• 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...


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.


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.


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

    All of those can be integrated with each other for discovering the truth. Nevertheless, this way of knowing has its limitations as there is always a risk of losing one or more of those senses. This can be due to medical condition.

  2. If facts themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in the ...

    have got wrong. There is no life on the Moon. Nothing travels faster than light.

  1. How do I know what is right and what is wrong?

    the aid of "charities" and "strangers" at the time greatly helped her and her family. The result of that help, made my mother take an "altruistic" principle towards life and become a "selfless" being. My mother would constantly give to charities and put others like her children and friends in front of herself.

  2. There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and false. Discuss.

    largely with fact (objectivity); however, there are valid claims that a historian actually combines the 'rigour of a scientist with the imagination of an artist'. While both are legitimate forms of knowledge (science and arts), they contain certain aspects which weaken each other when they are cross bred as seen in history.

  1. When mathematicians, historians and scientists say that they have explained something are they using ...

    experiment will then be verified by many other scientists, trying making sure of the validity of the original experiment. The historian however bases his work on observation and deduction, no physical interaction is involved. When sodium is placed in water it spontaneously combusts, this is because it is part of the alkaline metals in group one of the periodic table.

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

    Therefore, in such a situation, whereby inductive reasoning is the only way of knowing the 'truth', repetition could potentially determine what we believe to be true. However, Authority could play a major role in influencing our induced reasoning, which ultimately influences what we believe to be true.

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

    As I grew up I learnt that human beings are mortal and that we cannot resurrect after we have been killed. Ethics is linked to emotion, what may be right in our eyes may be wrong in somebody else. Bishop Beilby Portheus said ?One murder made a villain, millions a hero?.

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

    He justifies with the scientific output that chocolate contains eight times more antioxidants than strawberries. Therefore we as knowers can conclude that evidence can be a yardstick of acceptance and dismissal in some cases where reason outweighs emotions but there are an equal number of occasions when the knowledge we

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