For those philosophers who work in epistemology (the ‘theory of knowledge’), the holy grail is to pin down the nature of knowledge and explain why it matters. But despite thousands upon thousands of articles devoted to the topic, the philosophers haven’t been able to come up with a good story. I say that’s because they’re barking up the wrong tree. The notion of knowledge doesn’t in fact pick out anything important. It’s a crude concept we have inherited from our prehistoric ancestors, and it positively handicaps us in our dealings with the modern world.
# – # – # – # – #
I’ve always worked on a paradigm of dikw (i.e., data, information, knowledge, wisdom). Never could fit “skill” into my meme. Now “knowledge” may be on shaky ground?
Guess I’ll have to add: “direct observation, sensory perception, hearsay, or inference”. Seems ugly. Maybe it should be “knowledge with provenance”?
Still doesn’t account for “skills”, “system of ‘evidential’ constructions”, or “knowledge provides the norm for assertion”, but that’s for another time.
To much heavy thinking for one fat old white guy injineer.
— 30 —