Knowledge

Question

This piglix contains articles or sub-piglix about Knowledge

Answer 1

Descriptive knowledge

Descriptive knowledge, also declarative knowledge or propositional knowledge, is the type of knowledge that is, by its very nature, expressed in declarative sentences or indicative propositions. This distinguishes descriptive knowledge from what is commonly known as "know-how", or procedural knowledge (the knowledge of how, and especially how best, to perform some task), and "knowing of", or knowledge by acquaintance (the knowledge of something's existence).

The difference between knowledge and beliefs is as follows: A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists in one's mind. Most people accept that for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, true and justified. The Gettier problem in philosophy is the question of whether there are any other requirements before a belief can be accepted as knowledge.

The article epistemology discusses the opinion of philosophers on how one can tell which beliefs constitute actual knowledge.

People have used many methods to try to gain knowledge.

Knowledge can be classified upon a priori knowledge, which is obtained without needing to observe the world, and a posteriori or empirical knowledge, which is only obtained after observing the world or interacting with it in some way.

Often knowledge is gained by combining or extending other knowledge in various ways. Isaac Newton famously wrote: "If I have seen further... it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Inferential knowledge is based on reasoning from facts or from other inferential knowledge such as a theory. Such knowledge may or may not be verifiable by observation or testing. The distinction between factual knowledge and inferential knowledge has been explored by the discipline of general semantics.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 2

Dispersed knowledge

Dispersed knowledge in economics is the notion that no single agent has information as to all of the factors which influence prices and production throughout the system.

Each agent in a market for assets, goods, or services possesses incomplete knowledge as to most of the factors which affect prices in that market. For example, no agent has full information as to other agents' budgets, preferences, resources or technologies, not to mention their plans for the future and numerous other factors which affect prices in those markets.

Market prices are the result of price discovery, in which each agent participating in the market makes use of its current knowledge and plans to decide on the prices and quantities at which it chooses to transact. The resulting prices and quantities of transactions may be said to reflect the current state of knowledge of the agents currently in the market, even though no single agent commands information as to the entire set of such knowledge.

Some economists believe that market transactions provide the basis for a society to benefit from the knowledge that is dispersed among its constituent agents. For example, in his Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill states that one of the justifications for a laissez faire government policy is his belief that self-interested individuals throughout the economy, acting independently, can make better use of dispersed knowledge than could the best possible government agency.

Karl Marx believed that market profits entail "cheating, deceit, inside knowledge, skill and a thousand favourable market opportunities" and that market prices do not reflect the true values of the underlying commodities and assets.

Friedrich Hayek claimed that "dispersed knowledge is essentially dispersed, and cannot possibly be gathered together and conveyed to an authority charged with the task of deliberately creating order".

Dispersed knowledge will give rise to uncertainty which will lead to different kinds of results.

Richard LeFauve highlights the advantages of organizational structure in companies:

"Before if we had a tough decision to make, we would have two or three different perspectives with strong support of all three. In a traditional organization the bossman decides after he’s heard all three alternatives. At Saturn we take time to work it out, and what generally happens is that you end up with a fourth answer which none of the portions had in the first place. but one that all three portions of the organization fully support (AutoWeeR, Oct. 8, 1990. p. 20)."

...

Wikipedia

Answer 3

Distributed knowledge

In multi-agent system research, distributed knowledge is all the knowledge that a community of agents possesses and might apply in solving a problem. Distributed knowledge is approximately what "a wise man knows" or what someone who has complete knowledge of what each member of the community knows knows. Distributed knowledge might also be called the aggregate knowledge of a community, as it represents all the knowledge that a community might bring to bear to solve a problem. Other related phrasings include cumulative knowledge, collective knowledge, pooled knowledge, or the wisdom of the crowd. Distributed knowledge is the union of all the knowledge of individuals in a community.

The logicians Alice and Bob are sitting in their dark office wondering whether or not it is raining outside. Now, none of them actually knows, but Alice knows something about her friend Carol, namely that Carol wears her red coat only if it is raining. Bob does not know this, but he just saw Carol, and noticed that she was wearing her red coat. Even though none of them knows whether or not it is raining, it is distributed knowledge amongst them that it is raining. If either one of them tells the other what they know, it will be clear to the other that it is raining.

If we denote by φ<!-- φ -->{\displaystyle \varphi } that Carol wears a red coat and with φ<!-- φ -->⇒<!-- ⇒ -->ψ<!-- ψ -->{\displaystyle \varphi \Rightarrow \psi } that if Carol wears a red coat, it is raining, we have

Directly translated: Bob knows that Carol wears a red coat and Alice knows that if Carol wears a red coat it is raining so together they know that it is raining.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 4

Domain knowledge

Domain knowledge is valid knowledge used to refer to an area of human endeavour, an autonomous computer activity, or other specialized discipline.

