Knowledge Is Nothing More than a Systemic Representation of Facts - Term Paper Example

Knowledge is nothing more than a systemic representation of facts Knowledge is nothing more than a systemic representation of facts There have been several approaches that have been taken in defining and categorizing knowledge. Some approaches include the referral of knowledge as a systemic representation of facts. This approach will be discussed in the essay as it contains elements of truth as well as some negative attributes. Ways of acquiring knowledge such as reason, sense perception, language and emotion will be used in the paper to emphasize some of the points utilized. In addition, the paper will use two areas of knowledge which include the arts and human sciences to illustrate that knowledge is more than just a systemic representation of facts. The paper will assess the hypothesis by breaking down each of its components. Firstly knowledge has been defined by many different sources from different perspectives. Though this process contains facts, it is not limited to them. The definition of facts will be discussed further in the paper, but it is worth noting that knowledge is comprised of more than just facts. In addition, which criteria will be used to determine these facts? Will these facts be dependent on different sources such as authoritative or empirical?1 This point also raises the question involving which definition of knowledge should be used, whether it should be one which is inclusive or one that defines it as involving justified true beliefs. Another aspect that will also be discussed is systemic organization and what system is being referred to in the definition. The word systematic itself raises a topic of debate as it can be influenced by many different aspects such as culture, it can also be individual or universal and the system to be used and for what area of knowledge this system can be applied2. The use of the term systemic when defining knowledge is rather obsolete and vague. However, human knowledge is composed in a way similar to a Jigsaw puzzle, where by the information that is known should coincide in a way that is coherent. For example, an individual is unable to believe in a particular fact that opposes what he or she perceives to be totally true. If he or she believes in both facts it indicates that both are partially incorrect, hence emphasizing on the law of contradiction when assessing the systemic aspect of knowledge3. However, this theory can be contradicted in two different areas of knowledge. For example, it is represented in the area of mathematics, however in the arts there is no defining line for right or wrong as artistic knowledge can be created from many different even contradicting factors. Furthermore, the use of the word fact is also an area of debate as knowledge and what individuals perceive to be facts is largely dependent on their culture, society and history therefore illustrating that facts themselves may not be factual. For example many theories in human sciences have been perceived to be factual and knowledge was based on these theories4. Before the developments in modern medicine, several disorders were assumed to be incurable and the anatomical composition was assumed to be much different to what is known today. Hence, this shows that knowledge cannot be considered as a representation of facts rather a symbol of what is perceived whereas ignorance is an indication of what is not perceived5. As mentioned above, human sciences are an area of knowledge which can be considered as organized or systematic. This is because apart from research, an individual is expected to be aware of certain information which is not subject to improvisation, improvement or change. However, despite this factor it is still debatable whether knowledge can be considered a systemic representation of facts as according to Plato, knowledge represents a tri-factor of something that is believed, justified and true; criteria which are difficult to meet in the scientific world6. The arts however, completely disregard this definition this aspect of knowledge is not restricted to systematic process or certain facts. In fact, true artistic value lies in the ability of an individual to introduce new creations that are different to what was previously available to the community. Conforming to a certain artistic approach or systemic way of thinking will devalue the meaning of art itself and will inhibit the growth of this department7. The hypothesis also mainly defines information rather than knowledge. Information is comprised of unprocessed data whereas knowledge is often restructured by an individual into some form of frame which enables him or her to remember, so to some extent knowledge is synthesized information by the receiver. As mentioned above, knowledge is comprised of more than just facts which mainly represent general knowledge that is shared by everybody8. However, it undermines personal knowledge which is possesses information that is not considered as facts but may be equally relevant. In addition, individuals each acquire knowledge using different methods and hence devalue the systematic approach. In essence, knowledge may not be systemic at all and maybe represented in many different ways from abstract viewpoints. However, there are several benefits that are associated with taking a systemic approach to acquiring knowledge. For example, a systemic approach improves the learning process and is useful in memory and withholding information. A systemic process also has some disadvantages as a disruption if the system may confuse an individual and disrupt the process of acquiring knowledge. In addition, it may also affect the application of the knowledge as an individual would have accustomed him or herself to a particular system9. The hypothesis also has some validity and can be implemented when defining knowledge. If one takes the empiricism approach, facts are considered as information that is proven and attained from observation. Therefore, other information cannot be considered as facts but just opinion or belief. This addresses the issue of facts and what they involve. In addition, one must systematically organize different facts in order for them to make sense and give them meaning in the world10. This aspect is also necessary in ensuring that the facts can be implemented into everyday life as knowledge. Therefore, these facts and this knowledge is what is used to explain the world. Taking this approach enables us to avoid ambiguity in the definition of knowledge as it annihilates emotions and biased language whilst utilizing a combination of reason and perception. However, as mentioned above, knowledge is not only restricted to facts and these only comprise a part of what encompasses knowledge11. Personal knowledge is not always biased or unreliable and the above mentioned argument undermines this aspect. Equally relevant personal knowledge can exist in the form of reason, emotion, sense perception, imagination, language, faith, creativity and intuition. In addition, despite the fact that systematic organization is useful and essential in defining the world around us, it is not a general concept and cannot be applied for all aspects of knowledge12. As mentioned above, the difficulty in generalizing knowledge lies in the difference between the areas of knowledge and the processes involved with each of them. For example, natural sciences involve analysis, observation, and conclusion and cross analysis of results to determine facts. Whereas artistic knowledge involves a combination of creation and experience as knowledge of previous creations enables an individual to create something original and new. Artistic knowledge mainly involves personal aspects that have been mentioned above13. These are indicative of the different presentations and forms that can be adopted by knowledge and illustrate that at times personal knowledge may supersede general knowledge which is often utilized when determining facts indicating the flaw in the definition. Therefore according to the data stated above, the statement that “knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts” is incorrect due to its widely inappropriate generalization and abstract definition of factors such as knowledge and systematic organization. There are several factors that were generalized by the statement and lack clarity. Examples that were mentioned above include facts being able to take numerous definitions and meaning. In addition, there are no criteria to determine these facts as they can vary for different areas of knowledge. Systematic organization is also an area that was discussed as it also raises questions of the systems that should be used and for which area of knowledge this system should be utilized. Arguments can be made that the world around us is explained by these systems; however, this does not apply to everything. The above mentioned information shows that knowledge is comprised of more aspects apart from just facts. Knowledge is comprised of what is perceived by an individual and what is not. This is a more generalized however, accurate way of defining a subject that is broad and encompassed by many different factors. Any attempt that is made to narrow this definition will comprise its meaning in different areas of knowledge. Other factors may be expanded such as the meaning of facts and the systems to be used however, this still does not give the definition a substantial basis. References Argote, L. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. 2013. Springer. p. 20-35 Audi, R. Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. 2010 Routledge. p.22-33 Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. 2013 Psychology Press. p. 65-90 Van de Lagemaat, R. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma Full Colour Edition. 2011 Cambridge University Press. p. 12-35 Read More