|Part of a series on|
|This is a subseries on philosophy. In order to explore related topics, please visit navigation.|
Knowledge is a form of awareness or familiarity. It is often understood as awareness of facts or as practical skills, and may also mean familiarity with objects or situations. Knowledge of facts, also called propositional knowledge, is often defined as true belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. While there is wide agreement among philosophers that propositional knowledge is a form of true belief, many controversies in philosophy focus on justification. This includes questions like whether justification is needed at all, how to understand it, and whether something else besides it is needed. These controversies intensified due to a series of thought experiments by Edmund Gettier and have provoked various alternative definitions. Some of them deny that justification is necessary and suggest alternative criteria. Others accept that justification is an essential aspect and formulate additional requirements.
Knowledge can be produced in many ways. The most important source of empirical knowledge is perception, which is the usage of the senses. Many theorists also include introspection as a source of knowledge, not of external physical objects, but of one's own mental states. Other sources often discussed include memory, rational intuition, inference, and testimony. According to foundationalism, some of these sources are basic in the sense that they can justify beliefs without depending on other mental states. This claim is rejected by coherentists, who contend that a sufficient degree of coherence among all the mental states of the believer is necessary for knowledge. According to infinitism, an infinite chain of beliefs is needed.
Many aspects of knowledge are investigated, and it plays a role in various disciplines. It is the primary subject of the field of epistemology, which studies what someone knows, how they come to know it, and what it means to know something. The problem of the value of knowledge concerns the question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. Philosophical skepticism is the thesis that humans lack any form of knowledge or that knowledge is impossible. Formal epistemology studies, among other things, the rules governing how knowledge and related states behave and in what relations they stand to each other. Science tries to acquire knowledge using the scientific method, which is based on repeatable experimentation, observation, and measurement. Many religions hold that humans should seek knowledge and that God or the divine is the source of knowledge.
Knowledge is a form of familiarity, awareness, understanding, or acquaintance. It often involves the possession of information learned through experience. There is wide, though not universal, agreement among philosophers that knowledge involves a cognitive success or an epistemic contact with reality, like making a discovery. Many academic definitions of knowledge focus on propositional knowledge or knowledge of facts, as in "I know that Dave is at home", and understand it as a form of true belief. Other types of knowledge include knowledge-how in the form of practical competence, as in "she knows how to swim", and "knowledge by acquaintance" as a form a familiarity with the known object based on previous direct experience.
Despite agreements about the general characteristics of knowledge, its exact definition is disputed. Some disagreements arise from the goal that a proposed definition is supposed to fulfill. One approach is to focus on the most salient features of knowledge with the goal of giving a practically useful definition. Another is to try to provide a theoretically precise definition by listing the conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient. The terms "analysis of knowledge" and "conceptions of knowledge" are often used for this approach. It can be understood in analogy to how chemists analyze a sample by seeking a list of all the chemical elements composing it. According to a different view, knowledge is a unique state that cannot be analyzed in terms of other phenomena.
Other disagreements are caused by methodological differences, for example, whether scholars base their inquiry on abstract and general intuitions (known as methodism) or concrete and specific cases (known as particularism). Another source of dispute is the role of ordinary language in one's inquiry: the weight given to how the term "knowledge" is used in everyday discourse. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, there is no clear-cut definition of knowledge since it is just a cluster of concepts related through family resemblance. Different conceptions of the standards of knowledge are also responsible for disagreements. Some epistemologists, like René Descartes, hold that knowledge demands very high requirements, like absolute certainty or infallibility. According to this view, knowledge is very rare. Others see knowledge as a rather common phenomenon, prevalent in many everyday situations, without excessively high standards.
Knowledge is often understood as a state of an individual person but it can also refer to a characteristic of a group of people as group knowledge, social knowledge, or collective knowledge. The term may further denote knowledge stored in documents, as in "knowledge housed in the library" or the knowledge base of an expert system. Knowledge is often contrasted with ignorance, which is linked to a lack of understanding, education, and true beliefs.
The word knowledge has its roots in the 12th-century Old English word cnawan, which comes from the Old High German word gecnawan. The English word includes various meanings that some other languages distinguish using several words. For example, Latin uses the words cognitio and scientia for "knowledge" while Spanish uses the words conocer and saber for "to know". In ancient Greek, four important terms for knowledge were used: epistēmē (unchanging theoretical knowledge), technē (expert technical knowledge), mētis (strategic knowledge), and gnōsis (personal intellectual knowledge).
The main discipline studying knowledge is called epistemology or theory of knowledge. It examines the nature of knowledge and justification, how knowledge arises, and what value it has. Further topics include the different types of knowledge and the limits of what can be known. There are other definitions of knowledge that are different from what is standard in epistemology.
Justified true belief
An often-discussed definition characterizes knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). This definition identifies three essential features: it is (1) a belief that is (2) true and (3) justified.[a] Truth is a widely accepted feature of knowledge. It implies that, while it may be possible to believe something false, one cannot know something false. That knowledge is a form of belief implies that one cannot know something if one does not believe it. Some everyday expression seem to violate this principle, like the claim that "I do not believe it, I know it!". But the point of such expression is usually empasize one's confidence rather than denying that a belief is involved.
The main controversy surrounding the JTB definition concerns its third feature: justification. This component is often included because of the impression that some true beliefs are not forms of knowledge. Specifically, this covers cases of superstition, lucky guesses, or erroneous reasoning. For example, a person who is convinced that a coin flip will land heads usually does not know that even if their belief turns out to be true. This indicates that there is more to knowledge than just being right about something.
The JTB definition solves this problem by identifying proper justification as the additional component needed. This approach is able to explain why superstition or lucky guesses may be true but do not amount to knowledge. Many philosophers understand justification internalistically (internalism): a belief is justified if it is supported by another mental state of the person, such as a sensory experience, a memory, or a second belief. This mental state has to constitute a sufficiently strong evidence or reason for the believed claim. Some modern versions modify the JTB definition by using an externalist conception of justification instead. This means that justification depends not only on factors internal to the believer's mind but also on external factors. According to reliabilist theories of justification, a belief is justified if it is produced by a reliable process, like sensory perception or logical reasoning. According to causal theories, justification requires that the believed fact causes the belief. This is the case, for example, when a bird sits on a tree and a person forms a belief about this fact because they see the bird.
Gettier problem and alternatives
The JTB definition came under severe criticism in the 20th century, when Edmund Gettier formulated a series of counterexamples. They purport to present concrete cases of justified true beliefs that fail to constitute knowledge. The reason for their failure is usually a form of epistemic luck: the beliefs are justified but their justification is not relevant to the truth. In a well-known example, there is a country road with many barn facades and only one real barn. The person driving is not aware of this, stops in front of the real barn by a lucky coincidence, and forms the justified true belief that he is in front of a barn. It has been argued that the person does not know that they are in front of a real barn since they would not have been able to tell the difference. This means that it is a lucky coincidence that this justified belief is also true.
The responses to this and other counterexamples have been diverse. According to some, they show that the JTB definition of knowledge is deeply flawed and that a radical reconceptualization of knowledge is necessary, often by denying justification a role. This can happen, for example, by replacing the justification condition with reliability or by seeing knowledge as the manifestation of cognitive virtues. Another approach is to define knowledge in regard to the function it plays in cognitive processes as that which provides reasons for thinking or doing something. Responses on the other hand of the spectrum hold that Gettier cases pose no serious problems and no radical reconceptualization is required. They usually focus on minimal modifications of the JTB definition, for example, by making small adjustments to how justification is defined.
Responses between these two camps acknowledge that Gettier cases pose a problem and suggest a moderate departure from the JTB definition. They agree with the JTB definition that justified true belief is a necessary condition of knowledge. However, they disagree that it is a sufficient condition. They hold instead that an additional criterion, some feature X, is necessary for knowledge. For this reason, they are often referred to as JTB+X definitions of knowledge. A closely related approach speaks not of justification but of warrant and defines warrant as justification together with whatever else is necessary to arrive at knowledge.
Many candidates for the fourth feature have been suggested. In this regard, knowledge may be defined as justified true belief that does not depend on any false beliefs, that there are no defeaters[b] present, or that the person would not have the belief if it was false. Such and similar definitions are successful at avoiding many of the original Gettier cases. However, they are often undermined by newly conceived counterexamples. To avoid all possible cases, it may be necessary to find a criterion that excludes all forms of epistemic luck. It has been argued that such a criterion would set the standards of knowledge very high by requiring that the belief be infallible to succeed in all cases. This would mean that very few beliefs amount to knowledge, if any. For example, Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the evidence for the belief necessitates its truth. There is still very little consensus in the academic discourse as to which of the proposed modifications or reconceptualizations is correct.