Specialists and experts use and develop their own domain knowledge. If the concept domain knowledge or domain expert is used, we emphasize a specific domain which is an object of the discourse/interest/problem.

In software engineering domain knowledge is knowledge about the environment in which the target system operates for example, software agents. Domain knowledge usually must be learned from software users in the domain (as domain specialists/experts), rather than from software developers. It may include user workflows, data pipelines, business policies, configurations and constraints and is crucial in the development of a software application. Expert’s domain knowledge (frequently informal and ill-structured) is transformed in computer programs and active data, for example in a set of rules in knowledge bases, by knowledge engineers.

Communicating between end-users and software developers is often difficult. They must find a common language to communicate in. Developing enough shared vocabulary to communicate can often take a while.

The same knowledge can be included in different domain knowledge. Knowledge which may be applicable across a number of domains is called domain-independent knowledge, for example logics and mathematics. Operations on domain knowledge are performed by meta-knowledge. Domain Knowledge is the knowledge of a particular stream.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 5

Duality (CoPs)

In the context of a community of practice, the notion of a duality is used to capture the idea of the tension between two opposing forces which become a driving force for change and creativity. Wenger (Wenger 1998) uses the concept of dualities to examine the forces that create and sustain a Community of Practice. He describes a duality thus: '... a single conceptual unit that is formed by two inseparable and mutually constitutive elements whose inherent tensions and complementarity give the concept richness and dynamism' (Wenger 1998, p. 66).

Some compare the concept of a duality to that of Yin and Yang, i.e. two mutually defining opposites.

The opposing entities in a duality need to be viewed from a perspective of balance rather than opposition. The term implies a dynamism, continual change and mutual adjustment as the tensions that are inherent in dualities can be both creative and constraining. (Wenger 1998) identifies four dualities that exist in Communities of Practice: participation-reification, designed-emergent, identification-negotiability and local-global.

The Participation-Reification duality is concerned with meaning. Meaning is created through participation and active involvement in some practice. Reification is a way of making an abstract and concise representation of what is often a complex and frequently messy practice, thus making it easier to share within the community. Because of its obvious links to knowledge management, the participation-reification duality has been the focus of particular interest in this field (Hildreth & Kimble 2002).

The Designed-Emergent duality focuses on time and captures the tension between pre-planned and emergent activities. Designers can plan an activity that is designed to achieve a particular purpose however, some activities emerge through interaction and participation of the community; these are unplanned and may be contrary to what the designers intended. These give participants the opportunity to (re)negotiate existing meaning. The Designed-Emergent duality is often mentioned in relation to the design of on-line learning environments e.g. (Barab, MaKinster & Scheckler 2003)

The Identification-Negotiability duality is concerned with “how the power to define, adapt, or interpret the design is distributed” (Wenger 1998, p. 235). Identification is the process through which individuals build their identities. This can include not only how an individual perceives themselves but also their right to contribute to and shape the direction of a community as a whole. Thus, this duality serves to combine both power and belonging in the shaping of the community.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 6

Empirical knowledge

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Immanuel Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge (in contrast to a priori knowledge).

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists. This is the primary source of empirical evidence. Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research.

Empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this regard, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 7

Encyclopedic knowledge

The concept of encyclopedic knowledge was once attributed to exceptionally well-read or knowledgeable persons such as Plato, Aristotle, Hildegard von Bingen, Leonardo da Vinci, Immanuel Kant, or G.W.F. Hegel. Professor Tom Rockmore described Hegel, for example, as a polymath and "a modern Aristotle, perhaps the last person to know everything of value that was known during his lifetime." Such persons are generally described as such based on their deep cognitive grasp of multiple and diverse fields of inquiry—an intellectually exceptional subset of philosophers who might also be differentiated from the multi-talented, the genius, or the "Renaissance man."

It is no longer considered realistic, or feasible, for any one person to be truthfully described as having encyclopedic knowledge. The concept has been subsumed into the discourses on the production of knowledge and artificial intelligence. Instead, we are now preoccupied with knowledge bases distributed as software or web services.

