Theory of knowledge

What argon the methods of the historians and how do they comp be with early(a) methodologiesFirst of all, we project to live on what is the definition of memorialIt is a branch of association dealing with quondam(prenominal) events, political, social, economic, of a country, continent, or the world. It is an orderly description of away events. It is also a train of events committed with a mortal or thing.Secondly I impart put what is a method. It is 1) a system, orderliness, 2) it is a panache of doing ne artistic creationhing 3) doing things with 4) it is a perception or study of close tothing.The resistences between the facts of the yesteryear and historic factsWe all know, or speak out we know, what a fact is a reliable append of information, something we know to be, in the leafy vegetable aesthesis centre of the book of account true. We also know, or specify we know, what an diachronic fact is. Give ensamples. These be facts, definite pieces of historic al acquaintance, close perhaps to the internal scientific knowledge the nineteenth coulomb historians wanted to use as their model of knowledge. save these facts are exclusively the start of biography, solo the foundation on which narrative is built. History is non the facts of the past al unrivaled that the processing of these facts into a coherent, meaningful variation of the past with which these facts are concerned.History is the controlation of these facts, the processing of them into a annals with causes and effects.These facts, these pieces of information about(predicate) the past are authorized to historians. historians must(prenominal) be veritable of their accuracy, must nonplus confidence in their integrity in the lead they bathroom confidently interpret them for their contemporaries.Historians collect their facts from whenever they fecal matter. Certain historical facts, broadly those withstanded from archives, whitethorn be collected directly by hi storians themselves. Historians usher out audit public records offices or churches and examine historical documents directly.Epigraphy is an interesting sheath of such(prenominal) a discipline. It is the study of ancient inscriptions letters and words and symbols, chiselled, moulded or raised on st matchlesss. E.g. the Rosetta st peerless it is an inscribed stone found near Rosetta in northern Egypt in 1799.History is a selectionHistorians distinguish history by selecting facts and processing them and it is the processing that creates history. History has been nominated as an spacious jig saw with mussinesss of plays missing. Historians try to create the missing pieces. They pot only do this by selecting from all the information available to them. What campaign we suck for this comes, of course, from the tribe in the middle Ages who wrote about their make lives and cartridge holders. And the people who wrote about their own lives and times in the middle Ages in atom ic number 63 were monks and priests.Imaginative consciousness is an important part of an historians skill, but imaginative understanding varies from historian to historian. They begin to imaginatively understand the minds of the older people. The only way they hind end do this is by using their own vox populi processes. Historians take in that to portray history is im manageable. They cease non unfeignedly be sure of the motives of the redeemrs of the archive documents.The past can only be depictn with the eye of the beat.Historian should interpret their records of the past. Ranke and his fellow nineteenth century historians believed that not only was it possible to endow the past How it really was but they also believed they were doing exactly that when they wrote their history books. The historians job was to collect together a proven body of facts and present them to the readers.Is history a unique area of knowledge?We wee externalisen that born(p) sciences, mathe matics and logic, and the social sciences make believe distinctive areas of knowledge. do-nothing a ex repositionable claim be made for history? YES of course it can be made. One way of make outing this question is to panorama at the fashion of historians. As we do this, we should ask ourselves the question What do historians do that scientists, mathematicians and social scientists do not do?.Four assorted stages exists1) enter Some scholars collect records and preserve evidence from the past. If we stick to our definition of historians as interpreters of facts these scholars are not historians in our genius of the word. They are archivists and curators, collectors and preservers. E.G Nothing is travel until photographs are taken, measurements made and meticulous records compiled of everything that is thither and exactly where it is. That is the work of the historical investigateers who record and preserve evidence from the past. Every target areas is recorded and, as fa r as possible identified. The historical knowledge these Historians have is no incompatible from the knowledge of subjective science it is empirical and of course endive. Give example of the titanic.2) Assessment These historians asses the evidence they have, compare it to other similar evidences that might be available and come to the conclusion that Holdens room are indeed a unique historical event.3) Reconstructing the past Having assessed the evidence and accepted its importance, historians now have to use it, to infer from it and to reconstruct the past. They use evidences. Historians also are provoke in reconstructing beyond the obvious. They attempt to reconstruct the values of a soused youth 100 years ago.4) Interpreting Historians ask themselves questions. They might compare the artefacts with other atifacts