The owl of Athena, a symbol of knowledge in the Western world
Knowledge is an awareness of facts, a familiarity with individuals and situations, or a practical skill. Knowledge of facts, also called propositional knowledge, is often characterized as true belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification. While there is wide agreement among philosophers that propositional knowledge is a form of true belief, many controversies focus on justification. This includes questions like how to understand justification, whether it is needed at all, and whether something else besides it is needed. These controversies intensified in the latter half of the 20th century due to a series of thought experiments called Gettier cases that provoked alternative definitions.
Knowledge can be produced in many ways. The main source of empirical knowledge is perception, which involves the usage of the senses to learn about the external world. Introspection allows people to learn about their internal mental states and processes. Other sources of knowledge include memory, rational intuition, inference, and testimony.[a] According to foundationalism, some of these sources are basic in that they can justify beliefs, without depending on other mental states. Coherentists reject this claim and contend that a sufficient degree of coherence among all the mental states of the believer is necessary for knowledge. According to infinitism, an infinite chain of beliefs is needed.
The main discipline investigating knowledge is epistemology, which studies what people know, how they come to know it, and what it means to know something. It discusses the value of knowledge and the thesis of philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge. Knowledge is relevant to many fields like the sciences, which aim to acquire knowledge using the scientific method based on repeatable experimentation, observation, and measurement. Various religions hold that humans should seek knowledge and that God or the divine is the source of knowledge. The anthropology of knowledge studies how knowledge is acquired, stored, retrieved, and communicated in different cultures. The sociology of knowledge examines under what sociohistorical circumstances knowledge arises, and what sociological consequences it has. The history of knowledge investigates how knowledge in different fields has developed, and evolved, in the course of history.
Definitions
Knowledge is a form of familiarity, awareness, understanding, or acquaintance. It often involves the possession of information learned through experience[1] and can be understood as a cognitive success or an epistemic contact with reality, like making a discovery.[2] Many academic definitions focus on propositional knowledge in the form of believing certain facts, as in "I know that Dave is at home".[3] Other types of knowledge include knowledge-how in the form of practical competence, as in "she knows how to swim", and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity with the known object based on previous direct experience, like knowing someone personally.[4]
Knowledge is often understood as a state of an individual person, but it can also refer to a characteristic of a group of people as group knowledge, social knowledge, or collective knowledge.[5] Some social sciences understand knowledge as a broad social phenomenon that is similar to culture.[6] The term may further denote knowledge stored in documents like the "knowledge housed in the library"[7] or the knowledge base of an expert system.[8] Knowledge is closely related to intelligence, but intelligence is more about the ability to acquire, process, and apply information, while knowledge concerns information and skills that a person already possesses.[9]
The word knowledge has its roots in the 12th-century Old English word cnawan, which comes from the Old High German word gecnawan.[10] The English word includes various meanings that some other languages distinguish using several words.[11] In ancient Greek, for example, four important terms for knowledge were used: epistēmē (unchanging theoretical knowledge), technē (expert technical knowledge), mētis (strategic knowledge), and gnōsis (personal intellectual knowledge).[12] The main discipline studying knowledge is called epistemology or the theory of knowledge. It examines the nature of knowledge and justification, how knowledge arises, and what value it has. Further topics include the different types of knowledge and the limits of what can be known.[13]
Despite agreements about the general characteristics of knowledge, its exact definition is disputed. Some definitions only focus on the most salient features of knowledge to give a practically useful characterization.[14] Another approach, termed analysis of knowledge, tries to provide a theoretically precise definition by listing the conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient,[15] similar to how chemists analyze a sample by seeking a list of all the chemical elements composing it.[16] According to a different view, knowledge is a unique state that cannot be analyzed in terms of other phenomena.[17] Some scholars base their definition on abstract intuitions while others focus on concrete cases[18] or rely on how the term is used in ordinary language.[19] There is also disagreement about whether knowledge is a rare phenomenon that requires high standards or a common phenomenon found in many everyday situations.[20]
Analysis of knowledge
The definition of knowledge as justified true belief is often discussed in the academic literature.
An often-discussed definition characterizes knowledge as justified true belief. This definition identifies three essential features: it is (1) a belief that is (2) true and (3) justified.[21][b] Truth is a widely accepted feature of knowledge. It implies that, while it may be possible to believe something false, one cannot know something false.[23][c] That knowledge is a form of belief implies that one cannot know something if one does not believe it. Some everyday expressions seem to violate this principle, like the claim that "I do not believe it, I know it!" But the point of such expressions is usually to emphasize one's confidence rather than denying that a belief is involved.[25]
The main controversy surrounding this definition concerns its third feature: justification.[26] This component is often included because of the impression that some true beliefs are not forms of knowledge, such as beliefs based on superstition, lucky guesses, or erroneous reasoning. For example, a person who guesses that a coin flip will land heads usually does not know that even if their belief turns out to be true. This indicates that there is more to knowledge than just being right about something.[27] These cases are excluded by requiring that beliefs have justification for them to count as knowledge.[28] Some philosophers hold that a belief is justified if it is based on evidence, which can take the form of mental states like experience, memory, and other beliefs. Others state that beliefs are justified if they are produced by reliable processes, like sensory perception or logical reasoning.[29]
The Gettier problem is grounded in the idea that some justified true beliefs do not amount to knowledge.
The definition of knowledge as justified true belief came under severe criticism in the 20th century, when epistemologist Edmund Gettier formulated a series of counterexamples.[30] They purport to present concrete cases of justified true beliefs that fail to constitute knowledge. The reason for their failure is usually a form of epistemic luck: the beliefs are justified but their justification is not relevant to the truth.[31] In a well-known example, someone drives along a country road with many barn facades and only one real barn. The person is not aware of this, stops in front of the real barn by a lucky coincidence, and forms the justified true belief that they are in front of a barn. This example aims to establish that the person does not know that they are in front of a real barn, since they would not have been able to tell the difference.[32] This means that it is a lucky coincidence that this justified belief is also true.[33]
According to some philosophers, these counterexamples show that justification is not required for knowledge[34] and that knowledge should instead be characterized in terms of reliability or the manifestation of cognitive virtues. Another approach defines knowledge in regard to the function it plays in cognitive processes as that which provides reasons for thinking or doing something.[35] A different response accepts justification as an aspect of knowledge and include additional criteria.[36] Many candidates have been suggested, like the requirements that the justified true belief does not depend on any false beliefs, that no defeaters[d] are present, or that the person would not have the belief if it was false.[38] Another view states that beliefs have to be infallible to amount to knowledge.[39] A further approach, associated with pragmatism, focuses on the aspect of inquiry and characterizes knowledge in terms of what works as a practice that aims to produce habits of action.[40] There is still very little consensus in the academic discourse as to which of the proposed modifications or reconceptualizations is correct, and there are various alternative definitions of knowledge.[41]
Types
A common distinction among types of knowledge is between propositional knowledge, or knowledge-that, and non-propositional knowledge in the form of practical skills or acquaintance.[42][e] Other distinctions focus on how the knowledge is acquired and on the content of the known information.[44]
Propositional
Declarative knowledge can be stored in books.
Propositional knowledge, also referred to as declarative and descriptive knowledge, is a form of theoretical knowledge about facts, like knowing that "2 + 2 = 4". It is the paradigmatic type of knowledge in analytic philosophy.[45] Propositional knowledge is propositional in the sense that it involves a relation to a proposition. Since propositions are often expressed through that-clauses, it is also referred to as knowledge-that, as in "Akari knows that kangaroos hop".[46] In this case, Akari stands in the relation of knowing to the proposition "kangaroos hop". Closely related types of knowledge are know-wh, for example, knowing who is coming to dinner and knowing why they are coming.[47] These expressions are normally understood as types of propositional knowledge since they can be paraphrased using a that-clause.[48][f]
Propositional knowledge takes the form of mental representations involving concepts, ideas, theories, and general rules. These representations connect the knower to certain parts of reality by showing what they are like. They are often context-independent, meaning that they are not restricted to a specific use or purpose.[50] Propositional knowledge encompasses both knowledge of specific facts, like that the atomic mass of gold is 196.97 u, and generalities, like that the color of leaves of some trees changes in autumn.[51] Because of the dependence on mental representations, it is often held that the capacity for propositional knowledge is exclusive to relatively sophisticated creatures, such as humans. This is based on the claim that advanced intellectual capacities are needed to believe a proposition that expresses what the world is like.[52]
Non-propositional
Knowing how to ride a bicycle is one form of non-propositional knowledge.