A common distinction among types of knowledge is between propositional knowledge, or knowledge-that, and non-propositional knowledge in the form of practical skills or acquaintance. Other distinctions focus on how the knowledge is acquired and on the content of the known information.
Propositional knowledge, also referred to as declarative and descriptive knowledge, is a form of theoretical knowledge about facts, like knowing that "2 + 2 = 4". It is the paradigmatic type of knowledge in analytic philosophy. Propositional knowledge is propositional in the sense that it involves a relation to a proposition. Since propositions are often expressed through that-clauses, it is also referred to as knowledge-that, as in "Akari knows that kangaroos hop". In this case, Akari stands in the relation of knowing to the proposition "kangaroos hop". Closely related types of knowledge are know-wh, for example, knowing who is coming to dinner and knowing why they are coming. These expressions are normally understood as types of propositional knowledge since they can be paraphrased using a that-clause.
Propositional knowledge takes the form of mental representations involving concepts, ideas, theories, and general rules. These representations connect the knower to certain parts of reality by showing what they are like. They are often context-independent, meaning that they are not restricted to a specific use or purpose. Propositional knowledge encompasses both knowledge of specific facts, like that the atomic mass of gold is 196.97 u, and general laws, like that the color of leaves of some trees changes in autumn. Because of the dependence on mental representations, it is often held that the capacity for propositional knowledge is exclusive to relatively sophisticated creatures, such as humans. This is based on the claim that advanced intellectual capacities are needed to believe a proposition that expresses what the world is like.
Non-propositional knowledge is knowledge in which no essential relation to a proposition is involved. The two most well-known forms are knowledge-how (know-how or procedural knowledge) and knowledge by acquaintance. To possess knowledge-how mean to have some form of practical ability, skill, or competence. Examples include knowing how to ride a bicycle or knowing how to swim. Some of the abilities responsible for knowledge-how involve forms of knowledge-that, as in knowing how to prove a mathematical theorem, but this is not generally the case. Some types of knowledge-how do not require a highly developed mind, in contrast to propositional knowledge. In this regard, knowledge-how is more common in the animal kingdom. For example, an ant knows how to walk even though it presumably lacks a mind sufficiently developed to represent the corresponding proposition.
Knowledge by acquaintance is familiarity with something that results from direct experiential contact. The object of knowledge can be a person, a thing, or a place. For example, by eating chocolate, one gets knowledge by acquaintance of chocolate and visiting Lake Taupō leads to the formation of knowledge of acquaintance of Lake Taupō. In these cases, the person forms non-inferential knowledge based on first-hand experience without necessarily acquiring factual information about the object. By contrast, it is also possible to indirectly learn a lot of propositional knowledge about chocolate or Lake Taupō by reading books without having the direct experiential contact required for knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance plays a central role in Bertrand Russell's epistemology. He holds that it is more basic than propositional knowledge since to understand a proposition, one has to be acquainted with its constituents, like the universals and particular objects it refers to.
A priori and a posteriori
The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge depends on the role of experience in the processes of formation and justification. To know something a posteriori means to know it on the basis of experience. For example, by seeing that it rains outside or hearing that the baby is crying, one acquires a posteriori knowledge of these facts. A priori knowledge is possible without any experience to justify or support the known proposition. Mathematical knowledge, such as that 2 + 2 = 4, belongs to a priori knowledge since no empirical investigation is necessary to confirm this fact. In this regard, a posteriori knowledge is empirical knowledge while a priori knowledge is non-empirical knowledge.
The relevant experience in question is primarily identified with sensory experience. However, some non-sensory experiences, like memory and introspection, are often included as well. But some conscious phenomena are excluded in this context. For example, the conscious phenomenon of a rational insight into the solution of a mathematical problem does not make the resulting knowledge a posteriori. The same is the case for the experience needed to understand the claim in which the term is expressed. For example, knowing that "all bachelors are unmarried" is a priori knowledge because no sensory experience is necessary to confirm this fact even though experience was needed to learn the meanings of the terms "bachelor" and "unmarried".
One difficulty for a priori knowledge is to explain how it is possible. It is usually seen as unproblematic that one can come to know things through experience but it is not clear how knowledge is possible without experience. One of the earliest solutions to this problem is due to Plato, who argues that the soul already possesses the knowledge and just needs to recollect or remember it to access it again. A similar explanation is given by René Descartes, who holds that a priori knowledge exists as innate knowledge present in the mind of each human. A further approach is to posit a special mental faculty responsible for this type of knowledge, often referred to as rational intuition or rational insight.
Various other types of knowledge are discussed in the academic literature. In philosophy, "self-knowledge" refers to a person's knowledge of their own sensations, thoughts, beliefs, and other mental states. A common view is that self-knowledge is more direct than knowledge of the external world, which relies on the interpretation of sense data. Because of this, it is traditionally claimed that self-knowledge is indubitable, like the claim that a person cannot be wrong about whether they are in pain. However, this position is not universally accepted in the contemporary discourse and an alternative view states that self-knowledge also depends on interpretations that could be false. In a slightly different sense, self-knowledge can also refer to knowledge of the self as a persisting entity with certain personality traits, preferences, physical attributes, relationships, goals, and social identities.
Metaknowledge is knowledge about knowledge. It can arise in the form of self-knowledge but includes other types as well, such as knowing what someone else knows or what information is contained in a scientific article. Other aspects of metaknowledge include knowing how knowledge can be acquired, stored, distributed, and used.
Common knowledge is knowledge that is publicly known and shared by most individuals within a community. It establishes a common ground for communication, understanding, social cohesion, and cooperation. General knowledge encompasses common knowledge but also includes knowledge that many people have been exposed to at some point but may not be able to immediately recall. Common knowledge contrasts with specialized knowledge, which is only possessed by a few experts and belongs to a specific domain. It is also referred to as domain knowledge.
Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation. It is closely related to practical or tacit knowledge, which is learned and applied in specific circumstances. This especially concerns certain forms of acquiring knowledge, such as trial and error or learning from experience. In this regard, situated knowledge usually lacks a more explicit structure and is not articulated in terms of universal ideas. The term is often used in feminism and postmodernism to argue that many forms of knowledge are not absolute but depend on the concrete historical, cultural, and linguistic context.
Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be fully articulated, shared, and explained. Examples are the knowledge of historical dates and mathematical formulas. It can be acquired through traditional learning methods, such as reading books and attending lectures. It contrasts with tacit knowledge, which is not easily articulated or explained to others. Examples are the ability to recognize someone's face and the practical expertise of a master craftsman. Tacit knowledge is often learned through first-hand experience or direct practice. In some cases, it is possible to convert tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge into one another.
Knowledge can be occurrent or dispositional. Occurrent knowledge is knowledge that is actively involved in cognitive processes. Dispositional knowledge, by contrast, lies dormant in the back of a person's mind and is given by the mere ability to access the relevant information. For example, if a person knows that cats have whiskers then this knowledge is dispositional most of the time and becomes occurrent while they are thinking about it.
Many forms of Eastern spirituality and religion distinguish between higher and lower knowledge. They are also referred to as para vidya and apara vidya in Hinduism or the two truths doctrine in Buddhism. Lower knowledge is based on the senses and the intellect. It encompasses both mundane or conventional truths as well as discoveries of the empirical sciences. Higher knowledge is understood as knowledge of God, the absolute, the true self, or the ultimate reality. It belongs neither to the external world of physical objects nor to the internal world of the experience of emotions and concepts. Many spiritual teachings stress the importance of higher knowledge to progress on the spiritual path and to see reality as it truly is beyond the veil of appearances.
Sources of knowledge
Sources of knowledge are ways how people come to know things. They can be understood as cognitive capacities that are exercised when a person acquires new knowledge. Various sources of knowledge are discussed in the academic literature, often in terms of the mental faculties responsible. They include perception, introspection, memory, inference, and testimony. However, not everyone agrees that all of them actually lead to knowledge. Usually, perception or observation, i.e. using one of the senses, is identified as the most important source of empirical knowledge. Knowing that a baby is sleeping is observational knowledge if it was caused by a perception of the snoring baby. However, this would not be the case if one learned about this fact through a telephone conversation with one's spouse. Direct realists explain observational knowledge by holding that perception is a direct contact with the perceived object. Indirect realists contend that this contact happens indirectly: people can only directly perceive sense data, which are then interpreted as representing external objects. This contrast affects whether the knowledge of external objects is direct or indirect and may thus have an impact on how certain perceptual knowledge is.