for instanceHistorians ways of knowing are distinct. They record, assess, reconstruct and interpret in a way that others scholars do not. Historians continually re interpret the events of the past and reappraise them for each new generation.Historical sourcesPrimary and secondary sourcesThe riddle with the past is that it has passed. It has gone. The idea of all time past, and present, running parallel is interest but until we have the technology to explore other times in reality, we have to explore the past through what the past has left us, through the multitude of artefacts surviving from times past. Historians use what they term PRIMARY SOURCES as their main access to the past. Secondary sources are also available these are sources of information provided by other historians.Primary sources are the bedrock of history. They complicate every conceivable type of documents maps, treaties, churches and temple records, imperial archive documents, letters, legitimate records, diaries, newspapers, catalogues and even bus tickets. They can be formal or informal, confidential or public, serious or frivolous. Primary sources also include artefac ts. unconnected science, say, history is a lot criticized for serving no purpose. We are unable to apprize from history, it is argued, either because precisely the resembling component as in the past cannot arise a overhear in future, or because if sufficiently similar circumstances did arise, we would not be able to act differently.In the natural sciences we have both statements of immediate observations, reporting for instance the outcome of an experiment, and general laws from which we can derive predictions. These two kinds of statements are onlyified in quite different ways observational statements by perception.The evidence, not necessarily written, which historical research is based on are the sources. Sources necessitate not be items that go back to the time in history which is being studied, but can be texts written since then about that time the former are called primary, and the latter secondary sources.There are two main questions that must be asked regarding prima ry sources. The first of these concerns their authenticity, or genuineness. Suppose that we have, for instance, a mental picture of a particular historical event then the painter may have bring ined or omitted certain details to please his customer, or to answer it a better painting, he may not have been there himself and have used incomplete accounts, the painting could even be a later forgery, and so on.The other question concerns their completeness. We must bear in mind that the material available to us has already been systematically selected, in a variety of ways we tend to know to a greater accomplishment about the upper classes of the societies we study, because it is largely their doings that were recorded, while we find m all ruins in some parts of the world, little remains of the wooden structures that were more common elsewhere, and so on.On one side there are those who check up on that historical definition must be like the scientific explanation of an event to u nderstand an historical event, we must have a general, or covering law, so that from this law and a description of the historical situation we can deduce that the event would happen.For even where history is capable of being objective, there are jobs with the evidence it is based on, as we have clearn the sources available may not be authentic, and they will certainly be incomplete. And to the extent that history is (necessarily) subjective, i.e. a matter of the position from which it is written, historical accounts or explanations are liable to the problem of bias, i.e. partiality, tendentiousness or even prejudice.The historian cannot be objective about the period, which is his subject. In this he differs (to his in carve upectual advantage) from its most typical ideologists, who believed that the progress of technology, positive science and conjunction made it possible to view their present with the unanswerable impartiality of the natural scientist, whose methods they believ ed themselves (mistakenly) to understand.For much of the time that history has been written, the work of the historian was not thought to be particularly problematic as long as he had the right intentions, he would just try to discover the truth, and tell how it really was.The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare divulge an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.History, then, is not, as it has so often been misdescribed, a story of successive events or an account of change. Unlike the natural scientist, the historian is not concerned with events as such at all. He is only concerned with those events, which are the outward expression of thoughts. Theory of noesisBertrand Russell was a British philosopher and a mathematician who is generally recognized as one of the founders of analytic philosophy. He, like many other people was searching for try on co py and evidence of us- people being quick of scent animals, whose thoughts and actions are curtilageable and sensible. precedent is a way of knowing in which we build up explanations by refining independent ideas and theories in order to reach a formal conclusion or in other words we use reason to decide whether something is correct or wrong.Through observations and experiments we can prove by reason if our hypothesis was right, and by this broaden our knowledge horizons. Reason is present as much as in everyday choice making, as it is present in science, mathematics and other areas of knowledge. However reason is not always the most useful way of knowledge, for example in unison and arts, as we are not robots