El conocimiento no proposicional es un conocimiento en el que no está implicada ninguna relación esencial con una proposición. Las dos formas más conocidas son el conocimiento-cómo (saber hacer o conocimiento procedimental ) y el conocimiento por familiaridad. [53] Poseer conocimiento-cómo significa tener alguna forma de habilidad , destreza o competencia práctica , [54] como saber andar en bicicleta o saber nadar. Algunas de las habilidades responsables del conocimiento-cómo implican formas de conocimiento-eso, como saber demostrar un teorema matemático , pero este no es generalmente el caso. [55] Algunos tipos de conocimiento-cómo no requieren una mente altamente desarrollada, en contraste con el conocimiento proposicional, y son más comunes en el reino animal. Por ejemplo, una hormiga sabe caminar aunque presumiblemente carece de una mente suficientemente desarrollada para representar la proposición correspondiente. [52] [g]
El conocimiento por familiaridad es la familiaridad con algo que resulta del contacto experiencial directo. [57] El objeto del conocimiento puede ser una persona, una cosa o un lugar. Por ejemplo, al comer chocolate, uno se familiariza con el sabor del chocolate, y visitar el lago Taupō conduce a la formación de conocimiento por conocimiento del lago Taupō. En estos casos, la persona forma conocimiento no inferencial basado en la experiencia de primera mano sin adquirir necesariamente información fáctica sobre el objeto. Por el contrario, también es posible aprender indirectamente mucho conocimiento proposicional sobre el chocolate o el lago Taupō leyendo libros sin tener el contacto experiencial directo requerido para el conocimiento por conocimiento. [58] El concepto de conocimiento por conocimiento fue introducido por primera vez por Bertrand Russell . Sostiene que el conocimiento por conocimiento es más básico que el conocimiento proposicional ya que para comprender una proposición, uno tiene que estar familiarizado con sus constituyentes. [59]
A prioriya posteriori
The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge depends on the role of experience in the processes of formation and justification.[60] To know something a posteriori means to know it based on experience.[61] For example, by seeing that it rains outside or hearing that the baby is crying, one acquires a posteriori knowledge of these facts.[62]A priori knowledge is possible without any experience to justify or support the known proposition.[63] Mathematical knowledge, such as that 2 + 2 = 4, is traditionally taken to be a priori knowledge since no empirical investigation is necessary to confirm this fact. In this regard, a posteriori knowledge is empirical knowledge while a priori knowledge is non-empirical knowledge.[64]
The relevant experience in question is primarily identified with sensory experience. Some non-sensory experiences, like memory and introspection, are often included as well. Some conscious phenomena are excluded from the relevant experience, like rational insight. For example, conscious thought processes may be required to arrive at a priori knowledge regarding the solution of mathematical problems, like when performing mental arithmetic to multiply two numbers.[65] The same is the case for the experience needed to learn the words through which the claim is expressed. For example, knowing that "all bachelors are unmarried" is a priori knowledge because no sensory experience is necessary to confirm this fact even though experience was needed to learn the meanings of the words "bachelor" and "unmarried".[66]
It is difficult to explain how a priori knowledge is possible and some empiricists deny it exists. It is usually seen as unproblematic that one can come to know things through experience, but it is not clear how knowledge is possible without experience. One of the earliest solutions to this problem comes from Plato, who argues that the soul already possesses the knowledge and just needs to recollect, or remember, it to access it again.[67] A similar explanation is given by Descartes, who holds that a priori knowledge exists as innate knowledge present in the mind of each human.[68] A further approach posits a special mental faculty responsible for this type of knowledge, often referred to as rational intuition or rational insight.[69]
Others
Various other types of knowledge are discussed in the academic literature. In philosophy, "self-knowledge" refers to a person's knowledge of their own sensations, thoughts, beliefs, and other mental states. A common view is that self-knowledge is more direct than knowledge of the external world, which relies on the interpretation of sense data. Because of this, it is traditionally claimed that self-knowledge is indubitable, like the claim that a person cannot be wrong about whether they are in pain. However, this position is not universally accepted in the contemporary discourse and an alternative view states that self-knowledge also depends on interpretations that could be false.[70] In a slightly different sense, self-knowledge can also refer to knowledge of the self as a persisting entity with certain personality traits, preferences, physical attributes, relationships, goals, and social identities.[71][h]
Metaknowledge is knowledge about knowledge. It can arise in the form of self-knowledge but includes other types as well, such as knowing what someone else knows or what information is contained in a scientific article. Other aspects of metaknowledge include knowing how knowledge can be acquired, stored, distributed, and used.[73]
Common knowledge is knowledge that is publicly known and shared by most individuals within a community. It establishes a common ground for communication, understanding, social cohesion, and cooperation.[74]General knowledge encompasses common knowledge but also includes knowledge that many people have been exposed to but may not be able to immediately recall.[75] Common knowledge contrasts with domain knowledge or specialized knowledge, which belongs to a specific domain and is only possessed by experts.[76]
Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation.[77] It is closely related to practical or tacit knowledge, which is learned and applied in specific circumstances. This especially concerns certain forms of acquiring knowledge, such as trial and error or learning from experience.[78] In this regard, situated knowledge usually lacks a more explicit structure and is not articulated in terms of universal ideas.[79] The term is often used in feminism and postmodernism to argue that many forms of knowledge are not absolute but depend on the concrete historical, cultural, and linguistic context.[77]
Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be fully articulated, shared, and explained, like the knowledge of historical dates and mathematical formulas. It can be acquired through traditional learning methods, such as reading books and attending lectures. It contrasts with tacit knowledge, which is not easily articulated or explained to others, like the ability to recognize someone's face and the practical expertise of a master craftsman. Tacit knowledge is often learned through first-hand experience or direct practice.[80]
Cognitive load theory distinguishes between biologically primary and secondary knowledge. Biologically primary knowledge is knowledge that humans have as part of their evolutionary heritage, such as knowing how to recognize faces and speech and many general problem-solving capacities. Biologically secondary knowledge is knowledge acquired because of specific social and cultural circumstances, such as knowing how to read and write.[81]
Knowledge can be occurrent or dispositional. Occurrent knowledge is knowledge that is actively involved in cognitive processes. Dispositional knowledge, by contrast, lies dormant in the back of a person's mind and is given by the mere ability to access the relevant information. For example, if a person knows that cats have whiskers then this knowledge is dispositional most of the time and becomes occurrent while they are thinking about it.[82]
Many forms of Eastern spirituality and religion distinguish between higher and lower knowledge. They are also referred to as para vidya and apara vidya in Hinduism or the two truths doctrine in Buddhism. Lower knowledge is based on the senses and the intellect. It encompasses both mundane or conventional truths as well as discoveries of the empirical sciences.[83] Higher knowledge is understood as knowledge of God, the absolute, the true self, or the ultimate reality. It belongs neither to the external world of physical objects nor to the internal world of the experience of emotions and concepts. Many spiritual teachings stress the importance of higher knowledge to progress on the spiritual path and to see reality as it truly is beyond the veil of appearances.[84]
Sources
Perception relies on the senses to acquire knowledge.
Sources of knowledge are ways in which people come to know things. They can be understood as cognitive capacities that are exercised when a person acquires new knowledge.[85] Various sources of knowledge are discussed in the academic literature, often in terms of the mental faculties responsible. They include perception, introspection, memory, inference, and testimony. However, not everyone agrees that all of them actually lead to knowledge. Usually, perception or observation, i.e. using one of the senses, is identified as the most important source of empirical knowledge.[86] Knowing that a baby is sleeping is observational knowledge if it was caused by a perception of the snoring baby. However, this would not be the case if one learned about this fact through a telephone conversation with one's spouse. Perception comes in different modalities, including vision, sound, touch, smell, and taste, which correspond to different physical stimuli.[87] It is an active process in which sensory signals are selected, organized, and interpreted to form a representation of the environment. This leads in some cases to illusions that misrepresent certain aspects of reality, like the Müller-Lyer illusion and the Ponzo illusion.[88]
Introspection is often seen in analogy to perception as a source of knowledge, not of external physical objects, but of internal mental states. A traditionally common view is that introspection has a special epistemic status by being infallible. According to this position, it is not possible to be mistaken about introspective facts, like whether one is in pain, because there is no difference between appearance and reality. However, this claim has been contested in the contemporary discourse and critics argue that it may be possible, for example, to mistake an unpleasant itch for a pain or to confuse the experience of a slight ellipse for the experience of a circle.[89] Perceptual and introspective knowledge often act as a form of fundamental or basic knowledge. According to some empiricists, they are the only sources of basic knowledge and provide the foundation for all other knowledge.[90]
Memory differs from perception and introspection in that it is not as independent or basic as they are since it depends on other previous experiences.[91] The faculty of memory retains knowledge acquired in the past and makes it accessible in the present, as when remembering a past event or a friend's phone number.[92] It is generally seen as a reliable source of knowledge. However, it can be deceptive at times nonetheless, either because the original experience was unreliable or because the memory degraded and does not accurately represent the original experience anymore.[93][i]
Knowledge based on perception, introspection, and memory may give rise to inferential knowledge, which comes about when reasoning is applied to draw inferences from other known facts.[95] For example, the perceptual knowledge of a Czech stamp on a postcard may give rise to the inferential knowledge that one's friend is visiting the Czech Republic. This type of knowledge depends on other sources of knowledge responsible for the premises. Some rationalists argue for rational intuition as a further source of knowledge that does not rely on observation and introspection. They hold for example that some beliefs, like the mathematical belief that 2 + 2 = 4, are justified through pure reason alone.[96]
Knowledge by testimony relies on statements given by other people, like the testimony given at a trial.
Testimony is often included as an additional source of knowledge that, unlike the other sources, is not tied to one specific cognitive faculty. Instead, it is based on the idea that one person can come to know a fact because another person talks about this fact. Testimony can happen in numerous ways, like regular speech, a letter, a newspaper, or a blog. The problem of testimony consists in clarifying why and under what circumstances testimony can lead to knowledge. A common response is that it depends on the reliability of the person pronouncing the testimony: only testimony from reliable sources can lead to knowledge.[97]
Limits
The problem of the limits of knowledge concerns the question of which facts are unknowable.[98] These limits constitute a form of inevitable ignorance that can affect both what is knowable about the external world as well as what one can know about oneself and about what is good.[99] Some limits of knowledge only apply to particular people in specific situations while others pertain to humanity at large.[100] A fact is unknowable to a person if this person lacks access to the relevant information, like facts in the past that did not leave any significant traces. For example, it may be unknowable to people today what Caesar's breakfast was the day he was assassinated but it was knowable to him and some contemporaries.[101] Another factor restricting knowledge is given by the limitations of the human cognitive faculties. Some people may lack the cognitive ability to understand highly abstract mathematical truths and some facts cannot be known by any human because they are too complex for the human mind to conceive.[102] A further limit of knowledge arises due to certain logical paradoxes. For instance, there are some ideas that will never occur to anyone. It is not possible to know them because if a person knew about such an idea then this idea would have occurred at least to them.[103][j]
There are many disputes about what can or cannot be known in certain fields. Religious skepticism is the view that beliefs about God or other religious doctrines do not amount to knowledge.[105]Moral skepticism encompasses a variety of views, including the claim that moral knowledge is impossible, meaning that one cannot know what is morally good or whether a certain behavior is morally right.[106] An influential theory about the limits of metaphysical knowledge was proposed by Immanuel Kant. For him, knowledge is restricted to the field of appearances and does not reach the things in themselves, which exist independently of humans and lie beyond the realm of appearances. Based on the observation that metaphysics aims to characterize the things in themselves, he concludes that no metaphysical knowledge is possible, like knowing whether the world has a beginning or is infinite.[107]
There are also limits to knowledge in the empirical sciences, such as the uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to know the exact magnitudes of certain certain pairs of physical properties, like the position and momentum of a particle, at the same time.[108] Other examples are physical systems studied by chaos theory, for which it is not practically possible to predict how they will behave since they are so sensitive to initial conditions that even the slightest of variations may produce a completely different behavior. This phenomenon is known as the butterfly effect.[109]
Pyrrho was one of the first philosophical skeptics.