The idea of encyclopedic knowledge has made many appearances in popular culture and literature. In 1887, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle introduced his fictional master sleuth, Sherlock Holmes, who applied his keen deductive acumen and prodigious range of knowledge to solve his cases. Encyclopedia Brown is a series of books by Donald J. Sobol featuring the adventures of boy detective Leroy Brown, nicknamed "Encyclopedia" for his intelligence and range of knowledge that was first published in 1963. One of the most celebrated is the fictional Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by the late Douglas Adams which began its evolution through numerous mediums as a British radio program in 1978. In 2004, NPR contributor A.J. Jacobs published The Know-It-All, about his experience reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica from start to finish.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 8

Episteme

"Episteme" is a philosophical term derived from the Ancient Greek word , which can refer to knowledge, science or understanding, and which comes from the verb ἐπίσταμαι, meaning "to know, to understand, or to be acquainted with". Plato contrasts episteme with "doxa": common belief or opinion. Episteme is also distinguished from "techne": a craft or applied practice. The word "epistemology" is derived from episteme.

The French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault used the term épistème in a highly specialized sense in his work The Order of Things to mean the historical a priori that grounds knowledge and its discourses and thus represents the condition of their possibility within a particular epoch. In subsequent writings, he made it clear that several epistemes may co-exist and interact at the same time, being parts of various power-knowledge systems. But he did not discard the concept:

I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.

Yet in Foucault's The Order of Things he describes Episteme as:

However, if in any given culture and at any given moment, there is always only one episteme that defines the conditions of possibility of all knowledge, whether expressed in a theory or silently invested in a practice. (Foucault, 168)

Foucault's use of episteme has been asserted as being similar to Thomas Kuhn's notion of a paradigm, as for example by Jean Piaget. However, there are decisive differences. Whereas Kuhn's paradigm is an all-encompassing collection of beliefs and assumptions that result in the organization of scientific worldviews and practices, Foucault's episteme is not merely confined to science but to a wider range of discourse (all of science itself would fall under the episteme of the epoch). While Kuhn's paradigm shifts are a consequence of a series of conscious decisions made by scientists to pursue a neglected set of questions, Foucault's epistemes are something like the 'epistemological unconscious' of an era; the configuration of knowledge in a particular episteme is based on a set of fundamental assumptions that are so basic to that episteme so as to be invisible to people operating within it. Moreover, Kuhn's concept seems to correspond to what Foucault calls theme or theory of a science, but Foucault analysed how opposing theories and themes could co-exist within a science. Kuhn doesn't search for the conditions of possibility of opposing discourses within a science, but simply for the (relatively) invariant dominant paradigm governing scientific research (supposing that one paradigm always is pervading, except under paradigmatic transition). In contrast, Foucault attempts to demonstrate the constitutive limits of discourse, and in particular, the rules enabling their productivity; however, Foucault maintained that though ideology may infiltrate and form science, it need not do so: it must be demonstrated how ideology actually forms the science in question; contradictions and lack of objectivity is not an indicator of ideology. Kuhn's and Foucault's notions are both influenced by the French philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard's notion of an "epistemological rupture", as indeed was Althusser. In 1997, Judith Butler used the concept of episteme in her book Excitable Speech, examining the use of speech-act theory for political purposes.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 9

Experiential knowledge

Experiential knowledge is knowledge gained through experience, as opposed to a priori (before experience) knowledge: it can also be contrasted both with propositional (textbook) knowledge, and with practical knowledge.

Experiential knowledge is cognate to Michael Polanyi's personal knowledge, as well as to Bertrand Russell's contrast of Knowledge by Acquaintance and by Description.

In the philosophy of mind, the phrase often refers to knowledge that can only be acquired through experience, such as, for example, the knowledge of what it is like to see colours, which could not be explained to someone born blind: the necessity of experiential knowledge becomes clear if one was asked to explain to a blind person a color like blue.

The question of a priori knowledge might be formulated as: can Adam or Eve know what water feels like on their skin prior to touching it for the first time?

Zen emphasises the importance of the experiential element in religious experience, as opposed to what it sees as the trap of conceptualization: as D. T. Suzuki put it, “fire. Mere talking of it will not make the mouth burn”.

Experiential knowledge has also been used in the philosophy of religion as an argument against God's omniscience, questioning whether God could genuinely know everything, since he (supposedly) cannot know what it is like to sin. Commenting on the distinction between experiential knowledge and propositional knowledge, analytic philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig has stated in an interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn for the PBS series Closer to Truth that because experiential knowledge is appropriate to the mind which does the knowing, in order for omniscience to be a cognitive perfection God's omniscience must entail God know only and all propositional truths and have only appropriate experiential knowledge.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 10

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be readily articulated, codified, accessed and verbalized. It can be easily transmitted to others. Most forms of explicit knowledge can be stored in certain media. The information contained in encyclopedias and textbooks are good examples of explicit knowledge.

The most common forms of explicit knowledge are manuals, documents, procedures, and how-to videos. Knowledge also can be audio-visual. Works of art and product design can be seen as other forms of explicit knowledge where human skills, motives and knowledge are externalized.

...

Wikipedia