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

How arsehole the dissimilar slipway of sharp economic aid us to distinguish between something that is accredited and something that is studyd to be on-key? By employ different ways of discerning, we potentiometer distinguish between something that is current and something that is intrustd to be aline. In order to run these distinctions, personal experiences, their implications, and their counterclaims are needed to be stated. For something to be true it must be public, eternal, and unaffiliated. If the uprightness does non follow these guidelines then it quarter non be true. The ways of knowing that something is true is comprehended by unrivaleds own perception, langu eon, reason and emotion. With these ways of knowing than the truth can, in system, be understood. Perception is angiotensin-converting enzyme of the most broad and vague ways of knowing. It is to a great extent for someone and another to have the same perception of an object or event. Take exampl e that Jimmy, a young yet intellectual boy who wears glasses, has expert protruden the biggest bully Bob assault the youngest and smallest kid in school Fred. Their teacher comes over and asks the three boys what happened.According to Bob, Fred fell and received the bruises that way Fred pronounces that he was attacked by Bob and Jimmy states that, due to his glasses fogging up, that Bob had inflicted the pain to himself. This vagueness is why the judicial system takes so much sequence to resolve problems between one party and another. This has implication due our exponent to not ever know the whole truth. The ca hold of not knowing, due to inability to not gather up eitherthing, give-up the ghosts to the effect of problems between us and our kin based solely on our perception of the events that took place.According to the definition of truth is that it must be public, eternal and independent and thus begins the problems of knowing between Jimmy, Bob, and Fred. The fact that t here(predicate) was a fight and Jimmy watch is public and everyone knows thus the first part of truth is compensate. permanent works as well due to that point in time there was an incident between those three boys. Lastly it was independent from all distant sources, however the problem arises with what is true and who believes that their story is true. Bob believes it was not his fault Fred believes that he was attacked by Bob and Jimmy believes that Fred did it all to himself. This causes the problem of who knows the truth. The teacher, being neutral of course, has no real way of knowing who the culprit is based off what the children believe to be true. This has global implications as well for elaborations perceive things otherwise than that of another culture. Take example the United States and lacquer the United States shakes each other hands when greeting someone politely were as in Japan they would bow to each other first.This could cause a massive global conflict if for example the United States offends the Japanese Councilor at the United Nations due to not bowing when greeting. As a counterclaim, someone could say that just using perception as a tool for knowing is simple not copious. similarly perception just is not solely based off the ability of someone to see something but the usage of all five senses. The ability to use the five senses would be the correct way in order to learn the true. There is no real way of knowing something solely off the laying claim of our perception and there is no real truth, rather just a collection of believed truths that we choose to be the truth. Vladimir Lenin stated that a lie told often enough become the truth. We want to believe that we have found the truth and we will not stop look for that truth. Yet how can we communicate this association? hence we need the usage of style and its imprecations in truth. Language plays an important role in our lives.We created this tool to pass on the knowle dge of others, empirical, and thru this we learn. With Vladimir Lenins previous abduce can be applied to language as well. The wupcountrys of wars are the ones that create the history. It happens to every culture and every civilization that every existed with the ability to record their history. This has global implications that can be recognized off the fact that if a war were to be started and ended than the victory most give care would skillful about how morally righteous their country was and how their opposition, the losing country, was.Now as a counter argument to that claim would be that maybe the country was telling the truth but then we are right back to the beginning in where how do we really know what we know? Can that country account for every action that each one of its civilians, and, or army infantry did during the course of the war? Most likely neither county could. Therefore they can not actually know based off their beliefs or their truths. This in conjectu re with perception is adequate but not 100 per cent sufficient in knowing something. We add a third way of knowing reason.Reasoning skills are a hard thing to explain about it terms of how we know something. several(prenominal) things can be taught and thus learned by reasoning putting your hand down on a hot pan thus teaches us to not do it again because it hurts. However when it comes to reasoning skills with moral can be hard to comprehend. One person may see that killing a human is awry(p), were as a military general may see the killing of a human a necessity. Bishop Beilby Porteus states that one murder made a villain millions a hero. Is he telling the truth? Do we glorify war? The implication of reasoning is of the greatest importance because it literally comes down to our inner instincts. In contrast how should we let our animalistic emotions control us or should we have a higher level of knowledge? Can any brute or object ever obtain such a thing? Do we or will we ever know? In my option, I believe not then again what do I know? Emotion is the final piece to the puzzle of knowledge. With the raw passion with what emotion is cannot be simply summed up or described with devises along.How can we describe what an emotion is between people? Take for example the emotion of love. One passionate twin may explain there definition of what love is, however if a restaurant owner was asked the same question he or she may say that their love is their restaurant. Hence this gives us the emotion of sympathy towards dictionary writers. Describing such a raw and passionate feeling is incredible. Globally how can one culture translate the emotion of love from one culture to another? Our love could not possibly be the same as someone in Russia or India.Is emotion something that we are born with, or grow into? We will never know, yet this is the final piece of ways of knowing and thus while using all four pieces of knowledge stills leaves us with the belief that we will never truly know. The difference between truth and believed truth can only be answered thru the ways of knowing. The problem is that there is more than one answer. By assuming that there is a finite answer undermines the whole idea of our ways of knowing. The age old question of the creation of life has been the greatest battle between science and religion.Who is to say that one side is right and one side is wrong when we ourselves do not even know. There is no obtainable truth, only the truth that we believe to be true. Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. -Marcus Aurelius How can the ways of knowing help us distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true? ? i need examples from real life and how you can tell the difference between truth and the believed truth. Best Answer Chosen by Voters It seems to me that what is true can also be what is believed to be true.Example the adult male is not flat. To answer your question, though, look for scientific consequence. For example, some people believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Age date techniques and the fossil record indicate an age of several billion years. 1) Truth is simply the relation of a fact. A fact is something real, whether an object or an occurrence. cypher the following I say to you I ran a marathon, but you didnt see me run it. Thus the FACT the truth is that I did SAY it you know that because you were right there.Whether I actually DID run the marathon or not is another question entirely. Did I lie? Did I exaggerate? You cant be sure. And then you go stand for the records and see that I was registered to run this marathon. You now know that its true that I was registered, but you still dont know if I actually ran. You might also escort witnesses that SAY they saw me running (catching on yet? lol) so you know its true that those witnesses SAID that they saw me, because you watched them physically speak the words, but you didnt SEE them seeing me, so you still cant be sure I ran.You could, by now, BELIEVE that I ran, but you still dont KNOW it to be true. Now a time-stamped video that clearly shows me running, that might be about the only thing that could convince you that I truly did run although that could be doctored It all comes down to the level of shew youre personally willing to trust. Do you trust a scientists data? Do you trust a priests truthfulness? (And dont beat me started on God and faith lol) (And dont get me started on your textbooks, either)The difference between what is true and what is believed to be true in the Arts? This could be in painting, art, or english I have an essay to wrote about How can the ways of knowing (language, perception, reason, emotion) help us distinguish between what is true and what is believed to be true? apply this question with examples in the Arts 1) I see art as a representation of reality or a mimic or mirr or and the representaitons set at different levels, standards or views depending on who is presenting in some(prenominal) form.I see truth as having different levels as well. What we call something is indeed what we call it like a flower is red or whatever. because there are all sorts of cause and effect relatinships that are indirect or direct cause and effect. One thing can be caused by many things acting together to cause it or a sequence of events and it can specify it tough to find the true or the first or most significant root cause (to solve the problem). Mostly, one has to see something to its conclusion to find out what is true vs. what is morose, what is consistant vs. hat is inconsistant. Sometimes what is believed is actually true and sometimes what is believed is actually false. Experience is such a great teacher I guess these ideas can be represented in the arts in various ways in colors, masks, shadows, inconsistancies, demeanor, etc. Some of it left open to inte rpretation just as art imitates life. We all have the need to believe things we think are true and might also turn out to be true. It is what life is about mostly, faith. I dont know if I answered your question or not, but that is what I think so far. ) the difference between what is true and what is believed to be true in the arts is the same as that of what is true and what is believed to be true in any other field. you will apply the value true to that which you can empirically evidence (the type of oil the artist used in a position painting or the economy of words of a certain novel) and you will apply believed to be true to that which may or may not be true (evidenced) depending on the individual involved (the feeling of melancholy the particular painting evokes). guess my feeling is that anything highly susceptible to subjectivity isnt really there to help us to distinguish but will serve greatly to enhance our experience of the thing (the objet dart) itself. Source(s) i dont know a great deal about the philosophy of art nor about the art of philosophy but your question struck me as interesting. Read Karl Popper take on this. He correctly identified the arts from science,and in doing so realised that all our knowledge ,in Both( ), was really Suspect.Hence he became famous for the modern way-of-using and deciphering just how real(or knowledge based) review can enable all the mistakes-within Science and even the Arts-. to .. be. learned. from (and if you study his work,you should quite easy see that serious-and-dangerous mistakes SHOULD NOT BE MADE. So this is to the highest degree the sole point to our -all our-traditions. That we CAN learn from our mistakes(E. g. in the Arts as well as in the sciences), and even gain a glimmer of good,critical knowledge from those previously,dangerous and deadly ones,too. And. after rereading the above i think its a virtual responsibility of the arts, to HELP IN THIS and one obvious modern way is for artists all o ver to look at the current serious and dangerous mistake(s) being made with our environment- and this is just one ONE example that i can think of here(and although works-of-art should,i think be directed to show awarness of this type-of-real-complex problemi do NOT think that the Arts should promote the breaking-of-laws,ecetera.Rather,the Arts should take-our-minds to new places,to new and snap off ideas,especially so when in search-of better solutions to the above problem-and other critical problems,too ). Source(s) The work of the late scholar,teacher and philosopher Sir Karl. R. Popper, et al. are Some Ways Of Knowing More Likely Than Others To happen To Truth? In