Originally posted by ark13So knowledge is not neccessarily accurate, just belief? Which begs the question, then what is intelligence?
I think knowledge would have to be defined as knowing a correct bit of information, but also believing that the information is correct. If a scientist formulates a hypothesis he or she doesn't know whether or not it is correct. Even assuming that it does turn out to be right many years later, the scientist doesn't have the knowledge of whatever the hypothesi ...[text shortened]... uld normally consider ignorant, are in fact considered knowledgable with this definition.
...belief is based on faith...knowedge is based on the assimaltion of
data...theory or thinking is to extend data to a possibility...intelligence is
just the guage of the machine doing the work...sort of like a metric standard of a tool to do something....people often use the word intelligence
to actually mean adeptness...he is adept at poker..he has poker intelligence..he appears adept...she can do the math formula..she is adept
at calculation and memory..ergo..he and she is intelligent...
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
Originally posted by reinfeldI agree. Pointing out that discoveries of new science replace the knowledge of old discoveries assumes that science is a "correct" way of knowing. Many peoples/cultures would reject modern science as such. What is considered to be "knowledge" is embetted in a broader set of cultural beliefs and values.
...we have good scientists over the years with knowledge..their knowledge
is shown to be incorrect over time with better science...knowledge does
not mean correctness...knowledge means that one knows something..the'\
something may be true or false...