The word “knowledge” can be defined in various ways in the English language (Göranzon & Josefson, 2012). Firstly, knowledge may be defined as that of individuals. The individual knowledge may be defined as knowledge based on acquaintance. The knowledge mentioned may refer to a person’s possession of knowledge about any person, place other things. Secondly, any knowledge of a fact about any person, place or thing may also be termed as knowledge. In this type of knowledge, a person claims his knowledge of a fact about someone or something. Thus, this is categorized as factual knowledge. Factual knowledge may also be referred to as propositional knowledge. In this type of knowledge, it is not necessary to know the fact and the person or thing that it is attached to in attachment to each other. The facts may be known separately as well. In some languages of the world, it is noticeable that there exists separate vocabulary for knowledge based on acquaintance and knowledge based on facts. Knowledge can be classified in yet another way. Under this categorization, knowledge is classified on the basis of skills.

Tripartite Definition of Knowledge

A proposition may be defined as a statement that can have two values, true and false. The propositions are always found occurring at the end of sentences. Knowledge may be analyzed through the philosophical skill of conceptual analysis. Conceptual analysis aims to achieve a clearer and better understanding of a concept by making an attempt to analyze the situations under which the idea applies. There are three different steps that follow each other in the similar order with the goal of attaining a counter-example free definition of the same. Philosophical readings do not always give such clear results, but nevertheless provides with a deeper understanding of the concept that is being analyzed. The first step towards conceptual analysis is the use of intuitive knowledge towards the method of application of a concept. It refers to the capacity of the concerned person to put forward a primary definition of the concept. The next step of the process is to look for counter-examples if any. The third and final step involves re-evaluation of the primary definition so as to avoid the counter-examples that were encountered.

Philosophical statements and analyses are generally based on sufficient and necessary conditions. The sufficient conditions are those that guarantee that a conclusion would be reached on fulfilling the given conditions. The necessary conditions provided rule out the other alternatives and state that to attain the desired results even those have to be fulfilled. In the language of philosophy, these are known as “if and only if” conditions (Ayer, 1956). In order to arrive at the primary definition, a concept must clear the sufficient and necessary conditions. It may be said that something is ‘a’ if and only if ‘p’. in this example, ‘p’ is both the sufficient and the necessary condition. On further simplification of the definition it may be said that to be identified as ‘a’ the condition ‘p’ should be fulfilled.

Knowledge, according to philosophy, can be derived from belief and certainty. The definition of knowledge as justified true belief put forward certain conditions. It advocates that

In simpler words, it may be said that in order to know something, the topic of knowledge has to be true. The person in possession of the knowledge has to consider it to be true. It has to have reasons enough to support the consideration that it is true. Knowledge can be claimed on a certain topic only when all the constraints discussed above are met. This theory is most of the times conveyed through the declaration that knowledge is justified true belief. Some philosophers suggest that there should be a constraint in the definition of knowledge that deems it eligible to be used in the process of acquiring further knowledge (Grobler, 2012).

Sources of Knowledge

In a paper published in 1963, Edmund Gettier, an American philosopher, had raised a few serious issues regarding this theory of knowledge. In his paper, Gettier had provided with counter-examples to this theory that were deemed crucial for his argument to become successful. The eminent American philosopher argues that it is possible for a person to justifiably believe in a proposition that is, in reality, false. He furthermore states ‘a’ may be justified in his belief ‘p’; ‘p’ needs ‘q’; ’a’ deduces ‘q’ from ‘p’ and trust ‘q’ too be the result of the mentioned deduction (Gettier, 2007; Janvid, 2012). Thus ‘a’ is justifiable in believing ‘q’.

