The first philosopher to define knowledge was Plato. He stated that for people to claim that they know something, the thing that they claim they know should be true. This is the first condition of knowledge. The knowledge should be true so that it can be proven to be so. The second condition of knowledge is that it should be believed that it is actually true. People should be able to believe that knowledge is true. The third condition is that the knowledge should have some form of justification. There should be some form of prove that the knowledge that someone has is what they claim to be.
Problems of knowing
There are issues and problems that come with knowing. The first problem with knowing is the rise of science. There has been confusion with the rise of science. The development of science saw the rise and changes in processes of knowing. The science and art of knowing were enhanced by philosophers and scientists. One of the greatest philosophers who saved science from philosophy is Francis Bacon. He introduced the science of understanding things. He enhanced the need for learning and the need to have avenues where individuals could learn. The scientist brought a new way in which knowledge can be inducted. He advocated reductionism and subjectivity when it comes to science. This philosopher advocated that the universe can be reduced to smaller units and blocks and that these blocks can be studied individually (Rorty, Williams, and Bromwich 276).
Another problem is that of mathematics. This problem was brought to fore by Galileo Galilei who was employed as a mathematician rather than as a philosopher. The problem of mathematics came into fore with the argument by Galileo that the problems that we have can be solved by undertaking experiments and observing and not seeking the consent of authority. This made him clash with the authorities. He did not support hierarchical order where he argued that this produced intellectual peace although it was too easy to be adopted. The differences that we find with scientists in their divergent views are the problems that are found in knowing. This the supported approach in science as these divergent views will lead to having new ways of learning.
There is also the problem of knowing where it should show the reason why knowledge should have three features of truth, belief, and sufficient evidence. There is also the failure to show the relationship that these have in the philosophy of knowledge. There is the problem of proving why the three features should be present if there should be knowledge (Cook, and Brown 73).
Knowledge and evidence
Knowledge has been defined with the justification that is required to build them. The third condition of knowing is that there should be justification for the knowledge that someone claim that they have. Evidence is regarded to be the total knowledge that someone knows about a given phenomenon. This, then, brings on the relationship between evidence and the value of a given opinion. The value of a given opinion is related with evidence because of the fact that the value of the opinion given will depend on the evidence that the owner of the opinion has. The opinion should be backed by evidence so that it can be regarded and accepted to be knowledge. The entire hypothesis that one has should be supported by the evidence that they have regarding the claim (Polanyi 84).
Problems and basis of sufficient evidence
There is the issue of sufficient evidence when it comes to knowledge and the process of knowing. One has to have sufficient evidence in the things that they claim they have and believe. This is an important aspect when it comes to knowledge. The interesting phenomenon with this case of sufficient evidence is that it is used when there is a need to prove that one knows p. The problem is when it is clear that one knows p but is now aware that they know p. this happens when one does not have sufficient evidence about the knowledge they claim they know. Sufficient evidence plays a key role in understanding that one knows p. One may have sufficient evidence that p but does not have sufficient evidence that they know that p. for one to know that they know that p, they should have sufficient evidence that they know that they know that p. for one to know that they have sufficient evidence regarding some aspect, they should have sufficient evidence that they know about that issue and aspect that they claim they know. In this case, sufficient evidence plays a key role in this process of bringing out the knowledge regarding a given issue.
One problem with the use of sufficient evidence is the fact that it makes use of evidence in the statement of the third necessary condition. This statement shows that there is the use of evidence instead of using interesting facts of philosophy. Evidence has a far distant place in the notion of natural knowledge.
Works Cited
Cook, Scott DN, and John Seely Brown. "Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing." Organization science 10.4 (1999): 381-400.
Polanyi, Michael. Knowing and being: essays. Ed. Marjorie Glicksman Grene. University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Rorty, Richard, Michael Williams, and David Bromwich. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Vol. 401. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.
