Do we know...?

I know it is raining (?)
According to Wikipedia, “Rain is a form of precipitation, other forms of which include snow, sleet, hail, and dew. Rain forms when separate drops of water fall to the Earth's surface from clouds.” What we can infer from this definition is that rain is only one form of precipitation, it occurs in separate drops, and it comprises of only water. First of all, how do we notice rain? It appeals to our senses – sight, touch, hearing, smell and even taste for those who have tasted rain. We first are probably aroused by the aroma (or stench depending on opinion) of the wet mud, after which we see a foggy horizon or the small droplets on the glass window, then to make sure, we feel the wet droplets on our skin and hear the drops falling to the ground. Knowing its raining is not the knowledge of our brain, it is the knowledge of our senses. Of course to know that droplets form the sky are rain, descriptive knowledge is required but only with your senses are you able to further confirm. The descriptions mentioned of rain are definitely restricted to my experience with rain or my knowledge by acquaintance with rain and hence they are individualistic and depend on my environment. For example, a person in the Sahara desert would not associate rain with my descriptions, and when he describes rain to me I would probably not want to call his description rain because my rain is something I have grown up with. However, I am not stating that if rain droplets were to fall in Mumbai, a person in the Sahara wouldn’t call it rain. Rain can be academic but otherwise each person has a certain attachment to the meaning of rain. It is similar to the previous argument on “I know Paris.” I may know it but I don’t know it like you do.
According to the definition of rain, water falls to the ground. Technically speaking, the droplets falling to the ground are not water. They are water, with acids according to what science tells us. Therefore I could even state that it never rains because there is always acid in water from the sky. This would mean that the whole definition of rain has to change as it is too specific for anything. This would mean that if it started raining, according to the academic knowledge it wouldn’t rain but according to my knowledge with acquaintance, the feel and the smell would remind me of rain. There have been numerous examples of such cases where phenomenons do not stick to their definition. One example of can be related to the definition of a plant and the reason why the kingdom fungi was classified under it initially. Fungus sticks to all the descriptions of a plant except for the fact that it is a hetrotroph. Earlier this was just looked upon as an exception but because of the universal approval that a new kingdom should be created, fungi were no longer the exception. Because our world is so used to a certain connotation, changing a definition would be difficult and there are times we have to make few technical exceptions.

I know stealing is wrong (?)
Stealing by definition is “larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully.” This definition has been coined by society which has based this definition on the justice and ethics that are involved with possession. Decisions on whether something is right or wrong are always accompanied with motives behind the act. For example, often when we watch a movie, we empathize so much with the hungry poor protagonist that his theft is pardoned and we may look upon it as an act of bravery. Did he do wrong when he stole? For himself he did “right” because the whole movie is centered around this hero. However, if we shift our perspective and saw a movie where the hero was the person the hungry poor boy stole from, we would definitely insist that stealing is wrong. Here the definition is relative. Another example of the relativity of stealing comes into play when we realize that there is still a fraction of society that has not been taught stealing is wrong. For them it is a business, and here they consider their benefit not the other’s loss. For us it is knowledge as it is our society’s opinion and we have concluded that opinion can become knowledge but that knowledge is not a fact as s is not universally accepted.

I know my tooth hurts (?)
This knowledge is in fact knowledge by acquaintance. You know your tooth hurts, but I don’t because I am not experiencing that same pain. Pain is “a somatic sensation of acute discomfort.” But is pain knowledge? There comes a universal question, is pain a reality? I perceive the pain to be there and so it is an opinion, as each of our thresholds of pain is different. However because we concluded perception/opinion is knowledge; we could state that the experience of your tooth hurting is knowledge.

I know I will pass the test (?)
This is an assumption but one with confidence. Nevertheless it is still an assumption. I cannot call this knowledge by acquaintance or knowledge by description so is knowledge restricted to these 2 categories? If it is then this statement is not knowledge. However, opinionated statements are usually those that are ready for contradiction. I cannot say you will not pass the test because I don’t have the knowledge to contradict you. If the definition of an opinion involves the capability of a contradiction then this statement would not be an opinion. It is not a fact because I cannot justify why I believe I will pass the test. So perhaps it is not knowledge if knowledge is either opinion or fact. If we can broaden the definition of knowledge to assumption, this statement could be termed as knowledge.

I know to speak French (?)
Knowing how to speak a language depends largely on what qualifies you to know a language. When I say I know to speak French, I am associating it with my academic background with French. Because it is a second language for me, my vocabulary and grammar is limited and on many occasions I would not know how to express myself. If I went to France, my speaking would be relatively poor to the locals, while here where there are not many fluent French speaking people, my speaking would be of a higher quality and fluency. When one refers to speaking French, one refers to speaking like the French. This would involve various intonations, pronunciations, idioms, and slang phrases. Our French is rather restricted in that sense. The statement I know to speak French is knowledge. However it is either knowledge by description or acquaintance. My knowledge of French is more of description even though I do have some attachments to the language, but only once I experience the language or am a local would I be able to gain the knowledge by acquaintance.

I know 2+2= 4 (?)

From all the facts I have learnt, I do know 2+2 =4. How do I know it? I was told so based on the most basic mathematical concept which has been created by our ancestors. This concept has been based o the concept of addition which was created to suit all our purposes. Based on this foundation we have come up with more complex mathematics. For all we know 2+2 = 4 may not be a true answer but according to our foundation it is, and it’s the most suitable answer that does not contradict anything else we have created and can be built up upon. If I were to change my foundation, chances are 2+2 would not be 4. Therefore this statement is definitely knowledge but we cannot say that it cannot be contradicted because all of what we know has been created and created some more on a foundation the first humans devised.

I know God exists (?)
First of all, I personally don’t know if God exists, and I don’t think anyone does. But they definitely have faith in the existence of God. I don’t believe it is knowledge because it is not a justified true belief. No one has been able to justify whether or not God exists and this can only be done until and unless we know everything about this universe. Only when we can KNOW everything will we be able to KNOW of the existence of God. However I do believe that certain people can consider God’s existence as knowledge. For example, a person who has experienced a miracle would use the miracle as a justification for his/her belief, so for him/her it is knowledge (by acquaintance) but for people who don’t have any proof cannot pass this statement as knowledge. Another view to this would involve the definition of God. Is God the answer to the unexplainable? Is God Science? Is God a force? Those people that have a varying interpretation of God and can justify it would call this statement knowledge but it depends on your interpretation and justification.

*Post not complete*