Introspection is often seen in analogy to perception as a source of knowledge, not of external physical objects, but of internal mental states. A traditionally common view is that introspection has a special epistemic status by being infallible. According to this position, it is not possible to be mistaken about introspective facts, like whether one is in pain, because there is no difference between appearance and reality. However, this claim has been contested in the contemporary discourse. Critics argue that it may be possible, for example, to mistake an unpleasant itch for a pain or to confuse the experience of a slight ellipse for the experience of a circle. Perceptual and introspective knowledge often act as a form of fundamental or basic knowledge. According to some empiricists, they are the only sources of basic knowledge and provide the foundation for all other knowledge.
Memory differs from perception and introspection in that it is not as independent or basic as they are since it depends on other previous experiences. The faculty of memory retains knowledge acquired in the past and makes it accessible in the present, as when remembering a past event or a friend's phone number. It is generally seen as a reliable source of knowledge. However, it can be deceptive at times nonetheless, either because the original experience was unreliable or because the memory degraded and does not accurately represent the original experience anymore.
Knowledge based on perception, introspection, or memory may also give rise to inferential knowledge, which comes about when reasoning is applied to draw inferences from another known fact. In this regard, the perceptual knowledge of a Czech stamp on a postcard may give rise to the inferential knowledge that one's friend is visiting the Czech Republic. According to rationalists, some forms of knowledge are completely independent of observation and introspection. They are needed to explain how certain a priori beliefs, like the mathematical belief that 2 + 2 = 4, constitute knowledge. Some theorists, like Robert Audi, hold that the faculty of pure reason or rational intuition is responsible in these cases. This faculty can be used to explain why such general and abstract beliefs amount to knowledge even though there seem to be no sensory perceptions that could justify them. However, difficulties in providing a clear account of pure reason or rational intuition have led some empirically minded epistemologists to doubt that they constitute independent sources of knowledge. A closely related approach is to hold that this type of knowledge is innate. According to Plato's theory of recollection, for example, it is accessed through a special form of remembering.
Testimony is often included as an additional source of knowledge. Unlike the other sources, it is not tied to one specific cognitive faculty. Instead, it is based on the idea that one person can come to know a fact because another person talks about this fact. Testimony can happen in numerous ways, like regular speech, a letter, a newspaper, or an online blog. The problem of testimony consists in clarifying under what circumstances and why it is a source of knowledge. A popular response is that it depends on the reliability of the person pronouncing the testimony: only testimony from reliable sources can lead to knowledge.
Structure of knowledge
The structure of knowledge is the way in which the mental states of a person need to be related to each other for knowledge to arise. Most theorists hold that, among other things, an agent has to have good reasons for holding a belief if this belief is to amount to knowledge. So when challenged, the agent may justify their belief by referring to their reason for holding it. In many cases, this reason is itself a belief that may as well be challenged. So when the agent believes that Ford cars are cheaper than BMWs because they believe to have heard this from a reliable source, they may be challenged to justify why they believe that their source is reliable. Whatever support they present may also be challenged. This threatens to lead to an infinite regress since the epistemic status at each step depends on the epistemic status of the previous step. Theories of the structure of knowledge offer responses for how to solve this problem.
The three most common theories are foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism. Foundationalists and coherentists deny the existence of this infinite regress, in contrast to infinitists. According to foundationalists, some basic reasons have their epistemic status independent of other reasons and thereby constitute the endpoint of the regress. Against this view, it has been argued that the concept of "basic reason" is contradictory. This criticism is based on the idea that there should be a reason why some reasons are basic and others are non-basic. This would imply that "basic" reasons themselves depend on other reasons and are therefore not basic. An additional problem consists in finding plausible candidates for basic reasons.
Coherentists and infinitists avoid these problems by denying the contrast between basic and non-basic reasons. Coherentists argue that there is only a finite number of reasons, which mutually support each other and thereby ensure each other's epistemic status. Their critics contend that this is the fallacy of circular reasoning. For example, if belief b1 supports belief b2 and belief b2 supports belief b1, the agent has a reason for accepting one belief if they already have the other. However, their mutual support alone is not a good reason for newly accepting both beliefs at once. A closely related issue is that there can be distinct sets of coherent beliefs. Coherentists face the problem of explaining why someone should accept one coherent set rather than another. For infinitists, in contrast to foundationalists and coherentists, there is an infinite number of reasons. This position faces the problem of explaining how human knowledge is possible at all, as it seems that the human mind is limited and cannot possess an infinite number of reasons. In their traditional forms, both foundationalists and coherentists face the Gettier problem, i.e. that having a reason or justification for a true belief is not sufficient for knowledge in cases where cognitive luck is responsible for the success.
Value of knowledge
Knowledge may be valuable either because it is useful or because it is good in itself. Knowledge can be useful by helping a person achieve their goals. An example of this form of instrumental value is knowledge of a disease, which can be beneficial because it enables a person to identify and treat the disease. Or to reach an important job interview, knowledge of where and when it takes place helps the person arrive there on time. However, this does not imply that knowledge is always useful. In this regard, many true beliefs about trivial matters have neither positive nor negative value. This concerns, for example, knowing how many grains of sand are on a specific beach or memorizing phone numbers one never intends to call. In a few cases, knowledge may even have a negative value. For example, if a person's life depends on gathering the courage to jump over a ravine, then having a true belief about the involved dangers may hinder the person from doing so.
Besides having instrumental value, knowledge may also have intrinsic value. This means that some forms of knowledge are good in themselves even if they do not provide any practical benefits. According to Duncan Pritchard, this applies to forms of knowledge linked to wisdom. The value of knowledge is relevant to the field of education, specifically to the issue of choosing which knowledge should be passed on to the student.
A more specific issue in epistemology concerns the question of whether or why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. There is wide agreement that knowledge is good in some sense but the thesis that knowledge is better than true belief is controversial. An early discussion of this problem is found in Plato's Meno in relation to the claim that both knowledge and true belief can successfully guide action and, therefore, have apparently the same value. For example, it seems that mere true belief is as effective as knowledge when trying to find the way to Larissa. According to Plato, knowledge is better because it is more stable. A further approach is to hold that knowledge gets its additional value from justification. However, if the value in question is understood primarily as an instrumental value, it is not clear in what sense knowledge is better than mere true belief since they are usually equally useful.
The problem of the value of knowledge is often discussed in relation to reliabilism and virtue epistemology. Reliabilism can be defined as the thesis that knowledge is reliably formed true belief. On this view, it is difficult to explain how a reliable belief-forming process adds additional value. According to an analogy by Linda Zagzebski, a cup of coffee made by a reliable coffee machine has the same value as an equally good cup of coffee made by an unreliable coffee machine. This difficulty in solving the value problem is sometimes used as an argument against reliabilism. Virtue epistemologists see knowledge as the manifestation of cognitive virtues and can thus argue that knowledge has additional value due to its association with virtue. However, not everyone agrees that knowledge actually has additional value over true belief. A similar view is defended by Jonathan Kvanvig, who argues that the main epistemic value resides not in knowledge but in understanding, which implies grasping how one's beliefs cohere with each other.
Philosophical skepticism in its strongest form, also referred to as global skepticism, is the thesis that humans lack any form of knowledge or that knowledge is impossible. Very few philosophers have explicitly defended this position. However, it has been influential nonetheless, usually in a negative sense: many scholars see it as a serious challenge to any epistemological theory and often try to show how their preferred theory overcomes it. For example, it is commonly accepted that perceptual experience is a source of knowledge. However, according to the dream argument, this is not the case since dreaming provides unreliable information and since the agent could be dreaming without knowing it. Because of this inability to discriminate between dream and perception, it is argued that there is no perceptual knowledge. A similar often-cited thought experiment assumes that the agent is actually a brain in a vat that is just fed electrical stimuli. Such a brain would have the false impression of having a body and interacting with the external world. The basic argument is the same: since the agent is unable to tell the difference, they do not know that they have a body responsible for reliable perceptions.
One issue revealed through these thought experiments is the problem of underdetermination: that the evidence available is not sufficient to make a rational decision between competing theories. If two contrary hypotheses explain the appearances equally well, then the agent may not be justified in believing one of those hypotheses rather than the other. Based on this premise, the general skeptic has to argue that this is true for all our knowledge, that there is always an alternative and very different explanation. Another skeptical argument is based on the idea that human cognition is fallible and therefore lacks absolute certainty. More specific arguments target particular theories of knowledge, such as foundationalism or coherentism, and try to show that their concept of knowledge is deeply flawed. An important argument against global skepticism is that it seems to contradict itself: the claim that there is no knowledge appears to constitute a knowledge-claim itself. Other responses come from common sense philosophy and reject global skepticism based on the fact that it contradicts many plausible ordinary beliefs. It is then argued against skepticism by seeing common sense as more reliable than the abstract reasoning cited in favor of skepticism.