and we also rely on our emotions and perception. So how can we gain truth by reason, when there are so many different opinions and emotions involved?Reason can help us gain knowledge, but only to a certain extent and thereof it has its strengths and weaknesses, which I a m going to discuss in my essay. In science logic and reason are said to be the core portion to get a valid conclusion, but there are some contradictions and exceptions to this general judgment. For example in biology, we use reason and logic to declare a hypothesis, and then through several experiments or observations, we can obtain a valid and logical conclusion, which will support our hypothesis.As an example, a biology class, had to run an experiment to find out the presence of glucose and amylum in two different food effects. In two test tubes A and B, two different food solutions, which are unknown to the scholarly persons, are found. The class divided into four different groups and each group had to add chemicals such as iodine for starch and benedicts solution for glucose to find out, in which test tube was each solution. If starch was present the solution had to sophisticate from blue to black, and for glucose it had to change from blue to orange. convention 1, was suc cessful and their one solution saturnine to black, proving that it has starch in it and the other turned orange demonstrating that it has glucose. Group 2 however, had a negative outcome, as both of their solutions did not change color, therefore showing that it has none of the solutions present. One of the solutions of group 3 turned green, instead of orange, therefore contradicting the hypothesis and the whole theory. By this example we see that logic and reason, has its own uncertainties and doubts.Reason can sometimes obscure our knowledge if we see something, which contradicts our initial theory. This logic is quite similar to perception, as we need to use our five senses- see, hear, touch, taste and smell to come through a rational verdict. In music and art, I think that reason as a way of knowing has both advantages and disadvantages. We cannot express our opinion on a piece of music or a piece of art without bringing up emotion and perception.A composer cannot write music without any opinionings, same as an artist cannot paint without inspiration through his senses. A piece of music however requires some basic reason. For example if a composer inevitably to write a concerto for a violin, he will not write a concerto for a piano, and no other instrument than a violin can replace it. This is very basic reason, but we can see that it is present in creative arts. I am an IB Art student and I know that reason has little to do with it.Making art is based mostly on emotion and on the way we feel or what we think at a certain moment. Art comes from the heart, and reason is only present when we need to know which two colors for example make imperial or what do we need to do to make a canvas. Add reason Another demonstration of advantages and disadvantages of reason is present the case of superstitions. In many cultures superstitions make up a lot of beliefs that are carried throughout generations. For example it is said that it is dreary luck to go forw ard of a black cat has passed your way.Even though I have never heard anyone claim that he or she has bad luck because of a cat passing his or her way, I would so far rather prefer to avoid it, as I was brought up with this and I actually started to believe in it. Even though there is no scientific prove of this superstition and common logic experience says that this is not true, most people would still avoid it. Therefore reason can be very objective, in a way that it can differ from different cultures and dissimilar beliefs. Mathematics is the one area where reason plays a fundamental part.Reason is the basis on which mathematics is founded. Before any numerical theorem can be taken as true, it must be indorse by a reasonable mathematical proof that shows, that the answer got is correct. This type of empirical, reasonable verification shows that of all the areas of knowledge, mathematics uses reason the most. In mathematics, an answer is either wrong or right. There is no gist in mathematics. Without reason, all mathematical arguments would naturally fail, and so if a mathematical statement cannot be fortified with reason, the statement should be rejected.Mathematics is the only area of knowledge where every statement must be backed up by reason. Reason itself is not enough to explain such things as the origins of the universe, or right and wrong, and so reason can and should be complemented by other sources of knowledge. Reason can be used when the sense misinformed us. For example when you put a straw in water senses tell us that the straw is bent, because it looks like it, but through reason we deduce that the straw is straight. Therefore reason is more reliable than our senses and is used more effectively.For the conclusion, I should discuss whether in the end our knowledge can be obtained everlasting(a)ly by logic and reason, or it needfull the support of homo emotion and perception to give us reasonable comprehension of our existence. gentleman s gentleman is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason,- this is a quote by Oscar Wilde. I agree with him as I think that emotions and feelings often overtake reason, as we are more driven by our desires, fears and passion than logic and rationality.I think that pure reason cannot exist without other ways of knowledge, and has its strengths and weaknesses. Reason is valid when it is not contradicted by anyone, but can we call something rational knowledge when soulfulness disputes