The strongest position about the limits of knowledge is radical or global skepticism, which holds that humans lack any form of knowledge or that knowledge is impossible. For example, the dream argument states that perceptual experience is not a source of knowledge since dreaming provides unreliable information and a person could be dreaming without knowing it. Because of this inability to discriminate between dream and perception, it is argued that there is no perceptual knowledge of the external world.[110][k] This thought experiment is based on the problem of underdetermination, which arises when the available evidence is not sufficient to make a rational decision between competing theories. In such cases, a person is not justified in believing one theory rather than the other. If this is always the case then global skepticism follows.[111] Another skeptical argument assumes that knowledge requires absolute certainty and aims to show that all human cognition is fallible since it fails to meet this standard.[112]
An influential argument against radical skepticism states that radical skepticism is self-contradictory since denying the existence of knowledge is itself a knowledge-claim.[113] Other arguments rely on common sense[114] or deny that infallibility is required for knowledge.[115] Very few philosophers have explicitly defended radical skepticism but this position has been influential nonetheless, usually in a negative sense: many see it as a serious challenge to any epistemological theory and often try to show how their preferred theory overcomes it.[116]Another form of philosophical skepticism advocates the suspension of judgment as a form of attaining tranquility while remaining humble and open-minded.[117]
A less radical limit of knowledge is identified by falliblists, who argue that the possibility of error can never be fully excluded. This means that even the best-researched scientific theories and the most fundamental commonsense views could still be subject to error. Further research may reduce the possibility of being wrong, but it can never fully exclude it. Some fallibilists reach the skeptical conclusion from this observation that there is no knowledge but the more common view is that knowledge exists but is fallible.[118]Pragmatists argue that one consequence of fallibilism is that inquiry should not aim for truth or absolute certainty but for well-supported and justified beliefs while remaining open to the possibility that one's beliefs may need to be revised later.[119]
Structure
The structure of knowledge is the way in which the mental states of a person need to be related to each other for knowledge to arise.[120] A common view is that a person has to have good reasons for holding a belief if this belief is to amount to knowledge. When the belief is challenged, the person may justify it by referring to their reason for holding it. In many cases, this reason depends itself on another belief that may as well be challenged. An example is a person who believes that Ford cars are cheaper than BMWs. When their belief is challenged, they may justify it by claiming that they heard it from a reliable source. This justification depends on the assumption that their source is reliable, which may itself be challenged. The same may apply to any subsequent reason they cite.[121] This threatens to lead to an infinite regress since the epistemic status at each step depends on the epistemic status of the previous step.[122] Theories of the structure of knowledge offer responses for how to solve this problem.[121]
Foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism are theories of the structure of knowledge. The black arrows symbolize how one belief supports another belief.
Three traditional theories are foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism. Foundationalists and coherentists deny the existence of an infinite regress, in contrast to infinitists.[121] According to foundationalists, some basic reasons have their epistemic status independent of other reasons and thereby constitute the endpoint of the regress.[123] Some foundationalists hold that certain sources of knowledge, like perception, provide basic reasons. Another view is that this role is played by certain self-evident truths, like the knowledge of one's own existence and the content of one's ideas.[124] The view that basic reasons exist is not universally accepted. One criticism states that there should be a reason why some reasons are basic while others are not. According to this view, the putative basic reasons are not actually basic since their status would depend on other reasons. Another criticism is based on hermeneutics and argues that all understanding is circular and requires interpretation, which implies that knowledge does not need a secure foundation.[125]
Coherentists and infinitists avoid these problems by denying the contrast between basic and non-basic reasons. Coherentists argue that there is only a finite number of reasons, which mutually support and justify one another. This is based on the intuition that beliefs do not exist in isolation but form a complex web of interconnected ideas that is justified by its coherence rather than by a few privileged foundational beliefs.[126] One difficulty for this view is how to demonstrate that it does not involve the fallacy of circular reasoning.[127] If two beliefs mutually support each other then a person has a reason for accepting one belief if they already have the other. However, mutual support alone is not a good reason for newly accepting both beliefs at once. A closely related issue is that there can be distinct sets of coherent beliefs. Coherentists face the problem of explaining why someone should accept one coherent set rather than another.[126] For infinitists, in contrast to foundationalists and coherentists, there is an infinite number of reasons. This view embraces the idea that there is a regress since each reason depends on another reason. One difficulty for this view is that the human mind is limited and may not be able to possess an infinite number of reasons. This raises the question of whether, according to infinitism, human knowledge is possible at all.[128]
Knowledge may be valuable either because it is useful or because it is good in itself. Knowledge can be useful by helping a person achieve their goals. For example, if one knows the answers to questions in an exam one is able to pass that exam or by knowing which horse is the fastest, one can earn money from bets. In these cases, knowledge has instrumental value.[129] Not all forms of knowledge are useful and many beliefs about trivial matters have no instrumental value. This concerns, for example, knowing how many grains of sand are on a specific beach or memorizing phone numbers one never intends to call. In a few cases, knowledge may even have a negative value. For example, if a person's life depends on gathering the courage to jump over a ravine, then having a true belief about the involved dangers may hinder them from doing so.[130]
The value of knowledge plays a key role in education for deciding which knowledge to pass on to the students.
Besides having instrumental value, knowledge may also have intrinsic value. This means that some forms of knowledge are good in themselves even if they do not provide any practical benefits. According to philosopher Duncan Pritchard, this applies to forms of knowledge linked to wisdom.[131] It is controversial whether all knowledge has intrinsic value, including knowledge about trivial facts like knowing whether the biggest apple tree had an even number of leaves yesterday morning. One view in favor of the intrinsic value of knowledge states that having no belief about a matter is a neutral state and knowledge is always better than this neutral state, even if the value difference is only minimal.[132]
A more specific issue in epistemology concerns the question of whether or why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.[133] There is wide agreement that knowledge is usually good in some sense but the thesis that knowledge is better than true belief is controversial. An early discussion of this problem is found in Plato's Meno in relation to the claim that both knowledge and true belief can successfully guide action and, therefore, have apparently the same value. For example, it seems that mere true belief is as effective as knowledge when trying to find the way to Larissa.[134] According to Plato, knowledge is better because it is more stable.[135] Another suggestion is that knowledge gets its additional value from justification. One difficulty for this view is that while justification makes it more probable that a belief is true, it is not clear what additional value it provides in comparison to an unjustified belief that is already true.[136]
The problem of the value of knowledge is often discussed in relation to reliabilism and virtue epistemology.[137] Reliabilism can be defined as the thesis that knowledge is reliably formed true belief. This view has difficulties in explaining why knowledge is valuable or how a reliable belief-forming process adds additional value.[138] According to an analogy by philosopher Linda Zagzebski, a cup of coffee made by a reliable coffee machine has the same value as an equally good cup of coffee made by an unreliable coffee machine.[139] This difficulty in solving the value problem is sometimes used as an argument against reliabilism.[140] Virtue epistemology, by contrast, offers a unique solution to the value problem. Virtue epistemologists see knowledge as the manifestation of cognitive virtues. They hold that knowledge has additional value due to its association with virtue. This is based on the idea that cognitive success in the form of the manifestation of virtues is inherently valuable independent of whether the resulting states are instrumentally useful.[141]
Acquiring and transmitting knowledge often comes with certain costs, such as the material resources required to obtain new information and the time and energy needed to understand it. For this reason, an awareness of the value of knowledge is crucial to many fields that have to make decisions about whether to seek knowledge about a specific matter. On a political level, this concerns the problem of identifying the most promising research programs to allocate funds.[142] Similar concerns affect businesses, where stakeholders have to decide whether the cost of acquiring knowledge is justified by the economic benefits that this knowledge may provide, and the military, which relies on intelligence to identify and prevent threats.[143] In the field of education, the value of knowledge can be used to choose which knowledge should be passed on to the students.[144]
Science
The scientific approach is usually regarded as an exemplary process of how to gain knowledge about empirical facts.[145] Scientific knowledge includes mundane knowledge about easily observable facts, for example, chemical knowledge that certain reactants become hot when mixed together. It also encompasses knowledge of less tangible issues, like claims about the behavior of genes, neutrinos, and black holes.[146]
A key aspect of most forms of science is that they seek natural laws that explain empirical observations.[145] Scientific knowledge is discovered and tested using the scientific method.[l] This method aims to arrive at reliable knowledge by formulating the problem in a clear way and by ensuring that the evidence used to support or refute a specific theory is public, reliable, and replicable. This way, other researchers can repeat the experiments and observations in the initial study to confirm or disconfirm it.[148] The scientific method is often analyzed as a series of steps that begins with regular observation and data collection. Based on these insights, scientists then try to find a hypothesis that explains the observations. The hypothesis is then tested using a controlled experiment to compare whether predictions based on the hypothesis match the observed results. As a last step, the results are interpreted and a conclusion is reached whether and to what degree the findings confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.[149]
The empirical sciences are usually divided into natural and social sciences. The natural sciences, like physics, biology, and chemistry, focus on quantitative research methods to arrive at knowledge about natural phenomena.[150] Quantitative research happens by making precise numerical measurements and the natural sciences often rely on advanced technological instruments to perform these measurements and to setup experiments. Another common feature of their approach is to use mathematical tools to analyze the measured data and formulate exact and general laws to describe the observed phenomena.[151]
The social sciences, like sociology, anthropology, and communication studies, examine social phenomena on the level of human behavior, relationships, and society at large.[152] While they also make use of quantitative research, they usually give more emphasis to qualitative methods. Qualitative research gathers non-numerical data, often with the goal of arriving at a deeper understanding of the meaning and interpretation of social phenomena from the perspective of those involved.[153] This approach can take various forms, such as interviews, focus groups, and case studies.[154]Mixed-method research combines quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the same phenomena from a variety of perspectives to get a more comprehensive understanding.[155]
The progress of scientific knowledge is traditionally seen as a gradual and continuous process in which the existing body of knowledge is increased at each step. This view has been challenged by some philosophers of science, such as Thomas Kuhn, who holds that between phases of incremental progress, there are so-called scientific revolutions in which a paradigm shift occurs. According to this view, some basic assumptions are changed due to the paradigm shift, resulting in a radically new perspective on the body of scientific knowledge that is incommensurable with the previous outlook.[156][m]
El cientificismo se refiere a un grupo de puntos de vista que privilegian las ciencias y el método científico sobre otras formas de investigación y adquisición de conocimiento. En su formulación más fuerte, es la afirmación de que no hay otro conocimiento además del conocimiento científico. [158] Una crítica común del cientificismo, hecha por filósofos como Hans-Georg Gadamer y Paul Feyerabend , es que el requisito fijo de seguir el método científico es demasiado rígido y da como resultado una imagen engañosa de la realidad al excluir varios fenómenos relevantes del alcance del conocimiento. [159]
Historia
La historia del conocimiento es el campo de investigación que estudia cómo el conocimiento en diferentes campos se ha desarrollado y evolucionado a lo largo de la historia. Está estrechamente relacionada con la historia de la ciencia , pero cubre un área más amplia que incluye el conocimiento de campos como la filosofía , las matemáticas , la educación , la literatura , el arte y la religión . Abarca además el conocimiento práctico de artesanías específicas , la medicina y las prácticas cotidianas. Investiga no solo cómo se crea y se emplea el conocimiento, sino también cómo se difunde y se preserva. [160]
Antes del período antiguo , el conocimiento sobre la conducta social y las habilidades de supervivencia se transmitía oralmente y en forma de costumbres de una generación a la siguiente. [161] El período antiguo vio el surgimiento de grandes civilizaciones a partir de aproximadamente 3000 a. C. en Mesopotamia , Egipto , India y China . La invención de la escritura en este período aumentó significativamente la cantidad de conocimiento estable dentro de la sociedad, ya que podía almacenarse y compartirse sin estar limitado por la memoria humana imperfecta . [162] Durante este tiempo, se realizaron los primeros avances en campos científicos como las matemáticas, la astronomía y la medicina. Más tarde, los antiguos griegos los formalizaron y ampliaron en gran medida a partir del siglo VI a. C. Otros avances antiguos se relacionaron con el conocimiento en los campos de la agricultura, el derecho y la política. [163]
La invención de la imprenta en el siglo XV amplió enormemente el acceso a los materiales escritos.
