• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Can we know something that has not yet been proven true?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Theory of Knowledge Can we know something that has not yet been proven true? Knowledge generally has three necessary requirements; the statement of knowledge must be true, you must believe that the statement is true and there must be good evidence for believing the statement. If we were to respect these statements entirely, then the question, 'Can we know something that has not yet been proven true?' would have a simple and definite answer of "no". However there are many views and ideas, which contradict this and provide us with alternative requirements for defining knowledge. Many people believe that a statement must be proven true for it to be considered as knowledge. The difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge requires proof, but it is not fully clear how much evidence is necessary; this often causes a lot of problems when discussing the subject. Knowing isn't the same as being certain, but believing isn't enough to claim that something is knowledge. Someone may have faith in something, which isn't true and has no proof simply because of their beliefs. There are many different reasons, which cause belief; fear, need of security and family upbringing1. Nevertheless, the motive for accepting or rejecting a belief does not validate it. ...read more.

Middle

This means that knowledge has to have evidence and cannot be based simply on opinions and ideas. Nevertheless it is not realistic to demand proof for everything. Disproving something is usually simple whereas proving beyond all doubt is virtually unachievable. However inductive logic is the process by which we move from the specific to the general and make regularities about things. This can only be known through observation and does not go beyond what is empirically verifiable. Induction is given to a process, which has been observed a number of times. This kind of logic is not logical, as the conclusion is not contained within the premises, unlike a deductive argument or syllogism. It could be disputed that induction doesn't give us certainty but does provide us with probability. This process does not prove that something is true; instead it can be used to prove that a statement is incorrect.7 Popper agreed with this and believed that induction is logically invalid but is a form of falsification, which means that it can only be used to prove that something is false. Karl Popper was a respected philosopher of the twentieth century and possibly his greatest contributions to the theory of knowledge was his investigation of the logic of scientific discovery. ...read more.

Conclusion

Things which we can obtain from our senses, for example we can see that the grass is green, are easily accepted as true and no-one has any reason to doubt this. However for thoughts and feelings, and things, which we have, no evidence for, it is much more complicated to validate them as knowledge. Instead we have to use the Coherence theory of truth, and judge recent or unconfirmed knowledge on the knowledge we already have, and establish whether are not they agree. In my opinion, much of the knowledge which we take as the truth has not been proven indisputably true, for example until recently Pluto was regarded by everyone as a planet and this was general knowledge, however it has now been suggested that it is not a planet and only a dormant comet. This has shown us that things can only be completely accepted as truth if we can see them, hear them, smell them or feel them. However if we only acknowledged things that we could obtain from our senses as knowledge then we would barely 'know' anything. If a statement has an adequate amount of reason to be affirmed as knowledge and it coheres with what we already claim to know then I think that it should be classed as knowledge independent of whether or not it has been proven true, in the sense of being absolutely certain. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge essays

  1. What can be meant by the Panchantantra saying, Knowledge is the true organ of ...

    All of this was caused by my reliance on my eyes as a source of information. If I had taken the time to open my window, and feel the cold air with my skin, I would have known in this instance my eyes would have been the ones to deceive me.

  2. "What I tell you three times is true." (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula - ...

    When relating the formula to past experience, one can see an example of how the formula may not determine what we believe to be true. For example, if a person were to say 'touch the hob, it is freezing' three times, we would not be able to, because our past

  1. What I tell you three times is true. (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula ...

    Our belief on a certain subject could highly depend on where and who that information is coming from. If I were to find information about the 'chaos theory' written by a young unknown scientist then I personally wouldn't consider that information as true opposed to getting that same information from a qualified scientist.

  2. One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence ...

    Therefore in mathematics, knowledge is not based on evidence, it is based on proof. This does not mean we cannot look at strength of evidence in mathematics. Evidence is used to show theories which might be true, and in this case, strength of evidence is purely based on amount -

  1. Science gives us a tool to work out whether what we experience is real ...

    Indeed, as one would expect nothing at all could be inside many of the alternate universes, as even the galaxies and stars themselves may have failed to materialize due to the conditions for their creation not having been met. So, we could easily envisage that we may never prove or

  2. How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that ...

    that something is true because it cannot be proven to be false. This then limits our ability to distinguish the truth from the believed truth. Emotions are formed due to the world?s impact on us; they tend to shape both our mental and social lives.

  1. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). ...

    Another example of this is complex numbers. I stumbled across this concept during math class and wondered how could imaginary numbers be useful. Most people would have the same opinion due to the fact that according to simplistic reasoning, imaginary numbers cannot give real knowledge.

  2. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). ...

    Capitalism has hitherto been considered the tried and tested system but now we see it crumbling under its own weight in these times of recession. Let us take the case of Capitalism and the free market. An exponent from the business world would argue for it and give all justification of how market forces should decide our world.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work