This is a philosophical question! I hope that this question enlightens us with various scholarly views on knowledge and we shall all be benefited by exchanges on this topic. To start with, Chinese philosopher, Confucius, had said these comments on what constitutes real knowledge:
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” (Confucius)
"When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it – this is knowledge.” (Confucius)
“I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” (Confucius)
Your views are welcome! With best wishes - Sundar
There are many good resources on knowledge. I do like one of Einstein's! I am very familiar, as an engineer with @Abedallah's notion. So, I am speaking about a knowledge applied for the sake of people and society! Such experience generates more knowledge and it is a cyclic process!
Real knowledge means grasping the ideas. This knowledge can be gained by searching within oneself!- Plato!
http://www.quotessays.com/knowledge.html
http://gramata.univ-paris1.fr/Plato/IMG/pdf/Erler.pdf
Dear @Sundarapandian, I think that real knowledge is the knowledge that helps people and improve understanding of others.
Excellent question and an excellent introduction. I agree fully with the citations. There are a couple of other interesting points which I think are meaningful. For example 'You cannot step in the same river twice" (Heraclitus). "As it will not be the same river and you will not be the same man. " This is to me also a description of *knowledge*. Actually in my view the concept knowledge is misleading - and the point with *real* is entertaining. Considering that I think that there is no such thing as *knowledge* - it is not an object. As human being we know nothing - but perhaps we are *knowing* - as it is an ongoing process of thinking and being - our mind is not static and so we do not *hold* knowledge and thus knowledge is also not static and is not an object. From my point of view we are living beings who are making sense of our experiences of our world and so continually thinking and re-thinking and cognizing and recognizing and acting and reflecting. The theoretical moment of *understanding* as an object and a *thought* as an object and *information* as an object and *knowledge* as an object - could only be when we stop thinking. Perhaps being dead would make us having knowledge - but then we would not be able to access it. Until then we are perhaps *informing* ourselves and we may be *knowing*. and it is an ongoing changing living process. thus we can change our mind - or we can have different explanations (all potentially thought as true) about *the same* experience (which is an over simplification we use for pragmatic purposes). Or as Gregory Bateson referred to - it is a difference that makes a difference - the rest we did not pay attention to and so did not notice. The human ability to *over-generalize* and live with experienced paradoxes without getting paralysed makes us as humans effective. In my view...
There are many good resources on knowledge. I do like one of Einstein's! I am very familiar, as an engineer with @Abedallah's notion. So, I am speaking about a knowledge applied for the sake of people and society! Such experience generates more knowledge and it is a cyclic process!
Real knowledge means grasping the ideas. This knowledge can be gained by searching within oneself!- Plato!
http://www.quotessays.com/knowledge.html
http://gramata.univ-paris1.fr/Plato/IMG/pdf/Erler.pdf
There was no such complexity in the politico-economic environment as it is today during the time when Einstein made the statement that "The only source of knowledge is experience." Modern writers on creating and managing knowledge agree with this view with a rider. That is, often when the context changes, experience ceases to be relevant or becomes only partially relevant. They argue that we must juxtapose along with that experiment as a new source of knowledge; and experience should be read as a knowledge source subject to this reality.
“The more I read, the more I acquire, the more certain I am that I know nothing.” ― Voltaire
“Study the past if you would define the future.” ― Confucius
Knowledge is power, that no one can ever steal/snatch away from you. But in order to be relevant in the changed circumstances, one must learn, de-learn and re-learn so as to update knowledge.
The knowledge that begins with words and end with words is useless. The real knowledge is the one that benefits the entire society.
Real knowledge is the knowledge that is acquired in search of truth through laborious actions and patient observation of facts and that benefits entire society.