this essay I will discuss whether some ways of knowing are more like than others to lead to the truth. There is no single definition of the truth where every philosopher agrees with. What we can say is that the truth is ne of the most important elements in our society which extends from honesty, good faith and earnes tness in general to agreement with fact or reality in particular. Instead of just concentrating on the four ways of knowing, language, perception, reason and emotion, I will also look at the areas of knowledge, such as sciences and mathematics to help finding which of the four ways of knowing is the most likely to lead to the truth. To answer the research question, we first have to look at the truth itself. In a dictionary is said that truth is The degree to which a command corresponds with reality and logic .Every human being defines truth in a different way. Truth can be what one is prepared to expect as truth, as well as something which is proved by a study for being true or what for example the media, books, government and yourself name to be true. In the first area of knowledge I will discuss, the sciences, truth will always change during the time. A good example is Isaac Newtons theory of mechanics and universal gravitation. In this time everyone believed his theory describi ng the universe as being true and there was no evidence for it being not the truth.Than after some centuries some scientist discovered things where Newtons theory didnt account for. Therefore his theory was than called untrue and Albert Einsteins evidence which fitted more into these discoveries was named as being true. This is evidence therefore, that science is a process, the truth will always change in time, but in this particular time period the truth cannot be named as untrue because it cannot be disproved by knowledge or technology. On the other hand in mathematics, one has these principles like 1 + 1 = 2 or 2 + 2 = 4.People do not All Of The Other Ways Of Knowing Are Controlled By Language. What Does This Statement Mean And Do You Think It Is A Fair Representation Of The Relationship Between Perception, Emotion, Reason And Language? Language is such a universal phenomenon in human society. Whenever we write or speak, we use it whenever we make a promise or ask a question, we use it. In the statement ? All of the other ways of knowing are controlled by language , language is define as ? words and this ? control can be defined as ? dominate.Then this saying seems not so fair to represent the relationship between the four ways of knowing. It is more sensible to say language gives some support or limit to our reason? Aperception and emotion. It may influence them, but not only one way ? V the four ways of knowing interact with each other. The function of language is particularly relevant in reason. We should believe our application of reason is within our mind before we express it into words. Most natural science is called logic facts and we often use the name of theories to represent our reason instead of explaining the essence in details.For example, if your hand pushes against the edge of a desk, the desk pushes against your hand. Probably we will tell others this phenomenon is because ? Newton? s third law of motion but won? t explain the content of t his theory word by word. In this case, language has no meaning itself, but it is more like a symbol to represent reason. Another example is ? Chaos Theory. decennium years ago, Chaos is just a simple English word, but as Chaos theory become part of modern science, people easily associate the idea of finding the order in random data? when they see the word ? Chaos. However, reason requires precision. Scientists use scientific language to give harsh definition of a theory before they name it. Newton? s third law of motion states ? Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. (Isaac Newton 1687) People must have the sense of reaction before this theory is built, but it needs a medium to become verbalized and communicated in order to evaluate its validity. Best Answer Chosen by VotersThe how of something that is believed true is called justified true belief. (Google it) On the other hand, another way of knowing h ow something is true or not is called the correspondence theory of truth, wherein everything is true or false according to the context in which you are using the word, phrase, or premise. The correspondence theory can be described this way The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all knowledge becomes suspect.Any flaw in our view of reality will make it more difficult to live. http//www. importanceofphilosophy. com/Me http//www. iep. utm. edu/truth/H3 How Can The Different Ways Of Knowing Help Us To Distinguish Between Something That Is True And Something That Is Believed To Be True? 4. How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true? We create knowledge ourselves, through the four ways of knowing (Dombrowski, 91-92) sense perception, language, reasoning and emotion.These ways of knowing are also the means by which knowledge claims are judged for their credibility, validity and most importantly, their likelihood to be true. When a knowledge claim is made, three scenarios are presented with the least problematic being that the claim is false based on the four ways of knowing coupled with past experiences. A claim is not said to be true just because it is false. The aim of this essay will be to illuminate how certainty, bureau and the convincing nature of claims distinguish between claims believed to be true and claims that are known to be true. True and false, in simplicity, can be viewed as divisors for separating knowledge claims or beliefs but in reality, we view true and false as the extreme boundaries of a scale that determines with reason whether or not claims should be accepted as true or not. In history, where we make value claims, Claims that embed evaluations on a scale that is not calibrated in measured units (Dombrowski, 106), there see ms to be a lot of subjectivity as these claims themselves are subjective. They hold some truth because they are actually made from observational claims.In the story of Nazi Anschluss with Austria, where a plebiscite was held to ask whether Austria wanted to become a part of Nazi Germany and the Nazis claim to have received 99. 73% of the vote (Anschluss), two value claims that could come out will be that the Austrians loved Nazis and wanted to be a part of it or that the Austrians feared Nazi Germany and did not have any other option than to be part of Nazis. These two opinions show the subjective nature of such areas but these statements cannot be taken as false. The fact that there is 1. No comments Join Now For Free