it? Reason within its domain is very reliable, as for example in mathematics, you can be almost one hundred percent certain that something is true, and this is the main strength of reason. I think that in all the other areas of knowledge, reason has many weaknesses.Reason always needs input from other source and therefore can only be reliable as its source of data. In the arts, in the absence of inspiration, no great work can be done, however reason is present in the salmagundi of colors and proportion and so on. Science without any data has no use of reason, and is therefore unreliable. My conclusion to this essay is that reason always needs input from another source and therefore can only be reliable as its source of data.Theory of KnowledgeHow do we acquire our knowledge? Dont we acquire our knowledge through our senses? We know something is round because we have seen it and we have touched it. A craft person can distinguish a sphere from a cube, because of the sense of touch. just can a cover person really know what the contravention between green and purple are? Maybe, but it might be a hard one to explain because you cannot really explain what turn on and dark is if a art person has not really seen these differences.The eye might not be the true organ of survey but in my opinion it is one of the necessary things needed to acquire knowledge. But what is upsurge? What is knowledge? agree to the Oxfo rd Dictionary sight is defined as the faculty or ability of seeing, and knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience or education. The definition of sight from the Oxford Dictionary did not connect it with the word knowledge for knowledge helps us to describe the object that we are seeing.For example, if we look at an object with our eye without any knowledge of what is being perceive, the object that we are seeing will be just an unknown object to us. The object being perceived does not contain that much meaning to it for the lack of knowledge. So is knowledge really the true organ of sight? It is to some extent for we cannot in full comprehend what we see if we did not have the previous knowledge to describe what we see and without seeing I think it makes it a little bit harder to acquire enough knowledge to fully describe what is around us.Can knowledge be only achieved by seeing? How do blind people acquire their knowledge without their eyes? I think they g ain knowledge by experience, touching and hearing. They instruct things differently than people who can see because they probably create their own images of what we see. It is through knowledge of what they have experienced that they see what is put infront of them. For us who can see and have been seeing in our life time gain knowledge from what we see and what we have experienced.All these contribute to us gaining knowledge of the world. Perception, defined as the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind. This plays a vital role in some subjects rather than others because some just require more understanding than the rest. It is important to understand what you learn ahead practicing. In short, our senses do give us to a certain extent knowledge and this works together with the sense of perception.Theory of KnowledgeHow do we acquire our knowledge? Dont we acquire our knowledge through our senses? We know something is round because we have seen it and we have touched it. A blind person can distinguish a sphere from a cube, because of the sense of touch. But can a blind person really know what the difference between green and purple are? Maybe, but it might be a hard one to explain because you cannot really explain what light and dark is if a blind person has not really seen these differences.The eyes might not be the true organ of sight but in my opinion it is one of the necessary things needed to acquire knowledge. But what is sight? What is knowledge? According to the Oxford Dictionary sight is defined as the faculty or power of seeing, and knowledge is information and skills acquired through experience or education. The definition of sight from the Oxford Dictionary did not connect it with the word knowledge for knowledge helps us to describe the object that we are seeing.For example, if we look at an object with our eyes without any knowledge of what is being perceived, the object that we are seeing will be just an unknown o bject to us. The object being perceived does not contain that much meaning to it for the lack of knowledge. So is knowledge really the true organ of sight? It is to some extent for we cannot fully comprehend what we see if we did not have the previous knowledge to describe what we see and without seeing I think it makes it a little bit harder to acquire enough knowledge to fully describe what is around us.Can knowledge be only achieved by seeing? How do blind people acquire their knowledge without their eyes? I think they gain knowledge by experience, touching and hearing. They learn things differently than people who can see because they probably create their own images of what we see. It is through knowledge of what they have experienced that they see what is put infront of them. For us who can see and have been seeing in our life time gain knowledge from what we see and what we have experienced.All these contribute to us gaining knowledge of the world. Perception, defined as the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind. This plays a vital role in some subjects rather than others because some just require more understanding than the rest. It is important to understand what you learn before practicing. In short, our senses do give us to a certain extent knowledge and this works together with the sense of perception.