How Can the Different Ways of Knowing Help Us to Distinguish Between Something That Is True and Something That Is Believed to Be True?

How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true? By using different ways of knowing, we can distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. In order to express these distinctions, personal experiences, their implications, and their counterclaims are needed to be stated. For something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it can not be “true. The ways of knowing that something is “true” is comprehended by one’s own perception, language, reason and emotion. With these “ways of knowing” than the “truth” can, in theory, be understood. Perception is one of the most broad and vague ways of knowing. It is hard for someone and another to have the same “perception” of an object or event. Take example that Jimmy, a young yet intellectual boy who wears glasses, has just seen the biggest bully Bob assault the youngest and smallest kid in school Fred. Their teacher comes over and asks the three boys what happened.

According to Bob, Fred fell and received the bruises that way; Fred says that he was attacked by Bob; and Jimmy states that, due to his glasses fogging up, that Bob had inflicted the pain to himself. This vagueness is why the judicial system takes so much time to resolve problems between one party and another. This has implication due our ability to not ever “know” the whole “truth”. The cause of not “knowing,” due to inability to not see “everything,” leads to the effect of problems between us and our kin based solely on our perception of the events that took place.

According to the definition of “truth” is that it must be public, eternal and independent and thus begins the problems of “knowing” between Jimmy, Bob, and Fred. The fact that there was a fight and Jimmy watch is public and everyone “knows” thus the first part of “truth” is correct. Eternal works as well due to that point in time there was an incident between those three boys. Lastly it was independent from all outside sources, however the problem arises with what is “true” and who believes that their story is “true. Bob believes it was not his fault; Fred believes that he was attacked by Bob; and Jimmy believes that Fred did it all to himself. This causes the problem of who “knows” the “truth. ” The teacher, being unbiased of course, has no real way of “knowing” who the culprit is based off what the children believe to be “true”. This has global implications as well for cultures perceive things differently than that of another culture. Take example the United States and Japan; the United States shakes each other hands when greeting someone politely were as in Japan they would bow to each other first.

This could cause a massive global conflict if for example the United States offends the Japanese Councilor at the United Nations due to not bowing when greeting. As a counterclaim, someone could say that just using perception as a tool for “knowing” is simple not enough. Also perception just is not solely based off the ability of someone to see something but the usage of all five senses. The ability to use the five senses would be the correct way in order to learn the “true. There is no real way of “knowing” something solely off the assumption of our perception and there is no real “truth,” rather just a collection of “believed truths” that we choose to be the “truth. ” Vladimir Lenin stated that “a lie told often enough become the truth. ” We want to believe that we have found the “truth” and we will not stop look for that “truth. ” Yet how can we communicate this “knowledge? ” Thus we need the usage of language and its imprecations in “truth. ” Language plays an important role in our lives.

We created this tool to pass on the “knowledge” of others, empirical, and thru this we “learn. ” With Vladimir Lenin’s previous quote can be applied to language as well. The winners of wars are the one’s that create the history. It happens to every culture and every civilization that every existed with the ability to record their history. This has global implications that can be recognized off the fact that if a war were to be started and ended than the victory most like would right about how “morally righteous” their country was and how their opposition, the losing country, was.

Now as a counter argument to that claim would be that maybe the country was “telling the truth” but then we are right back to the beginning in where “how do we really know what we know? ” Can that country account for every action that each one of its civilians, and, or army infantry did during the course of the war? Most likely neither county could. Therefore they can not “truly know” based off their beliefs or their “truths. ” This in conjecture with perception is adequate but not 100 per cent sufficient in “knowing” something. We add a third way of knowing: reason.

Reasoning skills are a hard thing to explain about it terms of how we “know” something. Some things can be taught and thus learned by reasoning: putting your hand down on a hot pan thus teaches us to not do it again because it hurts. However when it comes to reasoning skills with moral can be hard to comprehend. One person may see that killing a human is wrong, were as a military general may see the killing of a human a necessity. Bishop Beilby Porteus states that “one murder made a villain; millions a hero. ” Is he telling the “truth? Do we glorify war? The implication of reasoning is of the greatest importance because it literally comes down to our inner instincts. In contrast how should we let our animalistic emotions control us or should we have a higher level of “knowledge? ” Can any creature or object ever obtain such a thing? Do we or will we ever “know? ” In my option, I believe not; then again what do I “know? ” Emotion is the final piece to the puzzle of knowledge. With the raw passion with what emotion is cannot be simply summed up or described with words along.

How can we describe what an emotion is between people? Take for example the emotion of “love. ” One passionate couple may explain there definition of what “love” is, however if a restaurant owner was asked the same question he or she may say that their “love” is their restaurant. Hence this gives us the emotion of sympathy towards dictionary writers. Describing such a raw and passionate feeling is incredible. Globally how can one culture translate the emotion of “love” from one culture to another? Our love could not possibly be the same as someone in Russia or India.

Is emotion something that we are born with, or grow into? We will never “know,” yet this is the final piece of ways of knowing and thus while using all four pieces of “knowledge” stills leaves us with the belief that we will never “truly know. ” The difference between truth and believed truth can only be answered thru the ways of knowing. The problem is that there is more than one answer. By assuming that there is a finite answer undermines the whole idea of our “ways of knowing. ” The age old question of the creation of life has been the greatest battle between science and religion.

Who is to say that one side is “right” and one side is “wrong” when we ourselves do not even “know. ” There is no “obtainable truth”, only the “truth” that we “believe to be true. ” “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. ” -Marcus Aurelius How can the ways of knowing help us distinguish between what ‘is true’ and what ‘is believed to be true’? “? i need examples from real life and how you can tell the difference between truth and the believed truth. Best Answer – Chosen by Voters It seems to me that what is true can also be what is believed to be true.

Example: the world is not flat. To answer your question, though, look for scientific evidence. For example, some people believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Age dating techniques and the fossil record indicate an age of several billion years. 1) Truth is simply the statement of a fact. A fact is something real, whether an object or an occurrence. Consider the following: I say to you “I ran a marathon,” but you didn’t see me run it. Thus the FACT – the ‘truth’ – is that I did SAY it; you know that because you were right there.

Whether I actually DID run the marathon or not is another question entirely. Did I lie? Did I exaggerate? You can’t be sure. And then you go check the records and see that I was registered to run this marathon. You now know that it’s true that I was registered, but you still don’t know if I actually ran. You might also find witnesses that SAY they saw me running (catching on yet? lol); so you know it’s true that those witnesses SAID that they saw me, because you watched them physically speak the words, but you didn’t SEE them seeing me, so you still can’t be sure I ran.

You could, by now, BELIEVE that I ran, but you still don’t KNOW it to be true. Now a time-stamped video that clearly shows me running, that might be about the only thing that could convince you that I truly did run… although that could be doctored… It all comes down to the level of evidence you’re personally willing to trust. Do you trust a scientist’s data? Do you trust a priest’s truthfulness? (And don’t get me started on God and faith lol) (And don’t get me started on your textbooks, either)

The difference between what ‘is true’ and what is ‘believed to be true’ in the Arts? This could be in painting, art, or english I have an essay to wrote about: “How can the ways of knowing (language, perception, reason, emotion) help us distinguish between what ‘is true’ and what ‘is believed to be true’? ” apply this question with examples in the Arts 1) I see art as a representation of reality or a mimic or mirror and the representaitons set at different levels, standards or views depending on who is presenting in whatever form.

I see truth as having different levels as well. What we call something is indeed what we call it like a flower is red or whatever. Then there are all sorts of cause and effect relatinships that are indirect or direct cause and effect. One thing can be caused by many things acting together to cause it or a sequence of events and it can make it tough to find the true or the first or most significant root cause (to solve the problem). Mostly, one has to see something to its conclusion to find out what is true vs. what is false, what is consistant vs. hat is inconsistant. Sometimes what is believed is actually true and sometimes what is believed is actually false. Experience is such a great teacher! I guess these ideas can be represented in the arts in various ways in colors, masks, shadows, inconsistancies, demeanor, etc. Some of it left open to interpretation just as art imitates life. We all have the need to believe things we think are true and might also turn out to be true. It is what life is about mostly, faith. I don’t know if I answered your question or not, but that is what I think so far. ) the difference between what ‘is true’ and what is ‘believed to be true’ in the arts is the same as that of what is true and what is believed to be true in any other field. you will apply the value ‘true’ to that which you can empirically evidence (the type of oil the artist used in a particular painting or the economy of words of a certain novel) and you will apply ‘believed to be true’ to that which may or may not be true (evidenced) depending on the individual involved (the feeling of melancholy the particular painting evokes). guess my feeling is that anything highly susceptible to subjectivity isn’t really there to help us to distinguish but will serve greatly to enhance our experience of the thing (the objet d’art) itself. Source(s): i don’t know a great deal about the philosophy of art nor about the art of philosophy but your question struck me as interesting. • Read Karl Popper “take’ on this. He correctly identified the “arts from “science”,and in doing so realised that all our knowledge ,in Both(! ), was really “Suspect”.

Hence he became famous for the modern way-of-using and deciphering just how real(or knowledge based) “criticism” can enable all the mistakes-within Science and even the Arts-…. to ….. be…. learned…. from ! (and if you study his work,you should quite easily see that serious-and-dangerous mistakes SHOULD NOT BE MADE. So… this is almost the sole “point” to our -all our-traditions. That we CAN learn from our mistakes(E. g. in the Arts as well as in the sciences), and even gain a glimmer of good,critical knowledge from those previously,dangerous and deadly ones,too. And…. after rereading the above… i think its a virtual responsibility of the arts, to HELP IN THIS; and one obvious modern way is for artists everywhere to “look” at the current serious and dangerous mistake(s) being made with our environment- and this is just one ONE example that i can think of here;(and although works-of-art should,i think be directed to show awarness of this type-of-real-complex problem;i do NOT think that the Arts should promote the breaking-of-laws,ecetera.

Rather,the Arts should “take-our-minds” to new places,to new and better ideas,especially so when in search-of better solutions to the above problem-and other critical problems,too! ). Source(s): The work of the late scholar,teacher and philosopher; Sir Karl. R. Popper, et al. Are Some Ways Of Knowing More Likely Than Others To Lead To Truth? In this essay I will discuss whether some ways of knowing are more like than others to lead to the truth. There is no single definition of the truth where every philosopher agrees with. What we can say is that the truth is ne of the most important elements in our society which extends from “honesty, good faith and sincerity in general to agreement with fact or reality in particular”. Instead of just concentrating on the four ways of knowing, language, perception, reason and emotion, I will also look at the areas of knowledge, such as sciences and mathematics to help finding which of the four ways of knowing is the most likely to lead to the truth. To answer the research question, we first have to look at the truth itself. In a dictionary is said that truth is “The degree to which a statement corresponds with reality and logic ”.

Every human being defines truth in a different way. Truth can be what one is prepared to accept as truth, as well as something which is proved by a study for being true or what for example the media, books, government and yourself name to be true. In the first area of knowledge I will discuss, the sciences, truth will always change during the time. A good example is Isaac Newton’s theory of mechanics and universal gravitation. In this time everyone believed his theory describing the universe as being “true” and there was no evidence for it being not the truth.

Than after some centuries some scientist discovered things where Newton’s theory didn’t account for. Therefore his theory was than called “untrue” and Albert Einstein’s evidence which fitted more into these discoveries was named as being true. This is evidence therefore, that science is a process, the truth will always change in time, but in this particular time period the truth cannot be named as “untrue” because it cannot be disproved by knowledge or technology. On the other hand in mathematics, one has these principles like “1 + 1 = 2” or “2 + 2 = 4”.