Gettier opens his paper addressing the issue that a belief that seems justified and true is false in reality. His suggestions may lead to the belief that the early humans were logical and justified in their belief that the earth is flat and not spherical or the very existence of Santa Claus. It is found to be extremely logical on the part of the ancestors of modern human beings to believe that the surface of the earth is flat. This is so because they never found evidence of any fact that proved otherwise. Similarly, in the case of the existence of Santa Claus, children have justification enough to believe that the person exists because of lack of reason for doubting parents. Gettier puts forward another assumption against the theory in discussion. According to him, knowledge can be derived from inference drawn from a true belief that is justified (Williamson, 2015). In this case, the justification is inherited from the fact that the inference was taken from a justified belief.

In this context, Gettier puts forward certain case studies to highlight the assumptions (Cohen & Comesaña, 2013). One such case study is referred to as “The Strange Case of Smith and Jones”. In this case is found that Smith is told by the appointment head that Jones is sure to get hired for a job and Smith while waiting for the interview observes Jones counting ten coins. While waiting for the interview results, Smith goes on to further logical deductions and comes to a realization that it entails that the person to be hired possesses ten coins. While Smith is busy in logical deductions, Smith reveals some snippets of his interview which helps Smith deduce that Smith, and not Jones is to be hired. So, it is seen that the earlier proposition that Jones would be hired turned out to be false.

Conceptual Analysis

At times, it may be seen that knowledge at times may be faulty if inferred from a non-reliable source. Gettier suggests the addition of another condition in the analysis of knowledge (Austin, 2012). This condition states that the belief should not be arriving from any inferential process that may involve a false belief. It may be seen that there is a non-inferential source of knowledge that shows that the gained knowledge through sight may not always be true (Williamson, 2015). Knowledge is memory-based which implies that a person should remember a fact learnt at a certain time should remember and acknowledge the same thereafter. Knowledge may be acquired through perception, memory or a combination of the two. Inference is yet another source of knowledge; it can be obtained through various methods like mirroring and reconstruction of previously known facts (Goldman, 1967).

Thus, from the discussion above, it may be concluded that knowledge may be defined on a variety of viewpoints. Many philosophical theories and beliefs define knowledge based on the source of the knowledge as well as the justifiability of the same. The tripartite theory of knowledge may hold good for certain cases of knowledge but not for all the cases. The theories and assumptions put forth by Gettier should also be kept in mind while attempting a definition of knowledge. Knowledge is also affected by inference from multiple cases, presence of subsequent evidence and perpetually formed beliefs. According to philosophers, defeasibility of knowledge and disconnection of the cause and truth-maker also influence knowledge.

References

Austin, D. S. (Ed.). (2012). Philosophical analysis: a defense by example (Vol. 39). Springer Science & Business Media.

Ayer, A. J., & Mari?, S. (1956). The problem of knowledge (pp. 173-175). Harmondsworth: Penguin books.

Cohen, S., & Comesaña, J. (2013). Williamson on Gettier cases and epistemic logic. Inquiry, 56(1), 15-29.

Dancy, J. (1985). Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford.

Gettier, E. (2007). Is justified true belief knowledge?.

Goldman, A. I. (1967). A causal theory of knowing. The journal of Philosophy, 64(12), 357-372.

Göranzon, B., & Josefson, I. (Eds.). (2012). Knowledge, skill and artificial intelligence. Springer Science & Business Media.

Grobler, A. (2012). Fifth part of the definition of knowledge. Philosophica, 86, 33-50.

Janvid, M. (2012). Knowledge versus understanding: the cost of avoiding Gettier. Acta Analytica, 27(2), 183-197.

Lacewing, M. (2015). The tripartite definition of knowledge. An Online Journal taken from www. olevelphilosophy. co. uk.

Pritchard, D. (2013). What is this thing called knowledge?. Routledge.

Sisson, P., & Ryan, J. (2015, September). What do we Know? Building a Knowledge Concept map. In European Conference on Knowledge Management (p. 1028). Academic Conferences International Limited.Ayer, A. (1956). The problem of knowledge. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Williamson, T. (2015). A note on Gettier cases in epistemic logic. Philosophical Studies, 172(1), 129-140.