In the medieval period, religious knowledge was a central concern, and religious institutions, like the Catholic Church in Europe, influenced intellectual activity.[164] Jewish communities set up yeshivas as centers for studying religious texts and Jewish law.[165] In the Muslim world, madrasa schools were established and focused on Islamic law and Islamic philosophy.[166] Many intellectual achievements of the ancient period were preserved, refined, and expanded during the Islamic Golden Age from the 8th to 13th centuries.[167] Centers of higher learning were established in this period in various regions, like Al-Qarawiyyin University in Morocco,[168] the Al-Azhar University in Egypt,[169] the House of Wisdom in Iraq,[170] and the first universities in Europe.[171] This period also saw the formation of guilds, which preserved and advanced technical and craft knowledge.[172]
In the Renaissance period, starting in the 14th century, there was a renewed interest in the humanities and sciences.[173] The printing press was invented in the 15th century and significantly increased the availability of written media and general literacy of the population.[174] These developments served as the foundation of the Scientific Revolution in the Age of Enlightenment starting in the 16th and 17th centuries. It led to an explosion of knowledge in fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and the social sciences.[175] The technological advancements that accompanied this development made possible the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries.[176] In the 20th century, the development of computers and the Internet led to a vast expansion of knowledge by revolutionizing how knowledge is stored, shared, and created.[177][n]
In various disciplines
Religion
Knowledge plays a central role in many religions. Knowledge claims about the existence of God or religious doctrines about how each one should live their lives are found in almost every culture.[179] However, such knowledge claims are often controversial and are commonly rejected by religious skeptics and atheists.[180] The epistemology of religion is the field of inquiry studying whether belief in God and in other religious doctrines is rational and amounts to knowledge.[181] One important view in this field is evidentialism, which states that belief in religious doctrines is justified if it is supported by sufficient evidence. Suggested examples of evidence for religious doctrines include religious experiences such as direct contact with the divine or inner testimony when hearing God's voice.[182] Evidentialists often reject that belief in religious doctrines amounts to knowledge based on the claim that there is not sufficient evidence.[183] A famous saying in this regard is due to Bertrand Russell. When asked how he would justify his lack of belief in God when facing his judgment after death, he replied "Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence."[184]
However, religious teachings about the existence and nature of God are not always seen as knowledge claims by their defenders. Some explicitly state that the proper attitude towards such doctrines is not knowledge but faith. This is often combined with the assumption that these doctrines are true but cannot be fully understood by reason or verified through rational inquiry. For this reason, it is claimed that one should accept them even though they do not amount to knowledge.[180] Such a view is reflected in a famous saying by Immanuel Kant where he claims that he "had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."[185]
Distinct religions often differ from each other concerning the doctrines they proclaim as well as their understanding of the role of knowledge in religious practice.[186] In both the Jewish and the Christian traditions, knowledge plays a role in the fall of man, in which Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Responsible for this fall was that they ignored God's command and ate from the tree of knowledge, which gave them the knowledge of good and evil. This is seen as a rebellion against God since this knowledge belongs to God and it is not for humans to decide what is right or wrong.[187] In the Christian literature, knowledge is seen as one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.[188] In Islam, "the Knowing" (al-ʿAlīm) is one of the 99 names reflecting distinct attributes of God. The Qur'an asserts that knowledge comes from Allah and the acquisition of knowledge is encouraged in the teachings of Muhammad.[189]
Saraswati is the goddess of knowledge and the arts in Hinduism.
In Buddhism, knowledge that leads to liberation is called vijjā. It contrasts with avijjā or ignorance, which is understood as the root of all suffering. This is often explained in relation to the claim that humans suffer because they crave things that are impermanent. The ignorance of the impermanent nature of things is seen as the factor responsible for this craving.[190] The central goal of Buddhist practice is to stop suffering. This aim is to be achieved by understanding and practicing the teaching known as the Four Noble Truths and thereby overcoming ignorance.[191] Knowledge plays a key role in the classical path of Hinduism known as jñāna yoga or "path of knowledge". It aims to achieve oneness with the divine by fostering an understanding of the self and its relation to Brahman or ultimate reality.[192]
Anthropology
La antropología del conocimiento es un campo de investigación multidisciplinario. [193] Estudia cómo se adquiere, almacena, recupera y comunica el conocimiento. [194] Se presta especial interés a cómo se reproduce y cambia el conocimiento en relación con las circunstancias sociales y culturales. [195] En este contexto, el término conocimiento se utiliza en un sentido muy amplio, aproximadamente equivalente a términos como comprensión y cultura . [196] Esto significa que las formas y la reproducción de la comprensión se estudian independientemente de su valor de verdad . En epistemología, por el contrario, el conocimiento suele restringirse a las formas de creencia verdadera. El enfoque principal de la antropología está en las observaciones empíricas de cómo las personas atribuyen valores de verdad a los contenidos de significado, como cuando afirman una afirmación, incluso si estos contenidos son falsos. [195] Esto también incluye componentes prácticos: el conocimiento es lo que se emplea al interpretar y actuar sobre el mundo e involucra diversos fenómenos, como sentimientos, habilidades incorporadas, información y conceptos. Se utiliza para comprender y anticipar eventos para prepararse y reaccionar en consecuencia. [197]
La reproducción del conocimiento y sus cambios a menudo ocurren a través de alguna forma de comunicación utilizada para transferir el conocimiento . [198] Esto incluye discusiones cara a cara y comunicaciones en línea, así como seminarios y rituales. Un papel importante en este contexto recae en las instituciones, como los departamentos universitarios o las revistas científicas en el contexto académico. [195] Los antropólogos del conocimiento entienden las tradiciones como el conocimiento que se ha reproducido dentro de una sociedad o región geográfica a lo largo de varias generaciones. Están interesados en cómo esta reproducción se ve afectada por influencias externas. Por ejemplo, las sociedades tienden a interpretar las afirmaciones de conocimiento que se encuentran en otras sociedades y las incorporan en una forma modificada. [199]
En una sociedad, las personas que pertenecen a un mismo grupo social suelen entender las cosas y organizar el conocimiento de forma similar. En este sentido, las identidades sociales desempeñan un papel importante: las personas que se asocian con identidades similares, como las identidades influenciadas por la edad, las identidades profesionales, las identidades religiosas y las identidades étnicas, tienden a encarnar formas similares de conocimiento. Dichas identidades se refieren tanto a cómo una persona se ve a sí misma, por ejemplo, en términos de los ideales que persigue, como a cómo la ven otras personas, como las expectativas que tienen hacia esa persona. [200]
Sociología
The sociology of knowledge is the subfield of sociology that studies how thought and society are related to each other.[201] Like the anthropology of knowledge, it understands "knowledge" in a wide sense that encompasses philosophical and political ideas, religious and ideological doctrines, folklore, law, and technology. The sociology of knowledge studies in what sociohistorical circumstances knowledge arises, what consequences it has, and on what existential conditions it depends. The examined conditions include physical, demographic, economic, and sociocultural factors. For instance, philosopher Karl Marx claimed that the dominant ideology in a society is a product of and changes with the underlying socioeconomic conditions.[201] Another example is found in forms of decolonial scholarship that claim that colonial powers are responsible for the hegemony of Western knowledge systems. They seek a decolonization of knowledge to undermine this hegemony.[202] A related issue concerns the link between knowledge and power, in particular, the extent to which knowledge is power. The philosopher Michel Foucault explored this issue and examined how knowledge and the institutions responsible for it control people through what he termed biopower by shaping societal norms, values, and regulatory mechanisms in fields like psychiatry, medicine, and the penal system.[203]
A central subfield is the sociology of scientific knowledge, which investigates the social factors involved in the production and validation of scientific knowledge. This encompasses examining the impact of the distribution of resources and rewards on the scientific process, which leads some areas of research to flourish while others languish. Further topics focus on selection processes, such as how academic journals decide whether to publish an article and how academic institutions recruit researchers, and the general values and norms characteristic of the scientific profession.[204]
Others
Formal epistemology studies knowledge using formal tools found in mathematics and logic.[205] An important issue in this field concerns the epistemic principles of knowledge. These are rules governing how knowledge and related states behave and in what relations they stand to each other. The transparency principle, also referred to as the luminosity of knowledge, states that it is impossible for someone to know something without knowing that they know it.[o][206] According to the conjunction principle, if a person has justified beliefs in two separate propositions, then they are also justified in believing the conjunction of these two propositions. In this regard, if Bob has a justified belief that dogs are animals and another justified belief that cats are animals, then he is justified to believe the conjunction that both dogs and cats are animals. Other commonly discussed principles are the closure principle and the evidence transfer principle.[207]
Knowledge management is the process of creating, gathering, storing, and sharing knowledge. It involves the management of information assets that can take the form of documents, databases, policies, and procedures. It is of particular interest in the field of business and organizational development, as it directly impacts decision-making and strategic planning. Knowledge management efforts are often employed to increase operational efficiency in attempts to gain a competitive advantage.[208] Key processes in the field of knowledge management are knowledge creation, knowledge storage, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. Knowledge creation is the first step and involves the production of new information. Knowledge storage can happen through media like books, audio recordings, film, and digital databases. Secure storage facilitates knowledge sharing, which involves the transmission of information from one person to another. For the knowledge to be beneficial, it has to be put into practice, meaning that its insights should be used to either improve existing practices or implement new ones.[209]
La representación del conocimiento es el proceso de almacenar información organizada, que puede ocurrir utilizando varias formas de medios y también incluye información almacenada en la mente. [210] Desempeña un papel clave en la inteligencia artificial , donde el término se utiliza para el campo de investigación que estudia cómo los sistemas informáticos pueden representar información de manera eficiente. Este campo investiga cómo se pueden combinar diferentes estructuras de datos y procedimientos interpretativos para lograr este objetivo y qué lenguajes formales se pueden utilizar para expresar elementos de conocimiento. Algunos esfuerzos en este campo están dirigidos al desarrollo de lenguajes y sistemas generales que se puedan emplear en una gran variedad de dominios, mientras que otros se centran en un método de representación optimizado dentro de un dominio específico. La representación del conocimiento está estrechamente vinculada al razonamiento automático porque el propósito de los formalismos de representación del conocimiento suele ser construir una base de conocimiento de la que se extraen inferencias . [211] Los formalismos de base de conocimiento influyentes incluyen sistemas basados en lógica, sistemas basados en reglas , redes semánticas y marcos . Los sistemas basados en lógica se basan en lenguajes formales empleados en lógica para representar el conocimiento. Utilizan dispositivos lingüísticos como términos individuales, predicados y cuantificadores . En los sistemas basados en reglas, cada unidad de información se expresa mediante una regla de producción condicional de la forma "si A entonces B". Las redes semánticas modelan el conocimiento como un gráfico que consta de vértices para representar hechos o conceptos y aristas para representar las relaciones entre ellos. Los marcos proporcionan taxonomías complejas para agrupar elementos en clases, subclases e instancias. [212]
Pedagogy is the study of teaching methods or the art of teaching.[p] It explores how learning takes place and which techniques teachers may employ to transmit knowledge to students and improve their learning experience while keeping them motivated.[214] There is a great variety of teaching methods and the most effective approach often depends on factors like the subject matter and the age and proficiency level of the learner.[215] In teacher-centered education, the teacher acts as the authority figure imparting information and directing the learning process. Student-centered approaches give a more active role to students with the teacher acting as a coach to facilitate the process.[216] Further methodological considerations encompass the difference between group work and individual learning and the use of instructional media and other forms of educational technology.[217]
Outline of knowledge – Knowledge: what is known, understood, proven; information and products of learning
References
Notes
^In this context, testimony is what other people report, both in spoken and written form.
^A similar approach was already discussed in Ancient Greek philosophy in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, where Socrates pondered the distinction between knowledge and true belief but rejected this definition.[22]
^Truth is usually associated with objectivity. This view is rejected by relativism about truth, which argues that what is true depends on one's perspective.[24]
^A defeater of a belief is evidence that this belief is false.[37]
^A distinction similar to the one between knowledge-that and knowledge-how was already discussed in ancient Greece as the contrast between epistēmē (unchanging theoretical knowledge) and technē (expert technical knowledge).[43]
^For instance, to know whether Ben is rich can be understood as knowing that Ben is rich, in case he is, and knowing that Ben is not rich, in case he is not.[49]
^However, it is controversial to what extent goal-directed behavior in lower animals is comparable to human knowledge-how.[56]
^Individuals may lack a deeper understanding of their character and feelings and attaining self-knowledge is one step in psychoanalysis.[72]
^Confabulation is a special type of memory error that consists remembering events that did not happen, often provoked by an attempt to fill memory gaps.[94]
^An often-cited paradox from the field of formal epistemology is Fitch's paradox of knowability, which states that knowledge has limits because denying this claim leads to the absurd conclusion that every truth is known.[104]
^A similar often-cited thought experiment assumes that a person is not a regular human being but a brain in a vat that receives electrical stimuli. These stimuli give the brain the false impression of having a body and interacting with the external world. Since the person is unable to tell the difference, it is argued that they do not know that they have a body responsible for reliable perceptions.[111]
^It is controversial to what extent there is a single scientific method that applies equally to all sciences rather than a group of related approaches.[147]
^It is controversial how radical the difference between paradigms is and whether they truly are incommensurable.[157]
Clark 2022, Sección principal, § 2. La objeción evidencialista a la creencia en Dios
Forrest 2021, Sección principal, § 2. El rechazo del evidencialismo de la Ilustración
Dougherty 2014, págs. 97-98
^
Clark 2022, § 2. La objeción evidencialista a la creencia en Dios
Forrest 2021, Sección principal, 2. El rechazo del evidencialismo de la Ilustración
^ Clark 2022, § 2. La objeción evidencialista a la creencia en Dios
^ Stevenson 2003, págs. 72-73
^
Paden 2009, págs. 225–227
Paden 2005, Sección líder
^
Carson & Cerrito 2003, pág. 164
Delahunty y Dignen 2012, pág. 365
Blayney 1769, Génesis
^
Legge 2017, pág. 181
Van Nieuwenhove 2020, pág. 395
^
Campo 2009, pág. 515
Swartley 2005, pág. 63
^
Burton 2002, págs. 326–327
Chaudhary 2017, págs. 202-203
Chaudhary 2017a, págs. 1373-1374
^
Chaudhary 2017, págs. 202-203
Chaudhary 2017a, págs. 1373-1374
^
Jones y Ryan 2006, jñana
Jones y Ryan 2006, Bhagavad Gita
^
Allwood 2013, págs. 69–72
Boyer 2007, 1. De alemanes dialécticos y etnógrafos dialécticos: notas de un compromiso con la filosofía
^ Cohen 2010, págs. S193–S202
^ abc Allwood 2013, págs. 69-72
^
Allwood 2013, págs. 69–72
Barth 2002, pág. 1
^ Barth 2002, págs. 1-2
^
Allwood 2013, págs. 69–72
Cohen 2010, págs. S193–S202
^
Allwood 2013, págs. 69–72
Barth 2002, págs. 1–4
Kuruk 2020, pág. 25
^
Allwood 2013, págs. 69–72
Hansen 1982, pág. 193
^ desde
Coser 2009, Conocimiento, Sociología de
Tufari 2003, Conocimiento, Sociología de
Scheler y Stikkers 2012, pág. 23
^
Lee 2017, pág. 67
Dreyer 2017, págs. 1–7
^
Bosančić 2018, págs. 186-188
Gutting & Oksala 2022, § 3.1 Historias de la locura y la medicina, § 3.4 Historia de la prisión, § 3.5 Historia de la sexualidad moderna
Poder 2014, págs. 32-33
Appelrouth y Edles 2008, pág. 643
^
Bloor 2004, págs. 919–920
Pinch 2013, pág. 14
Kitchener 1996, pág. 68
^ Weisberg 2021
^
Steup & Neta 2020, § 3.3 Interno vs. externo
Das & Salow 2018, págs. 3-4
Dokic y Égré 2009, págs. 1-2
^ Klein 1998, § 7. Principios epistémicos
^
Lengnick-Hall y Lengnick-Hall 2003, pág. 85
Awad y Ghaziri 2003, pág. 28
^
Suzanne 2021, págs. 114-115
Choo 2002, págs. 503-504
Witzel 2004, pág. 252
^
Sonneveld y Loening 1993, pág. 188
Markman 2006, pág. 1
Shapiro 2006, pág. 1
^
Castilho & Lopes 2009, pág. 287
Kandel 1992, págs. 5-6
Cai et al. 2021, pág. 21
^
Castilho y Lopes 2009, págs. 287–288
Kandel 1992, págs. 5-6
Akerkar y Sajja 2010, págs. 71–72
^ Watkins y Mortimore 1999, págs. 1-3
^
Watkins y Mortimore 1999, págs. 1–3
Payne 2003, pág. 264
Gabriel 2022, pág. 16
Turuthi, Njagi y Chemwei 2017, pág. 365
^
Bartlett y Burton 2007, págs. 81–85
Murphy 2003, págs. 5, 19–20
^ Emaliana 2017, págs. 59-61
^
Wang y Cranton 2013, pág. 143
Bukoye 2019, pág. 1395
Fuentes
Personal de AHD (2022a). «Conocimiento». Diccionario American Heritage . HarperCollins. Archivado desde el original el 29 de noviembre de 2022. Consultado el 25 de octubre de 2022 .
Personal de AHD (2022b). «Base de conocimientos». Diccionario American Heritage . HarperCollins. Archivado desde el original el 19 de marzo de 2022. Consultado el 25 de octubre de 2022 .
Personal de AHD (2022c). «Inteligencia». Diccionario American Heritage . HarperCollins. Archivado desde el original el 8 de enero de 2024. Consultado el 7 de marzo de 2023 .
Personal de AHD (2022d). "Ciencias sociales". Diccionario American Heritage . HarperCollins.
Personal de AHD (2022e). "Confabular". Diccionario American Heritage . HarperCollins.
Ames, Roger T.; Yajun, Chen; Hershock, Peter D. (2021). Confucianismo y pragmatismo deweyano: recursos para una nueva geopolítica de la interdependencia . University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-8857-2.
Akerkar, Rajendra; Sajja, Priti (2010). Sistemas basados en el conocimiento . Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-0-7637-7647-3.
Allen, Barry (2005). "Conocimiento". En Horowitz, Maryanne Cline (ed.). Nuevo diccionario de la historia de las ideas . Vol. 3. Charles Scribner's Sons . Págs. 1199–1204. ISBN 978-0-684-31377-1. OCLC 55800981. Archivado desde el original el 22 de agosto de 2017.
Allwood, Carl Martin (2013). "Antropología del conocimiento". La enciclopedia de psicología transcultural. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., págs. 69-72. doi :10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp025. ISBN: 9781118339893.978-1-118-33989-3Archivado desde el original el 26 de septiembre de 2022 . Consultado el 26 de septiembre de 2022 .
Alter, Torin; Nagasawa, Yujin (2015). La conciencia en el mundo físico: perspectivas sobre el monismo russelliano . Oxford University Press. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-0-19-992736-4.
Antonio, Cartelli (2008). "La nueva frontera de la educación superior para la universidad electrónica y el campus virtual". En Antonio, Cartelli; Marco, Palma (eds.). Enciclopedia de Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación . IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-59904-846-8.
Personal de la APA (2022). «Conocimiento situado». Diccionario APA de Psicología . Asociación Estadounidense de Psicología. Archivado desde el original el 20 de septiembre de 2022. Consultado el 18 de septiembre de 2022 .
Appelrouth, Scott; Edles, Laura Desfor (2008). Teoría sociológica clásica y contemporánea: textos y lecturas . Pine Forge Press. ISBN 978-0-7619-2793-8.
Aqil, Moulay Driss; Babekri, El Hassane; Nadmi, Mustapha (2020). "Marruecos: contribuciones a la educación matemática desde Marruecos". En Vogeli, Bruce R.; Tom, Mohamed EA El (eds.). Matemáticas y su enseñanza en el mundo musulmán . World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-314-679-2.
Attie-Picker, Mario (2020). "¿El escepticismo conduce a la tranquilidad? Explorando un tema pirrónico". En Lombrozo, Tania; Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (eds.). Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy . Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. págs. 97–125. doi :10.1093/oso/9780198852407.003.0005. ISBN 978-0-19-885240-7.
Audi, Robert (2002). "Las fuentes del conocimiento". Manual Oxford de epistemología. Oxford University Press. pp. 71–94. ISBN 978-0-19-513005-8Archivado desde el original el 12 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Awad, Elias M.; Ghaziri, Hassan (2003). Gestión del conocimiento . Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-93-325-0619-0.
Baehr, Jason S. (2022). «A priori y a posteriori». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 4 de octubre de 2019. Consultado el 17 de septiembre de 2022 .
Baggini, J.; Southwell, G. (2016). Filosofía: temas clave . Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-00887-9.
Baird, Tess; Maskill, Linda (2017). "Memoria". En Maskill, Linda; Tempest, Stephanie (eds.). Neuropsicología para terapeutas ocupacionales: cognición en el desempeño ocupacional . John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-71132-3.