Our education systems tend to educate intuition while infinite real provable knowledge, which is desperately needed in a knowledge demanding world, is ignored. Please read the following two quotes by Legends on Real Knowledge -
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive" – Albert Einstein
"We cannot stop where we are, stuck with today's level of understanding, not can we go back. I do not see that we have any real choice in this, for I can see the only one way ahead. We need science, more and better science, not for its technology, not for leisure, not even for health and longevity, but for the hope of wisdom which our kind of culture must acquire for its survival" – Lewis Thomas
REAL knowledge is like REAL perception (or REAL cognition): we always lack the criterion of validity when we really try to bring it together with s.th. physical. Still, you can change the criterion. For instance, in my main domain of research, it makes sense that REAL is what we actually experience, so it is not anymore linked with physical "reality" but psychological reality (see the attached article).
Taking this general idea into account, also real KNOWLEDGE should be referring to knowledge which we psychologically gain, but not knowledge as reflecting the PHYSICAL TRUTH--because we won't ever solve this problem, so real knowledge would never achievable. So real knowledge should be defined as a pile of theories and data which was developed and measured on basis of replicable methods--and thus they are a) always per definition preliminary and b) also not absolute but relative, because scientific efforts produce different outcomes as methods and context might also change across different research groups.
In the end I would recommend to exchange REAL knowledge by SCIENTIFIC knowledge as anything associated with "REAL(ity)" is always susceptible for a proper definition---REALITY is clearly a philosophical entity, never empirically testable.
Article Understanding human perception by human-made illusions
The knowledge can not be retained in isolation .It has no limit & it cannot be measured in any mode .To me for this word the sky is limit .
With this real knowledge has a specify identity it cover wide range knowledge under multiplicity & to this quite good knowledge groups play in the same range of knowledge so as to help them to contribute in the welfare of society .
It is also said that knowledge is power in very light tone ,if not out of way I wish to place this ''Know +ledge(er)''.Very often in order to establish an imaginary position in the society .
Certain person in order to carry there position as a part of the a knowledgeable to satisfy there Ego .It will not help them to contribute knowledge in positive manner in the tune for the society just as accounting ledger book they merely accumulated entries of their knowledge to satisfy there Ego .
From my point of view our knowledge is a part offering intelligence with the dynamic force of mind power & I humbly feel that we generated our intelligence which we bought from our early previous birth ,& as such men are born equal but mind & intelligence differ considerable
Real knowledge is not necessarily a good concept as the complexities are very high due to the combination of two *very* uncertain and ambiguous terms (real and knowledge) - but from a simplistic point of view it can be suggested that it is something that can be discussed with the use of a systematic method drawing upon not just induction and deduction; but also *production* and abduction. Then we have a description which might be agreed upon as *temporarily* real knowledge in a specific human community (e.g. scientific).
Hein Retter How do we distinguish real knowledge from unreal knowledge? What is the criterion? In this context, what is the meaning of "real"? It is not clear to me. A clear and simple definition would be most helpful.
What is real knowledge?
Re statement below:
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” (Confucius)
I go back to Confucius original Chinese text as below (see 1st picture) & other English interpretation (see 2nd picture). I think real knowledge according to Confucius is - knowing what you know is knowledge, knowing what you don't know is also knowledge
Real knowledge is that knowledge that we seek within ourselves, which makes us enlightened from within and yet this knowledge do not remain confined within, it teaches us to connect and embrace our envoirnment with a sense of peace and harmony.
“That knowledge which purifies the mind and heart alone is true Knowledge, all else is only a negation of Knowledge.” ―Ramakrishna
Han Ping Fung The quotation from Confucius is not helpful at all in thinking about the meaning of "real" knowledge. It is just a proverb with little indication of how we can determine real knowledge from unreal knowledge.
