What is knowledge? Is knowledge what everyone tells you to be true?
If everyone says that 'this building is white', whereas you see it as blue are they lying or can you not diffrentiate between white and blue? Everyone is taught that 11 + 2 is 13, so then how come when one refers to the time 11 + 2 is considered as 1??
According to Plato, and what is widely accepted as one of the best definitions for knowledge, knowledge is defined as "justified true belief". But knowledge can be acquired in more than one way. The mode of acquisition of knowledge often affects one's 'belief'...hence altering what one 'knows'.

9 knowledge claims are listed below.
· I know it is raining
· I know 2 + 2 is 4
· I know my mother is older than I am
· I know to speak French
· I know I will pass the test
· I know stealing is wrong
· I know my tooth hurts
· I know she doesn't like me
· I know God exists

These are 9 claims most would have never thought to be arguable or questionable (other than the last claim, of course).
However, when one thinks about it, how can one say that one knows it is raining or that one knows his tooth hurts? These two claims are based on personal feeling and perception. One knows its raining because one has been told that when water falls from the sky it is called 'rain'. What about when one is standing under a building and water falls on the person…before he/she verifies that it is water from the building and not from the sky does he/she not “know” for that second that it is rain. In the same way, if someone comes up with substantial evidence to refute one’s claim that it is raining, would the person claim that he knows it is raining be considered wrong?? Similarly when one says that his tooth is hurting, how can he be sure of it? If he/ she has just been through an incident after which the tooth is ‘supposed’ to hurt, it is likely that he/ she can imagine the tooth hurting. This is something that one feels – it is based on the processes in one’s brain – and hence can very rarely be disproved, nor can it be proved very easily for that matter.
2 + 2 is 4. This is one form of knowledge by description. How can one know that 2 + 2 is 4. What is ‘2’…what is ‘4’? This however is something that has been defined and is used in math, world over. It can never really be justified, but it is something that has been defined and to refute it, one would be completely changing the laws of math which would disrupt the normal working of life. Hence, ‘knowledge’ such as these have to be taken to be true because they have been defined by man to be able to have something common at the basis of a concept and in order to go further in the subject on the basis of it – 4 + 2 = 6.
There are some claims that I feel are fairly irrefutable. By irrefutable, I don’t mean that there is no counterargument, I mean that there is no reasonably strong argument that can contradict the truth of the statement enough to convince me into believing that the statement cannot be classified as a knowledge claim. One of the claim in the list - I know my mother is older than me - is one of this. It is a scientific fact that a woman cannot give birth to a child before reaching maturity. So far from there being any argument on the mother being older than the child, the mother cannot be less than 13-14 years older than her child.
The only case in which there is any scope of argument is when you consider this statement to refer to the mother that you ‘call’ mother. You might say that “how do u know that your ‘mother’ is you biological mother?” In practicality this seems stupid too because it is absolutely unheard of for someone to be a ‘mother’ to someone older than she is, but in theory it is still arguable. But when some says “I know my mother is older than I am” and if he/ she refers to his/ her biological mother, then I see no argument against this knowledge claim.
Saying “I know stealing is wrong” is probably one of the most relative statements in the list of the 10 given. Any opinion on this is a moral one and is subjective to the upbringing of the person concerned. In most well-to-do families, like mine and everyone’s in the class, a child is always brought up with a very distinct belief that stealing is wrong. After all it is illegal in every country with a stable government, which automatically makes it something ‘wrong’. How often are unlawful actions considered ‘right’? On the other hand, for someone whose brought up in extreme poverty and has no other way of earning 2 square meals a day…stealing might be the only option he/ she has and it might not seem all that wrong to them even though they may be looked down upon by society. Therefore, “I know stealing is wrong” can be called knowledge statement because it is a JTB (Plato’s definition of knowledge) for some people even though it may not apply to everyone.

"I know she likes me" - as teenageers i'm sure we all have had or are having this dilemma in our lives. how do u kno the answer to this vital question. the answer which can affect everything you do about the issue. as we've just studied...every piece of knowledge we have gained is becuase of all four ways of knowing (language, reason, perception and emotion) working together. and in such a case - this interconnection is very obvious. language - wat she tells you and the way you'll communicate. maybe you can even talk about this with a friend of her's and based on what you'll communicate your thoughts can be altered. reason - based on your communication, the way she behaves and a number of different observations you make you reason it out within your head. perception and emotion in this case are absolutely interwoven. your perceptions is greatly affected by your emotion and vice versa. if you really like a girl and really want her to like you too you perceive her actions to be such that she does indeed like you (if you're optimistic, i.e.), and depending on what you perceive (and reason out) your emotions might get more, or less, intense. but even if everything points to the idea that she does like you, you can NEVER be sure that this is absolutely true. in fact, even if she tells you that she likes you, you can still NEVER know for sure if this is true bcos she might be a an excellent liar.

--to be completed--

Knowledge Claims

Knowledge Claims-
· I know its raining-
This is can be termed knowledge by description. When I see outside the window and see raindrops falling onto the ground, I can conclude that its raining. I have seen it rain before so I can link it to what I remember of the rain. It is a fact, that when water droplets fall from the sky, it is called rain which is a form of precipitation.
· I know 2+2=4
I have learnt this although my childhood in each and every math class. I have experimented to prove this to myself. I took two boxes on one side, and two on the other. I pushed them to the centre and counted. One, two, three and four! This is how I knew that 2+2 was 4. Unless some radical change proves that four is not four- I would be sure that 2+2=4.
· My mother is older than I am
I know this because I was born after she was. She gave birth to me. She lived a number of years before I was born. The accepted meaning of older is- existing for longer, in relation to another. Hence since she lived for longer, she existed for longer. Thus she is older than I am.
· I know how to speak French
If I have spoken French and have conversed in French with someone else- know how to speak in French. This is knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Unless I was unaware than what I was speaking was Gujarati and not French, I would know how to speak French.
· I know I will pass the test
This is knowledge by acquaintance and also involves a degree of confidence. If I know the topic well I can make this claim. But if the test is a surprise and is a very subjective test with mainly application based questions, I would be a fool to make this claim as my ‘doing well’ would depend on the teacher.
· I know stealing is wrong
This is also knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Through my upbringing I have been told this. However someone else may believe that stealing is not wrong. It depends on ethics and upbringing.
· I know my tooth hurts
This is knowledge by acquaintance. I can feel this as my pain receptors in my gum tell my brain that it is hurting. My brain processes this and I can conclude that my tooth is hurting. It is internal and depends on my receptors. If the receptors in my gum are suppressed, maybe due to some analgesics or narcotics, I will not know that my tooth hurts.
· I know she doesn’t like me
This is personal and depends on the signs that she hints to me. However I would never know for sure. She may like me and unless she tells me she doesn’t I would never know that she doesn’t like me. And even if she does tell me she might be lying. So I can never know the truth.
· I know god exists
This also depends on knowledge by acquaintance and is very personal. I may believe that god may exist but this is different from the belief of an atheist. Some people do believe in a power but hate to distinguish it to a particular god. I have never seen god so I have no proof that he exists. However I have felt the power of this supernatural existence called god, thus I believe god exists.


(I submitted a hard copy of this on Monday the 17th of September)

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*