The changing answer to "What is knowledge?"

[ohio_peasant]

Knowledge implies genuine understanding of how things are, why they're the way that they are, and why alternatives haven't manifested themselves. There has to be a synthesis of information... not just a sifting to get the correct bits and to expunge the merely speculative or the incorrect ones, but to weave a pattern - a mental picture. This is why AI, for example, doesn't really "know" - even if it can beat humans in chess and can now write plausible argumentative essays.

Besides the wheat-from-the-chaff argument, our modern problem is that there's just so much complexity, to much to be known, just to get a very rudimentary and localized picture of some given topic.

[stephenMM]

There's a sort of formula to this. Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom and wisdom is not truth. Information is just that, data or so called facts, and is of no use in and of itself. Knowledge comes from using that data to effect change in the real world. Wisdom is knowing when to effect that change and knowing when its best to just leave things as they are. But truth is not linear, it simply is what it is. I'm talking about ultimate truth, not knowing that taking the Eagles and the points against the Vikings tonight is a good bet. That's just someone else's idea of what is their truth, not the truth that things, all things, simply are what they are. Truth is non conditional.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by stephenMM

Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom and wisdom is not truth.

By definition, to the contrary, knowledge is information/facts (as well as skills) that are acquired through education and/or experience. Wisdom is the applicability of knowledge (and discernment relative to such). If we can’t apply knowledge, we’re no more useful than Google or a link; it is critical thinking, in a sense, in that one is able to conceptualize, analyze, apply and evaluate information relative to belief or action.

[seethelight]

Originally Posted by msgsing

Knowledge is nothing more than information you choose to believe. It’s variable and depends on the individual. You pick and choose. What’s knowledge to one person is someone else’s nonsense. It’s only when there is consensus among many individuals that certain facts and events are taken as factual and verifiable.

Belief is just another way of saying that you don't know something, otherwise you would say I know rather than I believe. The problem with belief is that you can believe anything that you want. That doesn't give me a lot of assurance that one knows anything if they just believe in something, or anything.

Knowledge is gained through actual experience. PERIOD

[stephenMM]

This is my take on it. To start with, we study this or that, and at that point we have information, or data. When we put that data into effect in the world through our actions, then we have knowledge. By using that knowledge in different situations we come to understand that it works in some situations, but maybe doesn't work in others. That's something we call experience.

You don't want the brain surgeon who has the most knowledge to operate on you, it's more important to go w/ the one who has the most knowledge AND the most experience. So experience is highly valued. So far, all of this is linear and cumulative. One thing leads to another and to another. But truth is outside of any of this, as is intuition. They're not linear or cumulative and they're beyond reason or knowledge. They're undefinable, but that's where we should always be coming to.