Joseph Tham
I have neither a thesis to defend nor do I want to exclude other considerations to do justice to the question. But before we give an answer, I want to understand the question, which can mean a very wide or very narrow horizon of possible answers - it depends on the intention of the questioner. I approach this reflection more in terms of linguistic logic and phenomenology. Logically speaking, "unreal" is the opposite of "real". Therefore I exclude "unreal" from the term "real knowledge".
sequel 1:
A second step is phenomenological in nature: I test the linguistic field for "real" - in relation to the term "knowledge". In science, knowledge is basically closely linked to a - hypothetical - rational and objective claim to truth. Although knowledge in everyday practice is always what one can rely on, it is always hypothetical in the progressing course of science; existing knowledge can in principle be replaced by more precise knowledge. The hypothesis-guided concept of knowledge distinguishes itself from the subjective "becoming aware" (which varies from subject to subject) and must withstand a test of reality. Now the question is: What does reality mean? Is reality identical with "experience"? Obviously not (quite) - because experiences are subjective - and even if the majority of the subjects agree, they by no means have to be adequate to the truth of the matter - as the philosophers of pragmatism are prepared to assume.
sequel 2
Epistemology has always distinguished between sensory perception and thinking, whereby thinking is usually a test function for perception, even if thinking itself has to test itself. I simply break off my train of thought here and advocate the thesis that we should decide how we should understand the central concept of our question, "real knowledge". There are two possibilities here:
A/ I link "reality" - or the "real" concept of knowledge - with an empirical understanding of (objectively verifiable) truth.
B/ I connect "reality" - or the "real" concept of knowledge - with certainty. This means more, and also something else, than empirical evidence. It means the innermost conviction of man, which is also more than just a rational truth, because it contains values. It exceeds empirically verifiable scientific knowledge and concerns statements of worldview, religion and non-empirical philosophy, including metaphysics.
So: let's decide!
Nature is the source of all true knowledge. She has her own logic, her own laws, she has no effect without cause nor invention without necessity. - Leonardo da Vinci
There are two types of knowledge:
1. Real knowledge
2. Pretend knowledge...
But the moot point here is to distinguish between the real knowledge and the pretend knowledge.This chauffeur didn’t have the real knowledge, he merely acquired a pretend knowledge.
Richard Feynman, an American Physicist and Nobel Laureate, explained the difference so well:
In this world we have two kinds of knowledge. One is Planck knowledge, the people who really know. They’ve paid the dues, they have the aptitude. And then we’ve got chauffeur knowledge. They’ve learned the talk. They may have a big head of hair, they may have fine temper in the voice, they’ll make a hell of an impression...
https://medium.com/swlh/2-types-of-knowledge-learn-the-best-way-to-gain-real-knowledge-49c644e1ca4a
Feynman's review of his life (You are joking Mr. Feinman!) gives an example of 2 kinds of knowledge, but perhaps a little different. As a theoretical physicist, he could explain the world (or much related to the laws of matter) like other great physicists. But what he could not and did not know, he also described very impressing. Like other young people, he always sat in a restaurant in the evening, where life was full to bursting. With fast girls, and so.... He didn't know how the others managed to win a girl and then have a night with him somewhere. That is very nicely told and you will know the book and perhaps this episode.
In addition: There is a kind of social knowledge, milieu knowledge, survival knowledge that very strongly combines knowledge with behaviour. A sales representative needs this kind of knowledge to successfully sell a milking machine to a farmer after the last cow died. But this is all "real" knowledge. Of course there is also "faked" knowledge. This is an intentional "pretend" and borders on fraudulent manipulation. The result can also be achieved by using high knowledge to achieve immoral or even criminal goals.
One must therefore separate factual knowledge from normative demands and commandments. Religion does not do that. Here it is not knowledge that plays a role, but religious certainty, which included knowledge.
The real knowledge is awareness or understanding of someone or something such as ( facts, information description or skills).
“The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.”
― Rumi https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/915736-the-art-of-knowing-is-knowing-what-to-ignore?fbclid=IwAR0rknfZMCwmx050zRAYld8oNqLcMQpunjPvt-NhZeJEcb5zpCONyrf_Zsc
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy