This is a difficult question to answer. There are a number of approaches that focus on this prompt.
Social epistemology: [1]Knowledge is not only an individual aspect but is also a social aspect that is shaped because of various interactions and shared practices. However, one needs to consider the reliability of these sources of information that arise from these beliefs formed from a social context.
Virtue epistemology[2]: Intellectual virtues or character traits contribute to the acquisition of the true beliefs. If one is open minded, has intellectual courage the beliefs that are formed from this virtuous intellectual process leads to knowledge.
Reliabilism: [3]Something is considered knowledge if it is produced through a reliable cognitive process whether the belief is justified or true.
Contextualism: [4]Knowledge gained here depends on the context in which it is made depending on the factors like practical interests or any conversational context.
Justified true belief: [5]One widely accepted approach is the justified true belief (JTB) model, which suggests that knowledge consists of beliefs that are justified, true, and held with conviction.
Fallibilism: [6]Knowledge does not require certainty. This theory mention that even if a belief is held with a high degree of justification and is true at a given moment, it remains open to revision when a new piece of evidence or insights emerge.
Constructive Empiricism: [7]Scientific theories must be seen as tools of empirical adequacy instead of providing a true representation of reality. Knowledge here means providing successful explanation and predictions instead of uncovering those ultimate truths.
Pragmatism: [8]Knowledge is not just about truth and justification but is also about consequences of the usefulness and practicality of beliefs.
Coherentism: Beliefs are justified by their coherence with other beliefs i.e it arises from the internal consistency and mutual support of a set of beliefs.
These approaches bring in diverse perspectives about knowledge along with various challenges and implications while understanding the nature of knowledge. One must consider the fallibility of human cognition, the chances of biasness as well as the dynamic nature of knowledge. As observed in the falsifiability criterion for scientific knowledge- they should be open to being proven wrong. One must acknowledge the knowledge’s contextual and dynamic nature, this process of critical thinking and revision along with the subjective nature of the humans.
What counts as knowledge: examples for discussion.
Few examples for discussion include the COVID Pandemic. Knowledge here is the scientific understanding of virus, the measures taken for preventing it along with the vaccine development during those 2 years. Here we could consider the nature of evolution of that COVID Virus along with different variants that came up then, the steps that various countries took up effectively could be debated to highlight the dynamic and provisional nature of the scientific knowledge.
Human induced climate change is another knowledge related discussion. While the majority of scientists do agree with the reasons of climate change, the severity of its consequences and the most effective mitigation strategies is an area of discussion.
In 2008, we have seen the World wide financial crisis. There are few economic theories that explain this. This crisis questions our existing economic models and our regulations and the need for reforms.
The current AI development at rapid pace and its ethical guidelines for development- its implications like biasness in algorithms, privacy concerns, job displacement all these talk about the need for refining the existing ethical frameworks.
What about genetically modified organisms like for eg, crops- safety, environmental impact, ethical considerations, any social concerns.
Fake news and disinformation. Is the new reliable for any good decision making? As there is a lot of fake news everywhere- credibility of this information is important especially in the context of social media that is shaping the public perceptions.
What counts as knowledge?
Criticism: examples: The theory of evolution in the example of natural selection even though is widely accepted and is supported by good evidence until new discoveries can challenge existing theories. In another example of World War 2- historical accounts were subjective and could have been biased and interpreted with the limited access of information. Perhaps different perspectives could have led to varied interpretations of events.
In Maths, which is often considered a priori knowledge which has logic and reasoning, there could be a possibility of existence of alternative mathematical systems. Also, memories of a specific event are subject to limitations of human perception and memory. They could be distorted or changed by emotions and thus the objective reality could be different from the personal stories.
.
[1] “Steve Fuller | Big Tech Debate | Proposition (5/8) | Oxford Union.” Www.youtube.com, www.youtube.com/watch?v=69URxG2s91g. Accessed 11 Jan. 2024.
[2] www.coursera.org
[3] Kim, Oliver. “Three Different Types of Truth | TOKTalk.net.” Toktalk.net, 9 Nov. 2018, www.toktalk.net/2018/11/09/three-different-types-of-truth/.
[4] Wireless Philosophy. “PHILOSOPHY – Epistemology: Contextualism [HD].” YouTube, 14 Oct. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi4hZg7EtK8. Accessed 7 June 2020.
[5]McQueen, Rob. “Justified True Belief.” Confusions and Elucidations, 21 Sept. 2020, medium.com/confusions-and-elucidations/justified-true-belief-fda233d35de1. Accessed 9 Dec. 2022.
[6] Messerly, John. “What Is Fallibilism?” Reason and Meaning, 16 Mar. 2022, reasonandmeaning.com/2022/03/16/fallibilism/.
[7] BMAvanDijk-ConstructiveEmpiricismInTheSocialSciences (3).pdf (uu.nl)
[8] Kim, Oliver. “Three Different Types of Truth | TOKTalk.net.” Toktalk.net, 9 Nov. 2018, www.toktalk.net/2018/11/09/three-different-types-of-truth/.