Excellent answers above. The terms should perhaps be placed in this heirarchical order: education (leads to) learning (leads to) knowledge. Knowledge is the functional outcome of education and learning. However, knowledge without critical thinking is of little use beyond simple recital.  

Knowledge is Wisdom .

Education is the means to acquire Knowledge.

Learning is the process through which education is imparted for acquiring Knowledge.

Knowledge empowers and  promotes  rational behavior in a person to be successful in life .

Dear Sir,  an eagle when baby bird learns slowly to fly and that is EDUCATION, and the same eagle when grown big flies hours with precision to hunt is LEARNING, and when the same eagle flies above the clouds to NOT to get WET in the rain is KNOWLEDGE. Thanks

Underlying philosophical and theoretical orientations shape the definitions. Let me first begin by saying that those who come at these concepts with a constructivist perspective would avoid terms like "imparted". Rather, a constructivist would argue that;

- education is experience that contributes to personal growth or enlightenment

- learning is the process by which the learner constructs meaning

The important distinction is that learning and education are not "done to" a learner (that's more like training); rather, the learner is an active participant in the sense-making process. Learning and education, as Dr. Hameed points out, need not include "teaching" per se - because both learning and education happen in the course of everyday life, as the bird described does not attend a school, and may or may not learn from a mature bird.

As far as knowledge, it might be helpful to look at the "old" Bloom's taxonomy to understand how "knowledge" fits into domains of learning (it is a lower-order domain - in fact the lowest). You'll find newer versions of it are based on verbs. Have a look: https://juliaec.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/blooms-taxonomy-encouraging-higher-cognitive-thinking-in-primary-school-classrooms/ (notice the progression from knowledge, to comprehension and so on).

Education is a process of gaining knowledge for some useful application whereas knowledge is facts acquired from good education, peers, consultations and extensive reading. Knowledge is gained from life experiences and age while education is learned from the books and may never be experienced. Knowledge is related to facts whereas education is related to learning, critical thinking and knowing oneself.

Excellent answers above. The terms should perhaps be placed in this heirarchical order: education (leads to) learning (leads to) knowledge. Knowledge is the functional outcome of education and learning. However, knowledge without critical thinking is of little use beyond simple recital.  

It is important to remember that both learning and knowledge are internal and personal and are developed whether an individual participates in formal education or not. Formal education may develop knowledge and the capacity to learn, but many formal education settings fail to recognise that learners enter schooling with vast amounts of knowledge and being quite accomplished learners. Indeed, educational settings may limit access to knowledge and learning by the way the curriculum and/or the timetable/school context is constructed. 

Max's feedback is what I want to use as a jump off point as I think while 'critical thinking' is a critical priority and objective of the educational system. As elementary and secondary teachers are well aware, "...knowledge without critical thinking is of little use beyond simple recital." The variables are too numerous to address here, however I will point out two that I think point to an education system stuck at the knowledge paradigm. 

Research conducted within the last two years about whether the standardized testing was in fact achieving the established objectives. Please excuse me as I don't have the name nor the link to the study to provide you. A significant conclusion was - and will anyone be surprised - is that these standardized test essentially do test what they set out to measure. This next point I am surprised by as I thought it would be taken up by educators and others in the education realm who have long been saying that such tests are ineffective and indeed in many cases harmful. Such mandatory testing of literacy and numeracy etc. is measuring largely knowledge  or what we refer to as rote learning and not higher order thinking skills. Therefore, while the ultimate goal is to develop students to compete in the 21st century world of work there was little evidence that this was being achieved by 'teaching to the test.' 

Regardless whether there is too much 'content' to get through for teachers or their time is inordinately spent teaching to the test what is being lost is the element of judgement, wisdom that come from critical thinking skills in concert with life experience. 

Thank you all for your valuable feedback. Epistemology offers various debates about knowledge whereas education vs learning would be debatable in the domain of education. The question was based on bringing philosophy and education in dialogue. I need a research paper on the said debate, if anyone can help.

In a couple of hours I will be giving a Continuing Education course on The Lost Art of Tuning Fork Testing at a multi-state hearing health providers conference. It will be the third and final course for me to give at this particular 2-day conference. The two courses just given were on topics that I give perhaps 30-40 times a year. This third course, however, is on a topic that has not been requested of me in more than decade. Initially I panicked with the challenge of teaching a topic not taught in so long. Transferring the academic and scientific information in abstract form into practical terms and applications concerned me. I just reread two of my own (older) publications on the topic to see if I still understood the details of the topic. I realized that the procedures I am about to teach were already "there" in my mind, assimilated, synthesized, and critically analyzed. In my original learning, had I merely learned by rote, and not been drenched in the scientific literature relative to acoustics, physics of sound, physiology and anatomy, and behavioral testing, I would have to go back and "memorize" the material I'm about to present. That is the difference between "learning" and "knowledge". The former is a process-as Scott so ably pointed out-an actual learner-involved process. The latter is the outcome, where the learner now has mastered a wide variety of topic areas, theories, principles, and tasks. In effect, they masters of area of knowledge. The great indictment of rote learning is that learners are left crippled by the system and never become masters of a given topic area.  

I asked a smilar question, they don't always overlap in my opinion. You can learn some things on your own, education connects the dots for you. If you learn and understand, you can teach it to others. Education level does not always equal intelligence. Books give you facts and life gives experience. Combine the two and you get innovation. Just because you know stuff does not mean you know everything. Everything has it minutae but knowledge is application of that stuff or who you know.

The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing. Be humble and share your intelligence. Don't horde it. Remember, you can learn something from everyone.