Less radical forms of skepticism deny that knowledge exists within a specific area or discipline, sometimes referred to as local or selective skepticism. It is often motivated by the idea that certain phenomena do not accurately represent their subject matter. They may thus lead to false impressions concerning its nature. External world skeptics hold that one can only know about one's own sensory impressions and experiences but not about the external world. This is based on the idea that beliefs about the external world are mediated through the senses. The senses are faulty at times and may thus show things that are not really there. This problem is avoided on the level of sensory impressions, which are given to the experiencer directly without an intermediary. In this sense, the person may be wrong about seeing a red Ferrari in the street since it might have been a Maserati or a mere light reflection. However, they cannot be wrong about having a sensory impression of the color red.
The inverse path is taken by some materialists, who accept the existence of the external physical world but deny the existence of the internal realm of mind and consciousness. One reason for taking this position is the difficulty of explaining how the two realms can exist together. Other forms of local skepticism accept scientific knowledge but deny the possibility of moral knowledge, for example, because there is no reliable way to empirically measure whether a moral claim is true or false.
The issue of the definition and standards of knowledge is central to the question of whether skepticism in its different forms is true. If very high standards are used, for example, that knowledge implies infallibility, then skepticism becomes more plausible. In this case, the skeptic only has to show that no belief is absolutely certain; that while the actual belief is true, it could have been false. However, the more these standards are weakened to how the term is used in everyday language, the less plausible skepticism becomes. For example, such a position is defended in the pragmatist epistemology, which sees all beliefs and theories as fallible hypotheses and holds that they may need to be revised as new evidence is acquired.
In various disciplines
The scientific approach is usually regarded as an exemplary process for how to gain knowledge about empirical facts. Scientific knowledge includes mundane knowledge about easily observable facts, for example, chemical knowledge that certain reactants become hot when mixed together. However, it also encompasses knowledge of less tangible issues, like claims about the behavior of genes, neutrinos, and black holes.
A key aspect of most forms of science is that they seek natural laws that explain empirical observations. Scientific knowledge is discovered and tested using the scientific method. This method aims to arrive at reliable knowledge by formulating the problem in a clear way and by ensuring that the evidence used to support or refute a specific theory is public, reliable, and replicable. This way, other researchers can repeat the experiments and observations in the initial study to confirm or disconfirm it. The scientific method is often analyzed as a series of steps. According to some formulations, it begins with regular observation and data collection. Based on these insights, the scientists then try to find a hypothesis that explains the observations. The hypothesis is then tested using a controlled experiment to compare whether predictions based on the hypothesis match the actual results. As a last step, the results are interpreted and a conclusion is reached whether and to what degree the findings confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
The progress of scientific knowledge is traditionally seen as a gradual and continuous process in which the existing body of knowledge is increased at each step. However, this view has been challenged by some philosophers of science, such as Thomas Kuhn. He holds that between phases of incremental progress, there are so-called scientific revolutions in which a paradigm shift occurs. According to this view, some basic assumptions are changed due to the paradigm shift. This results in a radically new perspective on the body of scientific knowledge that is incommensurable with the previous outlook.
The history of knowledge is the field of inquiry that studies how knowledge in different fields has developed and evolved in the course of history. It is closely related to the history of science but covers a wider area that includes knowledge from fields like philosophy, mathematics, education, literature, art, and religion. It further covers practical knowledge of specific crafts, medicine, and everyday practices. It investigates not only how knowledge is created and employed but also how it is disseminated and preserved.
Before the ancient period, knowledge about social conduct and survival skills was passed down orally and in the form of customs from one generation to the next. The ancient period saw the rise of major civilizations starting about 3000 BCE in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China. The invention of writing in this period significantly increased the amount of stable knowledge within society since it could be stored and shared without being limited by imperfect human memory. During this time, the first developments in scientific fields like mathematics, astronomy, and medicine were made. They were later formalized and greatly expanded by the ancient Greeks starting in the 6th century BCE. Other ancient advancements concerned knowledge in the fields of agriculture, law, and politics.
In the medieval period, religious knowledge was a central concern and religious institutions, like the catholic church in Europe, acted as centralized intellectual authorities. This period also saw the formation of guilds, which preserved and advanced technical and craft knowledge. The first universities were established in the 11th century CE as concentrated centers of higher education and research. Many of the intellectual achievements of the ancient period were preserved, refined, and expanded in the Islamic world during the Islamic Golden Age from the 8th to 13th centuries.
In the Renaissance period, starting in the 14th century, there was a renewed interest in the humanities and sciences. The printing press was invented in the 15th century and significantly increased the availability of written media and the general literacy of the population. These developments served as the foundation of the scientific revolution in the Age of Enlightenment starting in the 16th and 17th centuries. It led to an explosion of knowledge in fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and the social sciences. The technological advancements that accompanied this development made possible the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the 20th century, the development of computers and the Internet led to a vast expansion of knowledge by revolutionizing how knowledge is stored, shared, and created.
Knowledge plays a central role in many religions. Knowledge claims about the existence of God or religious doctrines about how each one should live their lives are found in almost every culture. However, such knowledge claims are often controversial and are commonly rejected by religious skeptics and atheists. The epistemology of religion is the field of inquiry studying whether belief in God and in other religious doctrines is rational and amounts to knowledge. One important view in this field is evidentialism. It states that belief in religious doctrines is justified if it is supported by sufficient evidence. Suggested examples of evidence for religious doctrines include religious experiences such as direct contact with the divine or inner testimony as when hearing God's voice. However, evidentialists often reject that belief in religious doctrines amounts to knowledge based on the claim that there is not sufficient evidence. A famous saying in this regard is due to Bertrand Russell. When asked how he would justify his lack of belief in God when facing his judgment after death, he replied "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence."
However, religious teachings about the existence and nature of God are not always seen as knowledge claims by their defenders. Some explicitly state that the proper attitude towards such doctrines is not knowledge but faith. This is often combined with the assumption that these doctrines are true but cannot be fully understood by reason or verified through rational inquiry. For this reason, it is claimed that one should accept them even though they do not amount to knowledge. Such a view is reflected in a famous saying by Immanuel Kant where he claims that he "had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."
Distinct religions often differ from each other concerning the doctrines they proclaim as well as their understanding of the role of knowledge in religious practice. In both the Jewish and the Christian traditions, knowledge plays a role in the fall of man in which Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Responsible for this fall was that they ignored God's command and ate from the tree of knowledge, which gave them the knowledge of good and evil. This is seen as a rebellion against God since this knowledge belongs to God and it is not for humans to decide what is right or wrong. In the Christian literature, knowledge is seen as one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. In Islam, "the Knowing" (al-ʿAlīm) is one of the 99 names reflecting distinct attributes of God. The Qur'an asserts that knowledge comes from God and the acquisition of knowledge is encouraged in the teachings of Muhammad.
In Buddhism, knowledge that leads to liberation is called vijjā. It contrasts with avijjā or ignorance, which is understood as the root of all suffering. This is often explained in relation to the claim that humans suffer because they crave things that are impermanent. The ignorance of the impermanent nature of things is seen as the factor responsible for this craving. The central goal of Buddhist practice is to stop suffering. This aim is to be achieved by understanding and practicing the teaching known as the Four Noble Truths and thereby overcoming ignorance. Knowledge plays a key role in the classical path of Hinduism known as jñāna yoga or "path of knowledge". Its aim is to achieve oneness with the divine by fostering an understanding of the self and its relation to Brahman or ultimate reality.
The anthropology of knowledge is a multi-disciplinary field of inquiry. It studies how knowledge is acquired, stored, retrieved, and communicated. Special interest is given to how knowledge is reproduced and undergoes changes in relation to social and cultural circumstances. In this context, the term knowledge is used in a very broad sense, roughly equivalent to terms like understanding and culture. This means that the forms and reproduction of understanding are studied irrespective of their truth value. In epistemology, on the other hand, knowledge is usually restricted to forms of true belief. The main focus in anthropology is on empirical observations of how people ascribe truth values to meaning contents, like when affirming an assertion, even if these contents are false. But it also includes practical components: knowledge is what is employed when interpreting and acting on the world and involves diverse phenomena, such as feelings, embodied skills, information, and concepts. It is used to understand and anticipate events to prepare and react accordingly.
The reproduction of knowledge and its changes often happen through some form of communication. This includes face-to-face discussions and online communications as well as seminars and rituals. An important role in this context falls to institutions, like university departments or scientific journals in the academic context. A tradition or traditional knowledge may be defined as knowledge that has been reproduced within a society or geographic region over several generations. However, societies also respond to external influences, such as other societies. The knowledge claims found in them are interpreted and incorporated in a modified form.
People belonging to the same social group usually understand things and organize knowledge in similar ways to one another. In this regard, social identities play a significant role: people who associate themselves with similar identities, like age-influenced, professional, religious, and ethnic identities, tend to embody similar forms of knowledge. Such identities concern both how a person sees themselves, for example, in terms of the ideals they pursue, as well as how other people see them, such as the expectations they have toward the person.
