Home > Blogs > Post Content

Law of Knowledge (1945 hits)

Aristotle said "there is no absolute proof" of its validity except through the ad hominem method, yet "there is no principle more convincing than the axiom itself on which to base an argument, whereas there must be such a principle if there is to be absolute proof." Even though ordinary people and the elite used the law of contradiction to argue, reason and prove the truthfulness of their words and deeds in their daily lives and in their law courts before Aristotle’s time, Aristotle still felt the need to explain the law as clearly as possible to not only offset those few among him who argued contrary (to be argumentative, it seems) to the obvious truth of the principle of contradiction, but to also to affirm the axiomatic nature of the law: the law must be "if there is to be absolute proof" at all. For different reasons I also think it is important to elucidate and affirm the law of knowledge.

The reason I think it is important to understand fully the law of knowledge and its implications is because it leads to logical answers for the theological problem of evil2 and subsequently the meaning of life. It also may lead to better teaching methods, better understanding in science, philosophy and other disciples. The law also demonstrates the difficulty in ascertaining the truth: you need to know a great deal of correct information in order to correctly find the truth and this is one good reason for each of us to be slow to judge one another.

Can I or anyone else ‘prove’ the law of knowledge? Such proof would depend on one’s definition of proof and one’s understanding of the law. Inductive logic and examples of learning help to prove the law of knowledge in a similar way that Aristotle’s reasoning and examples helped to prove the law of contradiction. I believe if you carefully read through my examples and compare them with other examples in your life, you may well find that this law works in all situations pertaining to learning without contradiction and thus should be in the realm of ‘law’ as is the ‘law of contradiction.’ I believe, as I have written about in other papers, that the full cognizant understanding and the usage of both the law of knowledge and the law of contradiction are the only sure pathway to the truth, and this is what makes both of these laws so important and is one reason I wrote this paper.

Posted By: DAVID JOHNSON
Tuesday, November 27th 2012 at 1:21AM
You can also click here to view all posts by this author...

Report obscenity | post comment

Share |

Theory of knowledge is assessed in two parts: an externally examined 1,200–1,600 word essay and an internally assessed presentation.[5] Each part is scored using assessment criteria (four criteria for the essay and four for the presentation) that describe levels of achievement (e.g. "The inquiry explores knowledge issues. Most points are justified; most arguments are coherent. Some counterclaims are considered." describes level 5–6 in one of the essay criteria). The total score is converted into a grade from A to E. A similar system is used for the extended essay and students can gain up to 3 points for the diploma based on the grades achieved for TOK and EE. No diploma is awarded if a candidate fails to submit both a TOK essay and TOK presentation, or receives grade E for both the extended essay and theory of knowledge.
Tuesday, November 27th 2012 at 1:23AM
DAVID JOHNSON

I was reading a few chapters in this book and i thought it was interesting THE LAW OF KNOWLEDGE then it led me to the theory of knowledge ,let me share with you a lil more
"There is a principle in existing things about which we cannot make a mistake; of which, on the contrary, we must always realize the truth—viz. that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, nor admit of any other similar pair of opposites. Of such axioms although there is a proof ad hominem, there is no absolute proof; because there is no principle more convincing than the axiom itself on which to base an argument, whereas there must be such a principle if there is to be absolute proof. But he who wants to convince an opponent who makes opposite statements that he is wrong must obtain from him an admission which shall be identical with the proposition that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, but shall seem not to be identical with it. This is the only method of proof which can be used against one who maintains that opposite statements can be truly made about the same subject. Now those who intend to join in discussion must understand one another to some extent; for without this how can there be any common discussion between them? Therefore each of the terms which they use must be intelligible and signify something; not several things, but one only; or if it signifies more than one thing, it must be made clear to which of these the term is applied. Now he who says that A is and is not denies what he asserts, and therefore denies that the term signifies what it does signify. But this is impossible. Therefore if ‘to be so-and-so’ has a definite meaning, the opposite statement about the same subject cannot be true." [Book 11: pp. 1061b-1062a]

Theory of Knowledge
Epistemology, the study of the theory of knowledge, is among the most important areas of philosophy. The questions that it addresses include the following:
What is knowledge?
The first problem encountered in epistemology is that of defining knowledge. Much of the time, philosophers use the tripartite theory of knowledge, which analyses knowledge as justified true belief, as a working model. The tripartite theory has, however, been refuted: Gettier cases show that some justified true beliefs do not constitute knowledge. Rival analyses of knowledge have been proposed, but there is as yet no consensus on what knowledge is. This fundamental question of epistemology remains unsolved.
Though philosophers are unable to provide a generally accepted analysis of knowledge, we all understand roughly what we are talking about when we use words such as “knowledge”. Thankfully, this means that it is possible to get on with epistemology, leaving unsolved the fundamental question as to what knowledge is.
From where do we get our knowledge?
A second important issue in epistemology concerns the ultimate source of our knowledge. There are two traditions: empiricism, which holds that our knowledge is primarily based in experience, and rationalism, which holds that our knowledge is primarily based in reason. Although the modern scientific worldview borrows heavily from empiricism, there are reasons for thinking that a synthesis of the two traditions is more plausible than either of them individually.
How are our beliefs justified?
There are better and worse ways to form beliefs. In general terms, it is important to consider evidence when deciding what to believe, because by doing so we are more likely to form beliefs that are true. Precisely how this should work, when we are justified in believing something and when we are not, is another topic in the theory of knowledge. The three most prominent theories of epistemic justification arefoundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism.
How do we perceive the world around us?
Much of our knowledge, it seems, does come to us through our senses, through perception. Perception, though, is a complex process. The way that we experience the world may be determined in part by the world, but it is also determined in part by us. We do not passively receive information through our senses; arguably, we contribute just as much to our experiences as do the objects that they are experiences of. How we are to understand the process of perception, and how this should effect our understanding of the world that we inhabit, is therefore vital for epistemology.
Do we know anything at all?
The area of epistemology that has captured most imaginations is philosophical scepticism. Alongside the questions of what knowledge is and how we come to acquire it is the question whether we do in fact know anything at all. There is a long philosophical tradition that says that we do not, and the arguments in support of this position, though resisted by most, are remarkably difficult to refute. The most persistent problem in the theory of knowledge is not what knowledge is or what it comes from, but whether there is any such thing at all.

Wednesday, November 28th 2012 at 12:13AM
DAVID JOHNSON

Buddhists have a teaching that there is no birth and there is no death. This is considered by many, myself included, to be knowledge. Empiricism and rationalism would both say it is not.

Thich Nhat Hanh: On Birth and Death (57 hits)
http://blackinamerica.com/cgi-bin/blog.cgi...

Wednesday, November 28th 2012 at 3:21AM
Steve Williams