Barnett, Michael (2006). "Conocimiento vocacional y pedagogía vocacional". En Young, Michael; Gamble, Jeanne (eds.). Conocimiento, currículo y cualificaciones para la educación superior sudafricana . HSRC Press. ISBN 978-0-7969-2154-3.
Barth, Fredrik (2002). "Una antropología del conocimiento". Antropología actual . 43 (1): 1–18. doi :10.1086/324131. hdl : 1956/4191 . ISSN 0011-3204.
Bartlett, Steve; Burton, Diana (2007). Introducción a los estudios de educación (2.ª ed.). Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-2193-0.
Bartlett, Gary (2018). «Estados actuales». Revista Canadiense de Filosofía . 48 (1): 1–17. Archivado desde el original el 4 de mayo de 2021. Consultado el 3 de abril de 2021 .
Beins, Bernard C. (2017). Método de investigación: una herramienta para la vida . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-43623-6.
Bergström, Lars (1987). "Sobre el valor del conocimiento científico". En Lehrer, Keith (ed.). Ciencia y ética . Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-6203-670-7.
Bertelson, Paul; Gelder, BéAtrice De (2004). "La psicología de la percepción multimodal". Espacio transmodal y atención transmodal . Oxford University Press. doi :10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524861.003.0007. ISBN 9780191689260.
Bird, Alexander (2022). «Thomas Kuhn». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Consultado el 18 de marzo de 2024 .
Black, Charlene Villaseñor; Álvarez, Mari-Tere (2019). Futuros del Renacimiento: ciencia, arte, invención . University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-96951-3.
Black, Tim (2002). «Relevant Alternatives and the Shifting Standards of Knowledge» (Alternativas relevantes y los cambiantes estándares del conocimiento). Southwest Philosophy Review . 18 (1): 23–32. doi :10.5840/swphilreview20021813. Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Blackburn, Simón (2008). "Ding un sich". El Diccionario Oxford de Filosofía. Prensa de la Universidad de Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-954143-0.
Blayney, Benjamin, ed. (1769). "Génesis". La Biblia del rey Jaime I. Oxford University Press. OCLC 745260506. Archivado desde el original el 30 de enero de 2023. Consultado el 30 de enero de 2023 .
Bloor, David (2004). "Sociología del conocimiento científico". Manual de epistemología . Springer Netherlands. págs. 919–962. doi :10.1007/978-1-4020-1986-9_25. ISBN.978-1-4020-1986-9.
Bosančić, Saša (2018). "Autoposicionamiento de trabajadores semicalificados: análisis de los procesos de subjetivación con SKAD". El enfoque de la sociología del conocimiento para el discurso: investigación de las políticas del conocimiento y la construcción de significados . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-04872-0.
Bowen, James; Gelpi, Ettore; Anweiler, Oskar (2023). «Educación». Enciclopedia Británica . Archivado desde el original el 12 de diciembre de 2007. Consultado el 30 de abril de 2023 .
Bowker, John (2003). Diccionario Oxford conciso de religiones del mundo. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280094-7.
Boyer, Dominic (2007). "1. De alemanes dialécticos y etnógrafos dialécticos: notas desde un compromiso con la filosofía". En Harris, Mark (ed.). Formas de saber: enfoques antropológicos para la elaboración de experiencias y conocimientos . Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-364-0.
Bukoye, Roseline Olufunke (2019). "Utilización de materiales didácticos como herramientas para el rendimiento académico eficaz de los estudiantes: implicaciones para la orientación". Segunda Conferencia Internacional sobre Educación y Enseñanza Innovadoras y Creativas . ICETIC. pág. 1395. doi : 10.3390/proceedings2211395 .
Burke, Peter (2015). ¿Qué es la historia del conocimiento? . John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-5095-0306-3.
Burton, David (2002). «Conocimiento y liberación: reflexiones filosóficas sobre un enigma budista». Philosophy East and West . 52 (3): 326–345. doi :10.1353/pew.2002.0011. ISSN 0031-8221. JSTOR 1400322. S2CID 145257341. Archivado desde el original el 17 de febrero de 2023 . Consultado el 17 de febrero de 2023 .
Cai, Zixing; Liu, Lijue; Chen, Baifan; Wang, Yong (2021). Inteligencia artificial: desde el principio hasta la fecha . World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-12-2371-6.
Cameron, Ross (2018). «Argumentos de regresión infinita». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 2 de enero de 2020. Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Campo, Juan Eduardo (2009). Enciclopedia del Islam . Publicación de bases de datos. pag. 515.ISBN 978-1-4381-2696-8.
Carson, Thomas; Cerrito, Joann, eds. (2003). Nueva Enciclopedia Católica Vol. 14: Thi–Zwi (2.ª ed.). Thomson/Gale. pág. 164. ISBN 978-0-7876-4018-7.
Castilho, Luciana V.; Lopes, Heitor S. (2009). "Un sistema basado en ontologías para la gestión del conocimiento y el aprendizaje en fisioterapia neuropediátrica". En Szczerbicki, Edward; Nguyen, Ngoc Thanh (eds.). Gestión inteligente de la información y el conocimiento: avances, desafíos y cuestiones críticas . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-642-04583-7.
Personal del CD. «Conocimiento». Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus . Cambridge University Press. Archivado desde el original el 16 de noviembre de 2023. Consultado el 3 de diciembre de 2023 .
Celenza, Christopher S. (2021). El Renacimiento italiano y el origen de las humanidades: una historia intelectual, 1400-1800 . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83340-0.
Chappell, Sophie-Grace (2019). «Platón sobre el conocimiento en el Teeteto». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 10 de julio de 2022. Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Chaudhary, Angraj (2017). "Avijjā". En Sarao, KTS; Long, Jeffery D. (eds.). Budismo y jainismo . Springer Nature. ISBN 978-94-024-0851-5.
Chaudhary, Angraj (2017a). "Sabiduría (budismo)". En Sarao, KTS; Long, Jeffery D. (eds.). Budismo y jainismo . Springer Nature. ISBN 978-94-024-0851-5.
Choo, Chun Wei (2002). "Gestión del conocimiento". En Schement, Jorge Reina (ed.). Enciclopedia de comunicación e información. Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0-02-865385-3Archivado desde el original el 2 de diciembre de 2023 . Consultado el 1 de diciembre de 2023 .
Christopher, Jabez; Prasath, Rajendra; Vanga, Odelu (2018). "Inteligencia experta: teoría de la faceta faltante". En Groza, Adrian; Prasath, Rajendra (eds.). Inteligencia minera y exploración del conocimiento: 6.ª conferencia internacional . Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-05918-7.
Clark, Romane (1988). "Argumentos viciosos de regresión infinita". Philosophical Perspectives . 2 : 369–380. doi :10.2307/2214081. JSTOR 2214081. Archivado desde el original el 26 de marzo de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Clark, Kelly James (2022). «Epistemología religiosa». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 21 de septiembre de 2022. Consultado el 21 de septiembre de 2022 .
Clegg, Joshua W. (2022). La buena ciencia: la investigación psicológica como práctica moral cotidiana . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-02181-4.
Cohen, Emma (2010). «Antropología del conocimiento». Revista del Real Instituto Antropológico . 16 : S193–S202. doi :10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01617.x. hdl : 11858/00-001M-0000-0012-9B72-7 . JSTOR 40606072. Archivado desde el original el 26 de septiembre de 2022. Consultado el 26 de septiembre de 2022 .
Cohen, Robert S. (2013). Las ciencias naturales y las ciencias sociales: algunas perspectivas críticas e históricas . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-017-3391-5.
Colander, David C. (2016). Ciencias sociales: una introducción al estudio de la sociedad . Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-22573-7.
Conner, Clifford D. (2009). Una historia popular de la ciencia: mineros, parteras y mecánicos de bajo nivel . Bold Type Books. ISBN 978-0-7867-3786-4.
Coser, Lewis A. (2009) [1968]. "Conocimiento, sociología del". Enciclopedia Internacional de las Ciencias Sociales. Gale. ISBN 978-0-02-928751-4Archivado desde el original el 7 de marzo de 2023 . Consultado el 7 de marzo de 2023 .
Cosman, Madeleine Pelner; Jones, Linda Gale (2009). Manual de vida en el mundo medieval, conjunto de 3 volúmenes . Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-0907-7.
Cox, Michael T.; Raja, Anita (2011). Metarracioanismo: pensar sobre el pensamiento . MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01480-9.
Danesi, Marcel (2013). Enciclopedia de medios y comunicación . University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-9553-5.
Das, Nilanjan; Salow, Bernhard (2018). «Transparencia y el principio KK». Vol . 52 (1): 3–23. doi :10.1111/nous.12158. Archivado desde el original el 12 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Daston, Lorraine (2017). "La historia de la ciencia y la historia del conocimiento". KNOW: una revista sobre la formación del conocimiento . 1 (1): 131–154. doi :10.1086/691678. hdl : 11858/00-001M-0000-002C-EDB1-5 . S2CID 164680540.
Degenhardt, MAB (2019). La educación y el valor del conocimiento . Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-000-62799-2.
Delahunty, Andrew; Dignen, Sheila (2012). "El árbol del conocimiento". Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Alusion . Oxford University Press. pág. 365. ISBN 978-0-19-956746-1.
DePoe, John M. (2022). «Conocimiento por conocimiento y conocimiento por descripción». Enciclopedia de filosofía en Internet . Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022. Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2022 .
Desouza, K.; Awazu, Y. (2005). Gestión comprometida del conocimiento: compromiso con las nuevas realidades . Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-00607-2.
Dika, Tarek (2023). El método de Descartes: la formación del sujeto de la ciencia . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-286986-9.
Dodd, Ashley C.; Zambetti, Benjamin R.; Deneve, Jeremiah (2023). "Método científico". Cirugía traslacional . Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-323-90630-2.
Dokic, Jérôme; Égré, Paul (2009). «Margen de error y transparencia del conocimiento». Síntesis . 166 (1): 1–20. doi :10.1007/s11229-007-9245-y. S2CID 14221986. Archivado desde el original el 12 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Doren, Charles Van (1992). Una historia del conocimiento: pasado, presente y futuro . Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-345-37316-8.
Dougherty, Trent (2014). "Fe, confianza y testimonio". Fe religiosa y virtud intelectual : 97–123. doi :10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672158.003.0005. ISBN 978-0-19-967215-8.
Dreyer, Jaco S. (2017). "Teología práctica y el llamado a la descolonización de la educación superior en Sudáfrica: reflexiones y propuestas". HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies . 73 (4): 1–7. doi : 10.4102/hts.v73i4.4805 .
Durán, Juan M.; Formanek, Nico (2018). "Fundamentos para la confianza: opacidad epistémica esencial y confiabilidad computacional". Mentes y máquinas . 28 (4): 645–666. arXiv : 1904.01052 . doi : 10.1007/s11023-018-9481-6 . ISSN 1572-8641. S2CID 53102940.
Emaliana, Ive (2017). "¿Enfoque de aprendizaje centrado en el docente o centrado en el estudiante para promover el aprendizaje?". Jurnal Sosial Humaniora . 10 (2): 59. doi : 10.12962/j24433527.v10i2.2161 . S2CID 148796695.
Esposito, John L., ed. (2003). "Madrasa". Diccionario Oxford del Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512558-0Archivado desde el original el 9 de diciembre de 2023 . Consultado el 15 de diciembre de 2023 .
Evans, James A.; Foster, Jacob G. (2011). "Metaconocimiento". Science . 331 (6018): 721–725. Bibcode :2011Sci...331..721E. doi :10.1126/science.1201765. PMID 21311014. S2CID 220090552.
Faber, Niels R.; Maruster, Laura; Jorna, René J. (2017). "Evaluación y determinación de la sostenibilidad social". En Jorna, René (ed.). Innovación sostenible: la dimensión organizacional, humana y del conocimiento . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-28034-1.
Fagan, Brian M.; Durrani, Nadia (2016). Prehistoria mundial: una breve introducción . Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-27910-5.
Flynn, Mark (2000). "Una crítica del cientificismo, no de la ciencia en sí". Interchange . 31 (1): 83–86. doi :10.1023/a:1007695016458. S2CID 141495171.
Forrest, Peter (2021). «La epistemología de la religión». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 10 de julio de 2022. Consultado el 21 de septiembre de 2022 .
Foxall, Gordon (2017). Contexto y cognición en la psicología del consumidor: cómo la percepción y la emoción guían la acción . Routledge. pág. 75. ISBN 978-1-317-67738-3.
Friesen, Norm (2017). El libro de texto y la conferencia: educación en la era de los nuevos medios . JHU Press. ISBN 978-1-4214-2434-7.
Fumerton, Richard (2008). "El problema del criterio". Manual Oxford del escepticismo. Oxford University Press. pp. 34–52. doi :10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195183214.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-518321-4Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Fumerton, Richard (2022). Fundacionalismo. Cambridge University Press. doi :10.1017/9781009028868. ISBN 978-1-009-02886-8Archivado desde el original el 12 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Gabriel, Cle-Anne (2022). ¿Por qué enseñar con casos?: Reflexiones sobre la filosofía y la práctica . Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 978-1-80382-399-7.
García-Arnaldos, María Dolores (2020). "Introducción a la teoría del conocimiento, escrita por O'Brien, D." Historia de la filosofía y análisis lógico . 23 (2): 508. doi : 10.30965/26664275-20210003 . ISSN 2666-4275. S2CID 228985437. Archivado desde el original el 4 de marzo de 2023 . Consultado el 4 de marzo de 2023 .
Gardiner, JM (2001). "Memoria episódica y conciencia autonoética: un enfoque en primera persona". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Serie B, Ciencias Biológicas . 356 (1413): 1351–1361. doi :10.1098/rstb.2001.0955. ISSN 0962-8436. PMC 1088519 . PMID 11571027.
Gascoigne, Neil; Thornton, Tim (2014). Conocimiento tácito . Routledge. pp. 8, 37, 81, 108. ISBN.978-1-317-54726-6.
Gauch, Hugh G. (2003). El método científico en la práctica . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-01708-4.
George, Theodore (2021). «Hermeneutics». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2024 .
Gertler, Brie (2021). «Autoconocimiento». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 11 de noviembre de 2021. Consultado el 22 de octubre de 2022 .
Gertler, Brie (2021a). «Autoconocimiento > Conocimiento del yo». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 3 de julio de 2022. Consultado el 22 de octubre de 2022 .
Ghose, Aurobindo (1998). "Escritos y discursos políticos. 1890-1908: La gloria de Dios en el hombre". Bande Mataram II. Departamento de Publicaciones del Ashram Sri Aurobindo. ISBN 978-81-7058-416-2Archivado desde el original el 9 de marzo de 2023 . Consultado el 9 de marzo de 2023 .
Gilliot, Claude (2018). "Bibliotecas". En Meri, Josef (ed.). Routledge Revivals: Medieval Islamic Civilization (2006): An Encyclopedia - Volume II . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-66813-2.
Goldman, Alvin I. (1976). "Discriminación y conocimiento perceptual". Revista de Filosofía . 73 (20): 771–791. doi :10.2307/2025679. JSTOR 2025679.
Green, Christopher R. (2022). «Epistemología del testimonio». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 7 de marzo de 2022. Consultado el 8 de junio de 2022 .
Gupta, Anil (2021). «Definiciones: 1.1 Definiciones reales y nominales». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 1 de mayo de 2022. Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2022 .
Gutting, Gary; Oksala, Johanna (2022). "Michel Foucault". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Consultado el 18 de marzo de 2024 .
Hamner, M. Gail (2003). Pragmatismo americano: una genealogía religiosa . Oxford University Press. pág. 87. ISBN 978-0-19-515547-1.
Hannon, Michael (2021). "Conocimiento, concepto de". Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge . doi :10.4324/9780415249126-P031-2. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Hansen, Judith Friedman (1982). "Del fondo al primer plano: hacia una antropología del aprendizaje". Anthropology & Education Quarterly . 13 (2): 193. doi : 10.1525/aeq.1982.13.2.05x1833m . ISSN 0161-7761. JSTOR 3216630.
Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (2018). «Teorías fundacionalistas de la justificación epistémica». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 5 de agosto de 2019. Consultado el 6 de junio de 2022 .
Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (2020). «Conocimiento por conocimiento frente a descripción: 1. La distinción». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 31 de mayo de 2022. Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2022 .
Hasan, Ali; Fumerton, Richard (2022). «Teorías fundacionalistas de la justificación epistémica». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 5 de agosto de 2019. Consultado el 11 de diciembre de 2023 .
Hatfield, Gary (1998). "Método científico". Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07310-3.
Haymes, Brian; Özdalga, Elisabeth (2016). El concepto del conocimiento de Dios . Springer. pp. 26–28. ISBN 978-1-349-19066-9.
Hepburn, Brian; Andersen, Hanne (2021). «Método científico». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 26 de febrero de 2020. Consultado el 23 de julio de 2022 .
Hetherington, Stephen. Falibilismo. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archivado desde el original el 18 de agosto de 2020. Consultado el 13 de diciembre de 2023 .
Hetherington, Stephen (2022). «Problemas de Gettier». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 19 de febrero de 2009. Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2022 .
Hetherington, Stephen (2022a). «Conocimiento». Enciclopedia de Filosofía en Internet . Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022. Consultado el 18 de mayo de 2022 .
Heydorn, Wendy; Jesudason, Susan (2013). Descifrando la teoría del conocimiento para el diploma del IB . Cambridge University Press. pág. 10. ISBN 978-1-107-62842-7.
Hill, Sonya D., ed. (2009). "Visión de la empresa basada en el conocimiento". Enciclopedia de gestión. Gale. ISBN 978-1-4144-0691-6Archivado desde el original el 6 de marzo de 2023 . Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2023 .
Hirschberger, Johannes (2019). Breve historia de la filosofía occidental . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-31145-7.
Hoad, TF (1993). Diccionario Oxford conciso de etimología inglesa . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-283098-2.
Hookway, Christopher (8 de noviembre de 2012). La máxima pragmática: ensayos sobre Peirce y el pragmatismo . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958838-1.
Howell, Kerry E. (2013). Introducción a la filosofía de la metodología . Sage. ISBN 978-1-4462-0298-2.
Hunter, Lynette (2009). "Situated Knowledge". Mapping Landscapes for Performance as Research: Scholarly Acts and Creative Cartographies (Cartografía de paisajes para la interpretación como investigación: actos académicos y cartografías creativas) . Palgrave Macmillan, Reino Unido. pp. 151–153. doi :10.1057/9780230244481_23. ISBN .978-0-230-24448-1Archivado desde el original el 20 de septiembre de 2022 . Consultado el 19 de septiembre de 2022 .
Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins; Steup, Matthias (2018). "El análisis del conocimiento". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 2 de mayo de 2022. Consultado el 24 de mayo de 2022 .
Johnson, Mark S.; Stearns, Peter N. (2023). Educación en la historia mundial . Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-81337-8.
Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006). Enciclopedia del hinduismo . Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-7564-5.
Jorna, René (2017). Innovación sostenible: la dimensión organizacional, humana y del conocimiento . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-28034-1.
Kandel, Abraham (1992). Sistemas expertos difusos . CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8493-4297-4.
Kemmis, Stephen; Edwards-Groves, Christine (2017). Entender la educación: historia, política y práctica . Springer. ISBN 978-981-10-6433-3.
Kern, Andrea (2017). Fuentes de conocimiento: sobre el concepto de una capacidad racional para el conocimiento . Harvard University Press. pp. 8–10, 133. ISBN 978-0-674-41611-6.
Kernis, Michael H. (2013). Problemas de autoestima y respuestas: un libro de referencia de perspectivas actuales . Psychology Press. pág. 209. ISBN 978-1-134-95270-0.
Khatoon, Naima (2012). Psicología general . Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-81-317-5999-8.
Kitchener, Richard F. (1996). "Epistemología genética y psicología cognitiva de la ciencia". En O'Donohue, William; Kitchener, Richard F. (eds.). La filosofía de la psicología . Sage. ISBN 978-0-85702-612-5.
Klausen, Søren Harnow (2015). «Group Knowledge: A Real-world Approach». Síntesis . 192 (3): 813–839. doi :10.1007/s11229-014-0589-9. S2CID 207246817. Archivado desde el original el 1 de febrero de 2024 . Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2022 .
Klein, Peter D. (1998). "Conocimiento, concepto de". En Craig, Edward (ed.). Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge . Routledge. doi :10.4324/9780415249126-P031-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. OCLC 38096851. Archivado desde el original el 13 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 13 de junio de 2022 .
Klenke, Karin (2014). "Esculpiendo los contornos del panorama cualitativo de la investigación sobre liderazgo". En Day, David (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-021377-0.
Kraft, Tim (2012). «Escepticismo, infalibilismo, falibilismo». Disciplina filosófica . 22 (2): 49–70. ISSN 2279-7343. Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022. Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Kreeft, Peter; Tacelli, Ronald K. (2009). Manual de apologética cristiana . InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-7544-3.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1992). La revolución copernicana: la astronomía planetaria en el desarrollo del pensamiento occidental . Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-41747-2.
Kuruk, Paul (2020). Conocimientos tradicionales, recursos genéticos, derecho consuetudinario y propiedad intelectual: una introducción global . Edward Elgar Publishing. pág. 25. ISBN 978-1-78536-848-6.
Lackey, Jennifer (2021). La epistemología de los grupos. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965660-8Archivado desde el original el 25 de octubre de 2022 . Consultado el 25 de octubre de 2022 .