The sociology of knowledge is closely related to the anthropology of knowledge. It is the subfield of sociology that studies how thought and society are related to each other. In it, the term "knowledge" is understood in a very wide sense that encompasses many types of mental products. It includes philosophical and political ideas as well as religious and ideological doctrines and can also be applied to folklore, law, and technology. In this regard, knowledge is sometimes treated as a synonym for culture. The sociology of knowledge studies in what sociohistorical circumstances knowledge arises and on what existential conditions it depends. The examined conditions can include physical, demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors. The sociology of knowledge differs from most forms of epistemology since its main focus is on the question of how ideas originate and what consequences they have. In this regard, it does not ask whether the ideas are coherent or correct. An example of a theory in this field is due to Karl Marx, who claims that the dominant ideology in a society is a product of and changes with the underlying socioeconomic conditions. A related view is found in forms of decolonial scholarship that claim that colonial powers are responsible for the hegemony of Western knowledge systems. They seek a decolonization of knowledge to undermine this hegemony.
Formal epistemology studies knowledge using formal tools, such as mathematics and logic. An important issue in this field concerns the epistemic principles of knowledge. These are rules governing how knowledge and related states behave and in what relations they stand to each other. The transparency principle, also referred to as the luminosity of knowledge, is an often discussed principle. It states that knowing something implies the second-order knowledge that one knows it. This principle implies that if Heike knows that today is Monday, then she also knows that she knows that today is Monday. Other commonly discussed principles are the conjunction principle, the closure principle, and the evidence transfer principle. For example, the conjunction principle states that having two justified beliefs in two separate propositions implies that the agent is also justified in believing the conjunction of these two propositions. In this regard, if Bob knows that dogs are animals and he also knows that cats are animals, then he knows the conjunction of these two propositions, i.e. he knows that dogs and cats are animals.
Knowledge management is the process of creating, gathering, storing, and sharing knowledge. It involves the management of information assets that can take the form of documents, databases, policies, and procedures. It is of particular interest in the field of business and organizational development, as it directly impacts decision-making and strategic planning. Knowledge management efforts are often employed to increase operational efficiency in attempts to gain a competitive advantage. Key processes in the field of knowledge management are knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. Knowledge creation is the first step and involves the production of new information. The newly acquired knowledge has to be reliably stored to not become lost or forgotten. This can happen through different means, including books, audio recordings, film, and digital databases. Secure storage facilitates knowledge sharing, which involves the transmission of information from one person to another. For the knowledge to be beneficial, it has to be put into practice. This means that its insights should be used to either improve existing practices or implement new ones.
Knowledge representation is the field of inquiry within artificial intelligence that studies how computer systems can efficiently represent information. It investigates how different data structures and interpretative procedures can be combined to achieve this goal and which formal languages can be used to express knowledge items. Some efforts in this field are directed at developing general languages and systems that can be employed in a great variety of domains while others focus on an optimized representation method within one specific domain. Knowledge representation is closely linked to automatic reasoning because the purpose of knowledge representation formalisms is usually to construct a knowledge base from which inferences are drawn. Influential knowledge base formalisms include logic-based systems, rule-based systems, semantic networks, and frames. Logic-based systems rely on formal languages employed in logic to represent knowledge. They use devices like individual terms, predicates, and quantifiers. For rule-based systems, each unit of information is expressed using a conditional production rule of the form "if A then B". Semantic nets model knowledge as a graph consisting of vertices to represent facts or concepts and edges to represent the relations between them. Frames provide complex taxonomies to group items into classes, subclasses, and instances.
- Epistemic modal logic – subfield of modal logic that is concerned with reasoning about knowledge
- General knowledge – Type of information
- Inductive inference – Method of logical reasoning
- Inductive probability – Determining the probability of future events based on past events
- Intelligence – Ability to perceive, infer, retain or apply information
- Knowledge falsification – Deliberate misrepresentation of knowledge
- Knowledge transfer – Sharing knowledge for problem solving
- Omniscience – Capacity to know everything
- Outline of human intelligence – Overview of and topical guide to human intelligence
- Outline of knowledge – Overview of and topical guide to knowledge
- Ichikawa & Steup 2018, § 7. Is Knowledge Analyzable?.
- Steup & Neta 2020.
- Allen 2005.
- Hetherington 2022.
- Ichikawa & Steup 2018.
- McCain, Stapleford & Steup 2021, p. 111.
- Zagzebski 1999, p. 101.
- Kirkham 1984, p. 501–513.
- Hetherington 2022a.
- Woolfolk & Margetts 2012, p. 251.
- Pritchard 2013, 1 Some preliminaries.
- Baehr 2022.
- Moser 2016.
- EB staff 2020.
- Schneider & McGrew 2022, pp. 115–116.
- Haraway 1988, p. 575–599.
- Klein 1998, Knowledge, concept of.
- Pritchard 2013, 2 The value of knowledge.
- Degenhardt 2019, p. 1–6.
- Olsson 2011, p. 874–883.
- Pritchard, Turri & Carter 2022.
- Turri, Alfano & Greco 2021.
- Stroll 2023.
- Lehrer 2015, 1. The Analysis of Knowledge.
- Moser 2005, p. 386, 13. Scientific Knowledge.
- Power 1970, pp. 243–244.
- Ashraf 2023, pp. 159.
- Clark 2022.
- Penelhum 1971, 1. Faith, Scepticism and Philosophy.
- Stevenson 2003, p. 72–101.
- Vost 2016, p. 75–76.
- Cohen 2010, p. S193–S202.
- Allwood 2013, p. 69–72, Anthropology of Knowledge.
- Barth 2002, p. 1–18.
- Weisberg 2021.
- AHD staff (2022). "The American Heritage Dictionary entry: ignorance". www.ahdictionary.com. HarperCollins. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- AHD staff (2022a). "The American Heritage Dictionary entry: knowledge". www.ahdictionary.com. HarperCollins. Archived from the original on 29 November 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
- AHD staff (2022b). "The American Heritage Dictionary entry: knowledge base". www.ahdictionary.com. HarperCollins. Archived from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
- Allen, Barry (2005). "Knowledge". In Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1199–1204. ISBN 978-0-684-31377-1. OCLC 55800981. Archived from the original on 22 August 2017.
- Allwood, Carl Martin (2013). "Anthropology of Knowledge". The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 69–72. doi:10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp025. ISBN 978-1-118-33989-3. Archived from the original on 26 September 2022. Retrieved 26 September 2022.
- APA staff (2022). "APA Dictionary of Psychology: situated knowledge". Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
- Aspen, Harald (2001). Amhara Traditions of Knowledge: Spirit Mediums and Their Clients. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 5. ISBN 978-3-447-04410-3. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Audi, Robert (2002). "The Sources of Knowledge". The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press. pp. 71–94. ISBN 978-0-19-513005-8. Archived from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Baehr, Jason S. (2022). "A Priori and A Posteriori". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 4 October 2019. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
- Barth, Fredrik (February 2002). "An Anthropology of Knowledge". Current Anthropology. 43 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1086/324131. hdl:1956/4191. ISSN 0011-3204.
- Bartlett, Gary (2018). "Occurrent States". Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 48 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/00455091.2017.1323531. S2CID 220316213. Archived from the original on 4 May 2021. Retrieved 3 April 2021.
- Black, Tim (1 April 2002). "Relevant alternatives and the shifting standards of knowledge". Southwest Philosophy Review. 18 (1): 23–32. doi:10.5840/swphilreview20021813. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Blayney, Benjamin, ed. (1769). "Genesis". The King James Bible. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 30 January 2023. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
- Bolisani, Ettore; Bratianu, Constantin (2018). "The Elusive Definition of Knowledge". Emergent Knowledge Strategies. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Vol. 4. Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–22. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60657-6_1. ISBN 978-3-319-60657-6. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Bouquet, Alan Coates (1962). Comparative Religion: A Short Outline. CUP Archive. p. 1.
- Boyer, Dominic (2007). "1. Of Dialectical Germans and Dialectical Ethnographers: Notes from an Engagement with Philosophy". In Harris, Mark (ed.). Ways of Knowing: Anthropological Approaches to Crafting Experience and Knowledge. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-364-0.
- Boyer, Dominic (2005). Spirit and System: Media, Intellectuals, and the Dialectic in Modern German Culture. University of Chicago Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-226-06891-6. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Burton, David (2002). "Knowledge and Liberation: Philosophical Ruminations on a Buddhist Conundrum". Philosophy East and West. 52 (3): 326–345. doi:10.1353/pew.2002.0011. ISSN 0031-8221. JSTOR 1400322. S2CID 145257341. Archived from the original on 17 February 2023. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
- Cameron, Ross (2018). "Infinite Regress Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 2 January 2020. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing. p. 515. ISBN 978-1-4381-2696-8. Archived from the original on 4 March 2023. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
- Carson, Thomas; Cerrito, Joann, eds. (2003). New Catholic encyclopedia Vol. 14: Thi–Zwi (2nd ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-7876-4018-7.
