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.
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.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@meaningness, Have you read much of John D Norton's work? Seems like you both may have come to some similar conclusions about epistemology. (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/research/ind_material.html … & http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/research/ …) -
Thanks, yes, I've read and greatly enjoyed that. His opening example of Curie's crystallography is fascinating & compelling, for instance.
- 2 more replies
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