How knowledge works:
You start with some existing knowledge (models/traditions/genes/memes).
Some of that contains problems (two parts contradict).
Try a modification to solve it.
Criticise to see if the solution works.
Modify as needed.
New problem.
I would like more specificity at each step: * What is knowledge & how does it work? * How do you recognize problems/contradictions, once we admit that actual logical contradiction is rarely the issue? * How do you get potentially better models? * How do you evaluate them?
-
-
At the first step, I think it will turn out that "knowledge" is diverse and there can't be one answer, but there can be many answers that are useful for different sorts in different situations and for different purposes. And then the same will go for the others.
-
I think these questions have to be approached empirically, at minimum with case studies (as Kuhn did), but much better with detailed observation (as ethnomethodologists do). I don't thinking about epistemology in general and in the abstract and in an armchair has any value.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Where