- Chappell, Sophie-Grace (2019). "Plato on Knowledge in the Theaetetus". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 10 July 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Chaudhary, Angraj (2017). Sarao, K.T.S.; Long, Jeffery D. (eds.). Buddhism and Jainism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Nature. ISBN 978-94-024-0851-5.
- Christopher W. Gowans (2014). Buddhist Moral Philosophy: An Introduction. Routledge. pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-1-317-65934-1. Archived from the original on 12 November 2021. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Clark, Kelly James (2022). "Religious Epistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 21 September 2022. Retrieved 21 September 2022.
- Clark, Romane (1988). "Vicious Infinite Regress Arguments". Philosophical Perspectives. 2: 369–380. doi:10.2307/2214081. JSTOR 2214081. Archived from the original on 26 March 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Cohen, Emma (2010). "Anthropology of knowledge". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 16: S193–S202. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01617.x. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-0012-9B72-7. JSTOR 40606072. Archived from the original on 26 September 2022. Retrieved 26 September 2022.
- Comesaña, Juan (2005). "Justified vs. Warranted Perceptual Belief: Resisting Disjunctivism". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 71 (2): 367–383. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00453.x. ISSN 0031-8205. JSTOR 40040862. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Coser, Lewis A. (1968). "Knowledge, Sociology of". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Gale. ISBN 978-0-02-928751-4. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Crotty, Kevin (2022). Ignorance, Irony, and Knowledge in Plato. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-6669-2712-2. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Crumley, Jack S. (2016). "What do you know? Look at the artifacts". Introducing Philosophy: Knowledge and Reality. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-1-55481-129-8. OCLC 950057343. Archived from the original on 13 June 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- Das, Nilanjan; Salow, Bernhard (2018). "Transparency and the KK Principle". Noûs. 52 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1111/nous.12158. Archived from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Degenhardt, M. A. B. (2019). Education and the Value of Knowledge. Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-000-62799-2. Archived from the original on 5 April 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2023.
- Delahunty, Andrew; Dignen, Sheila (2012). "Tree of knowledge". Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Allusion. OUP Oxford. p. 365. ISBN 978-0-19-956746-1. Archived from the original on 17 February 2023. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
- DePoe, John M. (2022). "Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
- Dokic, Jérôme; Égré, Paul (2009). "Margin for Error and the Transparency of Knowledge". Synthese. 166 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11229-007-9245-y. S2CID 14221986. Archived from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Dougherty, Trent (12 June 2014). "Faith, Trust, and Testimony". Religious Faith and Intellectual Virtue: 97–123. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672158.003.0005. ISBN 978-0-19-967215-8.
- Dreyer, Jaco S. (21 April 2017). "Practical theology and the call for the decolonisation of higher education in South Africa: Reflections and proposals". HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. 73 (4): 1–7. doi:10.4102/hts.v73i4.4805.
- Durán, Juan M.; Formanek, Nico (1 December 2018). "Grounds for Trust: Essential Epistemic Opacity and Computational Reliabilism". Minds and Machines. 28 (4): 645–666. doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9481-6. ISSN 1572-8641. S2CID 53102940.
- EB staff (2017). "a posteriori knowledge". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
- EB staff (2020). "a priori knowledge". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
- EB staff (2023). "scientific method". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 12 July 2022. Retrieved 17 July 2022.
- Forrest, Peter (2021). "The Epistemology of Religion". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 10 July 2022. Retrieved 21 September 2022.
- Fumerton, Richard (2022). Foundationalism. doi:10.1017/9781009028868. ISBN 978-1-009-02886-8. Archived from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Fumerton, Richard (2008). "The Problem of the Criterion". The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. pp. 34–52. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-518321-4. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- García-Arnaldos, María Dolores (23 October 2020). "An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, written by O'Brien, D." History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis. 23 (2): 508. doi:10.30965/26664275-20210003. ISSN 2666-4275. S2CID 228985437. Archived from the original on 4 March 2023. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
- Gardiner, J. M. (29 September 2001). "Episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness: a first-person approach". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 356 (1413): 1351–1361. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0955. ISSN 0962-8436. PMC 1088519. PMID 11571027.
- Gascoigne, Neil; Thornton, Tim (2014). Tacit Knowledge. Routledge. pp. 8, 37, 81, 108. ISBN 978-1-317-54726-6. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 6 March 2023.
- Gertler, Brie (2010). "1. Introduction". Self-Knowledge. Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-136-85811-6. Archived from the original on 8 April 2023. Retrieved 24 October 2022.
- Gertler, Brie (2021). "Self-Knowledge". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 11 November 2021. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
- Gertler, Brie (2021a). "Self-Knowledge > Knowledge of the Self". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 3 July 2022. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
- Ghose, Aurobindo (1998). "Political Writings and Speeches. 1890–1908: The Glory of God in Man". Bande Mataram II. ISBN 978-81-7058-416-2. Archived from the original on 9 March 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2023.
- Goldman, Alvin I. (18 November 1976). "Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge". The Journal of Philosophy. 73 (20): 771–791. doi:10.2307/2025679. JSTOR 2025679.
- Green, Christopher R. (2022). "Epistemology of Testimony". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 7 March 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
- Gupta, Anil (2021). "Definitions: 1.1 Real and nominal definitions". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 1 May 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
- Hamner, M. Gail (2003). American Pragmatism: A Religious Genealogy. Oxford University Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-19-515547-1. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Hannon, Michael (2021). "Knowledge, concept of". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London; New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P031-2. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Hansen, Judith Friedman (1982). "From Background to Foreground: Toward an Anthropology of Learning". Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 13 (2): 193. doi:10.1525/aeq.1982.13.2.05x1833m. ISSN 0161-7761. JSTOR 3216630.
- Haraway, Donna (1988). "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective". Feminist Studies. 14 (3): 575–599. doi:10.2307/3178066. JSTOR 3178066. S2CID 39794636. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
- Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (2018). "Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
- Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (2020). "Knowledge by Acquaintance vs. Description: 1. The Distinction". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 31 May 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
- Hatfield, Gary (1996). "Scientific method". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. Archived from the original on 16 January 2021. Retrieved 8 March 2023.
- Hepburn, Brian; Andersen, Hanne (2021). "Scientific Method". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 February 2020. Retrieved 23 July 2022.
- Hetherington, Stephen (2022). "Gettier Problems". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 19 February 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
- Hetherington, Stephen (2022a). "Knowledge". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 18 May 2022.
- Hill, Sonya D., ed. (2009). "Knowledge–Based View Of The Firm". Encyclopedia of Management. Gale. ISBN 978-1-4144-0691-6. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 6 March 2023.
- Hunter, Lynette (2009). "Situated Knowledge". Mapping Landscapes for Performance as Research: Scholarly Acts and Creative Cartographies. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 151–153. doi:10.1057/9780230244481_23. ISBN 978-0-230-24448-1. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
- Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins; Steup, Matthias (2018). "The Analysis of Knowledge". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 2 May 2022. Retrieved 24 May 2022.
- Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006). Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-7564-5. Archived from the original on 20 October 2022. Retrieved 21 September 2022.
- Kern, Andrea (2017). Sources of Knowledge: On the Concept of a Rational Capacity for Knowledge. Harvard University Press. pp. 8–10, 133. ISBN 978-0-674-41611-6. Archived from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022.
- Kernis, Michael H. (2013). Self-Esteem Issues and Answers: A Sourcebook of Current Perspectives. Psychology Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-1-134-95270-0. Archived from the original on 22 October 2022. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
- Kirkham, Richard L. (October 1984). "Does the Gettier Problem Rest on a Mistake?". Mind. New Series. 93 (372): 501–513. doi:10.1093/mind/XCIII.372.501. JSTOR 2254258.
- Klausen, Søren Harnow (March 2015). "Group knowledge: a real-world approach". Synthese. 192 (3): 813–839. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0589-9. S2CID 207246817.
- Klein, Peter D. (1998). "Knowledge, concept of". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London; New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-P031-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. OCLC 38096851. Archived from the original on 13 June 2022. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- Kraft, Tim (2012). "Scepticism, Infallibilism, Fallibilism". Discipline Filosofiche. 22 (2): 49–70. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Kuruk, Paul (2020). Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources, Customary Law and Intellectual Property: A Global Primer. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-78536-848-6. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (2003). The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge University Press. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-139-44228-2. Archived from the original on 23 July 2020. Retrieved 16 July 2020.