People do not… ‘ All Of The Other Ways Of Knowing Are Controlled By Language.?? What Does This Statement Mean And Do You Think It Is A Fair Representation Of The Relationship Between Perception, Emotion, Reason And Language? Language is such a universal phenomenon in human society. Whenever we write or speak, we use it; whenever we make a promise or ask a question, we use it. In the statement ? §All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language?? , language is defined as ? §words?? and this ? §control?? can be defined as ? §dominate??.

Then this saying seems not so fair to represent the relationship between the four ways of knowing. It is more sensible to say language gives some support or limit to our reason? Aperception and emotion. It may influence them, but not only one way ? V the four ways of knowing interact with each other. The function of language is particularly relevant in reason. We should believe our application of reason is within our mind before we express it into words. Most natural science is called logic facts and we often use the name of theories to represent our reason instead of explaining the essence in details.

For example, if your hand pushes against the edge of a desk, the desk pushes against your hand. Probably we will tell others this phenomenon is because ? §Newton? ¦s third law of motion?? but won? ¦t explain the content of this theory word by word. In this case, language has no meaning itself, but it is more like a symbol to represent reason. Another example is ? §Chaos Theory??. Ten years ago, Chaos is just a simple English word, but as Chaos theory become part of modern science, people easily associate the idea of ?? finding the order in random data? when they see the word ? §Chaos??. However, reason requires precision. Scientists use scientific language to give strict definition of a theory before they name it. Newton? ¦s third law of motion states: ? §Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.?? (Isaac Newton 1687) People must have the sense of reaction before this theory is built, but it needs a medium to become verbalized and communicated in order to evaluate its validity…. Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

The “how” of something that is believed true is called “justified true belief. ” (Google it) On the other hand, another way of knowing “how” something is true or not is called the “correspondence theory of truth,” wherein everything is true or false according to the context in which you are using the word, phrase, or premise. The correspondence theory can be described this way: “The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all knowledge becomes suspect.

Any flaw in our view of reality will make it more difficult to live. ” http://www. importanceofphilosophy. com/Me… http://www. iep. utm. edu/truth/#H3 How Can The Different Ways Of Knowing Help Us To Distinguish Between Something That Is True And Something That Is Believed To Be True? 4. How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true? “We create knowledge ourselves, through the four ways of knowing;” (Dombrowski, 91-92) sense perception, language, reasoning and emotion.

These ways of knowing are also the means by which knowledge claims are judged for their credibility, validity and most importantly, their likelihood to be true. When a knowledge claim is made, three scenarios are presented with the least problematic being that the claim is false based on the four ways of knowing coupled with past experiences. A claim is not said to be true just because it is false. The aim of this essay will be to illuminate how certainty, confidence and the convincing nature of claims distinguish between claims believed to be true and claims that are known to be true. True” and “false”, in simplicity, can be viewed as divisors for separating knowledge claims or beliefs but in reality, we view “true” and “false” as the extreme boundaries of a scale that determines with reason whether or not claims should be accepted as true or not. In history, where we make value claims, “Claims that embed evaluations on a scale that is not calibrated in measurable units” (Dombrowski, 106), there seems to be a lot of subjectivity as these claims themselves are subjective. They hold some truth because they are actually made from observational claims.

In the story of Nazi Anschluss with Austria, where a plebiscite was held to ask whether Austria wanted to become a part of Nazi Germany and the Nazi’s “claim to have received 99. 73% of the vote” (“Anschluss”), two value claims that could come out will be that the Austrians loved Nazis and wanted to be a part of it or that the Austrians feared Nazi Germany and did not have any other option than to be part of Nazis. These two opinions show the subjective nature of such areas but these statements cannot be taken as false. The fact that there is… 1. No comments Join Now For Free