- Lackey, Jennifer (2021). The Epistemology of Groups. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965660-8. Archived from the original on 25 October 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
- Lammenranta, Markus (2022). "Epistemic Circularity". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 27 January 2021. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Lee, Jerry Won (2017). The Politics of Translingualism: After Englishes. Routledge. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-315-31051-0. Archived from the original on 8 March 2023. Retrieved 8 March 2023.
- Lehrer, Keith (2015). "1. The Analysis of Knowledge". Theory of Knowledge. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-19609-7. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Leonard, Nick (2021). "Epistemological Problems of Testimony". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 10 July 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
- Lilley, Simon; Lightfoot, Geoffrey; Amaral, Paulo (2004). Representing Organization: Knowledge, Management, and the Information Age. Oxford University Press. pp. 162–163. ISBN 978-0-19-877541-6. Archived from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
- Lycan, William G. (2019). "2. Moore against the New Skeptics". On Evidence in Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 21–36. ISBN 978-0-19-256526-6. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Magee, Bryan; Popper, Karl R. (1971). "Conversation with Karl Popper". In Magee, Bryan (ed.). Modern British philosophy. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 74–75. ISBN 978-0-19-283047-0. OCLC 314039.
Popper: Putting our ideas into words, or better, writing them down, makes an important difference. ... It is what I call 'knowledge in the objective sense'. Scientific knowledge belongs to it. It is this knowledge which is stored in our libraries rather than our heads. Magee: And you regard the knowledge stored in our libraries as more important than the knowledge stored in our heads. Popper: Much more important, from every point of view
- Markie, Peter; Folescu, M. (2021). "Rationalism vs. Empiricism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 9 August 2019. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
- McCain, Kevin; Stapleford, Scott; Steup, Matthias (2021). Epistemic Dilemmas: New Arguments, New Angles. Routledge. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-000-46851-9. Archived from the original on 21 October 2022. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
- McCain, Kevin (2022). "Problem of the Criterion". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
- McDermid, Douglas (2023). "Pragmatism: 2b. Anti-Cartesianism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 23 May 2019. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- McGeer, V. (2001). "Self-knowledge: Philosophical Aspects". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: 13837–13841. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01073-1. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8.
- Michaelian, Kourken; Sutton, John (2017). "Memory: 3. Episodicity". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 5 October 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
- Misak, Cheryl (2002). Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation. Routledge. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-134-82618-6. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Mishra, T. K. (2021). The Power of Ethics: Some lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita. K.K. Publications. p. 52. ISBN 978-81-7844-127-6. Archived from the original on 30 July 2022. Retrieved 21 June 2022.
- Morin, Alain; Racy, Famira (2021). "15. Dynamic self-processes - Self-knowledge". The Handbook of Personality Dynamics and Processes. Academic Press. pp. 373–374. ISBN 978-0-12-813995-0. Archived from the original on 22 October 2022. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
- Moser, Paul K. (2016). "A posteriori". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
- Moser, Paul K. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-020818-9. Archived from the original on 19 May 2023. Retrieved 8 March 2023.
- Murphy, Peter (2022). "Coherentism in Epistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 12 June 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
- Niiniluoto, Ilkka (2019). "Scientific Progress". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 8 March 2023.
- O'Brien, Dan (2016). "Part I Chapter 7: Family resemblance". An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-5095-1240-9. Archived from the original on 6 March 2023. Retrieved 6 March 2023.
- O’Brien, Daniel (2022). "The Epistemology of Perception". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 8 May 2009. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
- OD staff (2010). "knowledge". Oxford dictionary (American English). Archived from the original on 14 July 2010.
- Olsson, Erik J (December 2011). "The Value of Knowledge: The Value of Knowledge". Philosophy Compass. 6 (12): 874–883. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00425.x. S2CID 143034920.
- Paden, William E. (2009). "Comparative religion". The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. pp. 239–256. doi:10.4324/9780203868768-19. ISBN 978-0-203-86876-8. Archived from the original on 21 September 2022. Retrieved 21 September 2022.
- Parikh, Rohit; Renero, Adriana (2017). "Justified True Belief: Plato, Gettier, and Turing". Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Vol. 324. Springer International Publishing. pp. 93–102. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53280-6_4. ISBN 978-3-319-53280-6. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Paul Williams (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge. pp. 68–69. ISBN 978-1-134-25056-1. Archived from the original on 21 November 2016. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Peels, Rik; Blaauw, Martijn (2016). The Epistemic Dimensions of Ignorance. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-107-17560-0. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Penelhum, Terence (1971). "1. Faith, Scepticism and Philosophy". Problems of Religious Knowledge. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-10633-4.
- Plato (2002). Five Dialogues. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co. pp. 89–90, 97b–98a. ISBN 978-0-87220-633-5.
- Pritchard, Duncan; Turri, John; Carter, J. Adam (2022). "The Value of Knowledge". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 10 July 2022. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
- Pritchard, Duncan (2013). What is this thing called Knowledge?. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-57367-7. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Pritchard, Duncan (April 2007). "Recent Work on Epistemic Value". American Philosophical Quarterly. 44 (2): 85–110. JSTOR 20464361.
- Rodríguez, Ángel García (2018). "Fake barns and our epistemological theorizing". Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía. 50 (148): 29–54. doi:10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2018.02. ISSN 0011-1503. JSTOR 26767766. S2CID 171635198.
- Ronald, Barnett (1990). The Idea Of Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). p. 40. ISBN 978-0-335-09420-2. Archived from the original on 5 March 2023. Retrieved 5 March 2023.
- Russell, Bruce (2020). "A Priori Justification and Knowledge". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 12 August 2021. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
- Schafer, Karl (September 2014). "Knowledge and Two Forms of Non-Accidental Truth". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 89 (2): 375. doi:10.1111/phpr.12062.
What the Gettier cases show is that this condition is insufficient to capture all the ways in which accidental truth is incompatible with knowledge.
- Scheler, Max; Stikkers, Kenneth W. (2012). Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-415-62334-6. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Schwitzgebel, Eric (2021). "Belief: 2.1 Occurrent Versus Dispositional Belief". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 15 November 2019. Retrieved 8 June 2022.
- Sidelle, Alan (2001). "An Argument That Internalism Requires Infallibility". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 63 (1): 163–179. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00096.x. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Silva, Paul Jr. (September 2019). "Beliefless knowing". Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 100 (3): 723–746. doi:10.1111/papq.12273. S2CID 240808741.
- Stanley, Jason; Willlamson, Timothy (2001). "Knowing How". Journal of Philosophy. 98 (8): 411–444. doi:10.2307/2678403. JSTOR 2678403. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Steup, Matthias; Neta, Ram (2020). "Epistemology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 21 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
- Stevenson, Leslie (March 2003). "Opinion, Belief or Faith, and Knowledge". Kantian Review. 7: 72–101. doi:10.1017/S1369415400001746. ISSN 2044-2394. S2CID 143965507. Archived from the original on 21 September 2022. Retrieved 21 September 2022.
- Stroll, Avrum (2023). "epistemology". www.britannica.com. Archived from the original on 10 July 2019. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
- Sudduth, Michael (2022). "Defeaters in Epistemology: 2b Defeasibility Analyses and Propositional Defeaters". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 17 May 2022.
- Swartley, Keith E. (2005). Encountering the World of Islam. InterVarsity Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-8308-5644-2. Archived from the original on 4 March 2023. Retrieved 4 March 2023.
- Thakchoe, Sonam (2022). "The Theory of Two Truths in India". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
- The Hindu staff (18 September 2018). "Para and Apara Vidya". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 31 May 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2022.
- Thompson, C. M. (2001). "Situated Knowledge: Feminist and Science and Technology Studies Perspectives". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Pergamon. pp. 14129–14133. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 19 September 2022.
- Truncellito, David A. (2023). "Epistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 13 January 2022. Retrieved 8 March 2023.
- Tufari, P. (2003). "Knowledge, Sociology of". New Catholic Encyclopedia. Thomson/Gale. ISBN 978-0-7876-4008-8.
- Turri, John; Alfano, Mark; Greco, John (2021). "Virtue Epistemology: 6. Epistemic Value". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 March 2023. Retrieved 20 September 2022.
- Vost, Kevin (2016). Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Sophia Institute Press. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-62282-412-0. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2023.
- Walton, Douglas N. (January 2005). "Pragmatic and idealized models of knowledge and ignorance". American Philosophical Quarterly. 42 (1): 59–69 [59, 64]. JSTOR 20010182.
It is a pervasive assumption in recent analytical philosophy that knowledge can be defined as a modality representing a rational agent's true and consistent beliefs. Such views are based on rationality assumptions. One is that knowledge can only consist of true propositions. This way of speaking is sharply at odds with the way we speak about knowledge, for example, in computing, where a so-called knowledge base can be a database, that is, a set of data that has been collected and is thought to consist of true propositions, even though, realistically speaking, many of them might later be shown to be false or untenable. ... The pragmatic account of knowledge starts with a knowledge system, meaning a working system with an agent having a database. ... The notion of a search can be a social one, in many instances. A group of agents can be engaged in the search, and some of them can know things that others do not know.
- Weisberg, Jonathan (2021). "Formal Epistemology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 14 March 2015. Retrieved 5 June 2022.
- Woolf, Raphael (1 January 2013). "Plato and the Norms of Thought". Mind. 122 (485): 171–216. doi:10.1093/mind/fzt012. ISSN 0026-4423. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
- Zagzebski, Linda (1999). "What Is Knowledge?". In Greco, John; Sosa, Ernest (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 92–116. doi:10.1002/9781405164863.ch3. ISBN 978-0-631-20290-5. OCLC 39269507. S2CID 158886670. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022. Retrieved 12 June 2022.
- Doren, Charles Van (17 March 1992). A History of Knowledge: Past, Present, and Future. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-345-37316-8.
- Burke, Peter (29 December 2015). What is the History of Knowledge?. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-5095-0306-3.
- Daston, Lorraine (March 2017). "The History of Science and the History of Knowledge". KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge. 1 (1): 131–154. doi:10.1086/691678. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-002C-EDB1-5. S2CID 164680540.
- Mulsow, Martin (4 October 2018). "6. History of Knowledge". In Tamm, Marek; Burke, Peter (eds.). Debating New Approaches to History. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4742-8193-5.
- Fagan, Brian M.; Durrani, Nadia (13 September 2016). World Prehistory: A Brief Introduction. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-27910-5.
- Conner, Clifford D. (24 April 2009). A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and Low Mechanicks. Bold Type Books. ISBN 978-0-7867-3786-4.
- Kuhn, Thomas S. (1 January 1992). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-41747-2.
- Trefil, James (12 March 2012). "Islamic Science". Science in World History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-49929-6.
- Lanzer, Peter (30 April 2018). Textbook of Catheter-Based Cardiovascular Interventions: A Knowledge-Based Approach. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-55994-0.
- Ashraf, Mirza Iqbal (18 September 2023). Progression of Knowledge in Western Civilization. Archway Publishing. ISBN 978-1-6657-4959-6.
- Bowen, James; Gelpi, Ettore; Anweiler, Oskar (2023). "Education". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 30 April 2023.
- Bartlett, Steve; Burton, Diana (2007). Introduction to Education Studies (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-2193-0.
- Friesen, Norm (2017). The Textbook and the Lecture: Education in the Age of New Media. JHU Press. ISBN 978-1-4214-2434-7. Archived from the original on 13 May 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023.
- Danesi, Marcel (2013). Encyclopedia of Media and Communication. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-9553-5.
- Steinberg, Sheila (1995). Introduction to Communication Course Book 1: The Basics. Juta and Company Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7021-3649-8. Archived from the original on 17 May 2023. Retrieved 28 November 2022.
- Power, Edward J. (1970). Main Currents in the History of Education. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050581-0. Archived from the original on 3 May 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023.
- Kemmis, Stephen; Edwards-Groves, Christine (2017). Understanding Education: History, Politics and Practice. Springer. ISBN 978-981-10-6433-3. Archived from the original on 13 May 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023.
- Evans, James A.; Foster, Jacob G. (11 February 2011). "Metaknowledge". Science. 331 (6018): 721–725. doi:10.1126/science.1201765. PMID 21311014. S2CID 220090552.
- Rescher, Nicholas (2005). Epistemic Logic: A Survey of the Logic of Knowledge. University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-7092-7.
- Cox, Michael T.; Raja, Anita (2011). Metareasoning: Thinking about Thinking. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01480-9.
- Leondes, Cornelius T. (26 September 2001). Expert Systems: The Technology of Knowledge Management and Decision Making for the 21st Century. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-053145-8.
- Desouza, K.; Awazu, Y. (7 June 2005). Engaged Knowledge Management: Engagement with New Realities. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-00607-2.
- Jorna, René (8 September 2017). Sustainable Innovation: The Organisational, Human and Knowledge Dimension. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-28034-1.
- Faber, Niels R.; Maruster, Laura; Jorna, René J. (8 September 2017). "Assessing and Determining Social Sustainability". In Jorna, René (ed.). Sustainable Innovation: The Organisational, Human and Knowledge Dimension. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-28034-1.
- Vempala, Naresh N. (18 July 2014). "Creativity, Theories of Musical". In Thompson, William Forde (ed.). Music in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Encyclopedia. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4522-8302-9.
- Schneider, W. Joel; McGrew, Kevin S. (5 December 2022). "The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; McDonough, Erin M. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. Guilford Publications. ISBN 978-1-4625-5203-0.
- Witzel, Morgen (2 August 2004). Management: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-36172-4.
- Choo, Chun Wei (2002). "Knowledge Management". In Schement, Jorge Reina (ed.). Encyclopedia of Communication and Information. Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0-02-865385-3. Retrieved 1 December 2023.
- Suzanne, Zyngier (15 January 2021). Enhancing Academic Research and Higher Education With Knowledge Management Principles. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-5773-0.
- Castilho, Luciana V.; Lopes, Heitor S. (15 December 2009). "An Ontology-Based System for Knowledge Management and Learning in Neuropediatric Physiotherapy". In Szczerbicki, Edward; Nguyen, Ngoc Thanh (eds.). Smart Information and Knowledge Management: Advances, Challenges, and Critical Issues. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-642-04583-7.
- Kandel, Abraham (1992). Fuzzy Expert Systems. CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-4297-X.
- Cai, Zixing; Liu, Lijue; Chen, Baifan; Wang, Yong (25 May 2021). Artificial Intelligence: From Beginning To Date. World Scientific. ISBN 9789811223716.
- Akerkar, Rajendra; Sajja, Priti (30 August 2010). Knowledge-Based Systems. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 9780763776473.
- Lengnick-Hall, Mark L.; Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A. (2003). Human Resource Management in the Knowledge Economy: New Challenges, New Roles, New Capabilities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57675-159-6.
- Awad, Elias M.; Ghaziri, Hassan (2003). Knowledge Management. Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-93-325-0619-0.
- Hoad, T. F. (1993). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283098-8.
- Wise, C. (31 January 2011). Chomsky and Deconstruction: The Politics of Unconscious Knowledge. Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-11705-1.
- MW Staff (25 November 2023). "Definition of Knowledge". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- CD staff. "Knowledge". Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 3 December 2023.
- Morrison, Robert (18 April 2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge University Press. p. 371. ISBN 978-0-521-82417-0. Archived from the original on 30 March 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Reif, Frederick (2008). Applying Cognitive Science to Education: Thinking and Learning in Scientific and Other Complex Domains. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-18263-8. Archived from the original on 15 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Woolfolk, Anita; Margetts, Kay (25 July 2012). Educational Psychology Australian Edition. Pearson Higher Education AU. p. 251. ISBN 978-1-4425-5145-9. Archived from the original on 6 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Peels, Rik (2023). Ignorance: A Philosophical Study. Oxford University Press. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-765451-4. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Heydorn, Wendy; Jesudason, Susan (18 July 2013). Decoding Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-107-62842-7. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Foxall, Gordon (16 October 2017). Context and Cognition in Consumer Psychology: How Perception and Emotion Guide Action. Routledge. p. 75. ISBN 978-1-317-67738-3. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Haymes, Brian; Özdalga, Elisabeth (3 January 2016). Concept Of The Knowledge Of God. Springer. pp. 26–28. ISBN 978-1-349-19066-9. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Miah, Sajahan (30 May 2006). Russell's Theory of Perception. Continuum. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-84714-284-9. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Alter, Torin; Nagasawa, Yujin (1 April 2015). Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. Oxford University Press. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-0-19-992736-4. Archived from the original on 1 April 2023. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
- Becerra-Fernandez, Irma. Knowledge Management: Systems and Processes. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-2857-2.
- Wilson, John P.; Cattell, Alan (2005). "7. Knowledge Management". In Wilson, John P. (ed.). Human Resource Development: Learning & Training for Individuals & Organizations. Kogan Page Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7494-4352-8.
- Spaulding, Shannon (4 March 2016). "Imagination Through Knowledge". In Kind, Amy; Kung, Peter (eds.). Knowledge Through Imagination. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-102619-5.
- Knowledge at PhilPapers
- "Knowledge". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- "Epistemic Value". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "The Value of Knowledge". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "The Analysis of Knowledge". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Knowledge by Acquaintance vs. Description". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Knowledge at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project