Lammenranta, Markus (2022). «Circularidad epistémica». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 27 de enero de 2021. Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Landau, Iddo (2017). Encontrar significado en un mundo imperfecto . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-065768-0.
Thornton, Tim; Lanzer, Peter (2018). Lanzer, Peter (ed.). Libro de texto de intervenciones cardiovasculares basadas en catéteres: un enfoque basado en el conocimiento . Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-319-55994-0.
Lee, Jerry Won (2017). La política del translingüismo: después de los ingleses . Routledge. pág. 67. ISBN 978-1-315-31051-0.
Legg, Catherine; Hookway, Christopher (2021). "Pragmatismo". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Consultado el 24 de marzo de 2024 .
Legge, Dominic (2017). La cristología trinitaria de Santo Tomás de Aquino . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-879419-6.
Lehrer, Keith (2015). "1. El análisis del conocimiento". Teoría del conocimiento . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-19609-7.
Lemos, Noah M. (1994). Valor intrínseco: concepto y garantía . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-46207-5.
Lengnick-Hall, Mark L.; Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A. (2003). Gestión de recursos humanos en la economía del conocimiento: nuevos desafíos, nuevos roles, nuevas capacidades . Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57675-159-6.
Leonard, Nick (2021). «Problemas epistemológicos del testimonio». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 10 de julio de 2022. Consultado el 8 de junio de 2022 .
Leondes, Cornelius T. (2001). Sistemas expertos: la tecnología de la gestión del conocimiento y la toma de decisiones para el siglo XXI . Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-053145-8.
Lilley, Simon; Lightfoot, Geoffrey; Amaral, Paulo (2004). Representación de la organización: conocimiento, gestión y la era de la información . Oxford University Press. pp. 162–163. ISBN 978-0-19-877541-6.
Low, Renae; Jin, Putai; Sweller, John (2008). "Arquitectura cognitiva y diseño instruccional en un contexto multimedia". En Zheng, Robert (ed.). Efectos cognitivos del aprendizaje multimedia . IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-60566-159-9.
Lycan, William G. (2019). "2. Moore contra los nuevos escépticos". Sobre la evidencia en la filosofía . Oxford University Press. pp. 21–36. ISBN 978-0-19-256526-6.
Magee, Bryan ; Popper, Karl R. (1971). "Conversación con Karl Popper" . En Magee, Bryan (ed.). Filosofía británica moderna . St. Martin's Press. págs. 74–75. ISBN 978-0-19-283047-0. OCLC 314039. Popper: Poner nuestras ideas en palabras, o mejor, escribirlas, marca una diferencia importante. ... Es lo que yo llamo "conocimiento en sentido objetivo". El conocimiento científico pertenece a él. Es este conocimiento el que se almacena en nuestras bibliotecas en lugar de en nuestras cabezas. Magee: Y usted considera que el conocimiento almacenado en nuestras bibliotecas es más importante que el conocimiento almacenado en nuestras cabezas. Popper: Mucho más importante, desde todo punto de vista.
Mahadevan, Kanchana (2007). "La hermenéutica gadameriana: entre extraños y amigos". En Ghosh, Manjulika; Ghosh, Raghunath (eds.). Lenguaje e interpretación: hermenéutica desde una perspectiva este-oeste . Northern Book Centre. ISBN 978-81-7211-230-1.
Markie, Peter J. (1998). «Racionalismo». Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 24 de junio de 2021. Consultado el 8 de enero de 2024 .
Markie, Peter; Folescu, M. (2023). "Racionalismo vs. Empirismo". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Consultado el 29 de febrero de 2024 .
Markman, Arthur B. (2006). "Representación del conocimiento, psicología de la". Enciclopedia de la ciencia cognitiva. Wiley. doi :10.1002/0470018860.s00558. ISBN 978-0-470-01619-0.
Martin, MGF (1998). "Percepción". Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge. Routledge. doi :10.4324/9780415249126-V023-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Recuperado el 26 de marzo de 2024 .
McCain, Kevin (2022). «El problema del criterio». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022. Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2022 .
McCormick, Matt. «Kant, Immanuel: Metafísica». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Consultado el 29 de febrero de 2024 .
McDermid, Douglas (2023). «Pragmatismo: 2b. Anticartesianismo». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 23 de mayo de 2019. Consultado el 7 de marzo de 2023 .
McGeer, V. (2001). "Autoconocimiento: aspectos filosóficos". Enciclopedia internacional de las ciencias sociales y del comportamiento . Elsevier: 13837–13841. doi :10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01073-1. ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8.
Meirmans, Stephanie; Butlin, Roger K.; Charmantier, Anne; Engelstädter, Jan; Groot, Astrid T.; King, Kayla C.; Kokko, Hanna; Reid, Jane M.; Neiman, Maurine (2019). "Políticas científicas: ¿Cómo se debería asignar la financiación científica? La perspectiva de un biólogo evolutivo". Revista de biología evolutiva . 32 (8): 754–768. doi :10.1111/jeb.13497. hdl : 2164/12705 . PMC 6771946 . PMID 31215105.
Mertler, Craig A. (2021). Introducción a la investigación educativa . Publicaciones SAGE. ISBN 978-1-5443-8834-2.
Miah, Sajahan (2006). La teoría de la percepción de Russell . Continuum. Págs. 19-20. ISBN 978-1-84714-284-9.
Michaelian, Kourken; Sutton, John (2017). «Memoria: 3. Episodicidad». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 5 de octubre de 2021. Consultado el 2 de octubre de 2021 .
Misak, Cheryl (2002). Verdad, política, moralidad: pragmatismo y deliberación . Routledge. pág. 53. ISBN 978-1-134-82618-6.
Mishra, TK (2021). El poder de la ética: algunas lecciones del Bhagavad-Gita . KK Publications. pág. 52. ISBN 978-81-7844-127-6.
Morin, Alain; Racy, Famira (2021). "15. Procesos dinámicos del yo: autoconocimiento". Manual de dinámicas y procesos de la personalidad . Academic Press. págs. 373–374. ISBN 978-0-12-813995-0Archivado desde el original el 22 de octubre de 2022 . Consultado el 22 de octubre de 2022 .
Morrison, Robert (2005). Manual de Cambridge sobre el pensamiento y el razonamiento . Cambridge University Press. pág. 371. ISBN 978-0-521-82417-0.
Moser, Paul K. (1998). «A priori». Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge . Archivado desde el original el 9 de mayo de 2021. Consultado el 8 de enero de 2024 .
Moser, Paul K. (2005). "13. Conocimiento científico". Manual Oxford de epistemología . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-020818-9.
Moser, Paul K. (2016). "A Posteriori". Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge. Archivado desde el original el 20 de septiembre de 2022. Consultado el 18 de septiembre de 2022 .
Mulsow, Martin (2018). "6. Historia del conocimiento". En Tamm, Marek; Burke, Peter (eds.). Debate sobre nuevos enfoques de la historia . Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4742-8193-5.
Murphy, Patricia (2003). "1. Definición de pedagogía". En Gipps, Caroline V. (ed.). Equidad en el aula: hacia una pedagogía eficaz para niñas y niños . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-71682-0.
Murphy, Peter (2022). «El coherentismo en la epistemología». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 12 de junio de 2022. Consultado el 8 de junio de 2022 .
MW Staff (2023). «Definición de conocimiento». Merriam-Webster . Archivado desde el original el 21 de diciembre de 2023 . Consultado el 3 de diciembre de 2023 .
Myers, Michael D. (2009). Investigación cualitativa en empresas y gestión . Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-2165-7.
Niiniluoto, Ilkka (2019). "Progreso científico". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 6 de marzo de 2023. Consultado el 8 de marzo de 2023 .
O'Brien, Dan (2006). Introducción a la teoría del conocimiento . Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-3316-9.
O'Brien, Daniel (2022). «La epistemología de la percepción». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 8 de mayo de 2009. Consultado el 25 de octubre de 2022 .
O'Grady, Paul. "Relativismo". Oxford Bibliographies . Oxford University Press . Consultado el 6 de marzo de 2024 .
Olsson, Erik J (2011). "El valor del conocimiento". Philosophy Compass . 6 (12): 874–883. doi :10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00425.x. S2CID 143034920.
Paden, William E. (2005). "Religión comparada". Enciclopedia de religión (2.ª ed.). Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0028657332.
Paden, William E. (2009). "Religión comparada". The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. Routledge. págs. 239–256. doi :10.4324/9780203868768-19. ISBN 978-0-203-86876-8Archivado desde el original el 21 de septiembre de 2022 . Consultado el 21 de septiembre de 2022 .
Parikh, Rohit ; Renero, Adriana (2017). "La creencia verdadera justificada: Platón, Gettier y Turing". Exploraciones filosóficas del legado de Alan Turing . Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Vol. 324. Springer International Publishing. págs. 93–102. doi :10.1007/978-3-319-53280-6_4. ISBN 978-3-319-53280-6Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Pavese, Carlotta (2022). «Knowledge How». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 25 de noviembre de 2023. Consultado el 12 de diciembre de 2023 .
Payne, William Harold (2003). "Contribuciones a la ciencia de la educación y a la formación de los docentes". En Salvatori, Mariolina Rizzi (ed.). Pedagogía: una historia inquietante, 1820-1930 . University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-7246-4.
Peels, Rik (2023). Ignorancia: un estudio filosófico . Oxford University Press. pág. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-765451-4.
Penelhum, Terence (1971). "1. Fe, escepticismo y filosofía". Problemas del conocimiento religioso . Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-10633-4.
Perin, Casey (2020). "23. La tranquilidad como meta en el escepticismo pirrónico". En Arenson, Kelly (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy. Routledge. págs. 285–294. doi :10.4324/9781351168120-23. ISBN.978-1-351-16812-0. S2CID 225751581. Archivado desde el original el 12 de diciembre de 2023 . Consultado el 12 de diciembre de 2023 .
Pinch, T. (2013). Enfrentarse a la naturaleza: la sociología de la detección de neutrinos solares . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-94-015-7729-8.
Plantinga, Alvin (2018). "El cientificismo: ¿quién lo necesita?". En Ridder, Jeroen de; Peels, Rik; Woudenberg, Rene van (eds.). El cientificismo: perspectivas y problemas . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-046276-5.
Platón (2002). Cinco diálogos. Hackett Pub. Co. págs. 89-90, 97b-98a. ISBN 978-0-87220-633-5.
Poston, Ted. «Fundacionalismo». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 3 de noviembre de 2011. Consultado el 11 de diciembre de 2023 .
Powell, Timothy (2020). El valor del conocimiento: la economía del conocimiento y la inteligencia empresarial . Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-059304-4.
Power, Edward J. (1970). Principales corrientes en la historia de la educación. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050581-0Archivado desde el original el 3 de mayo de 2023 . Consultado el 3 de mayo de 2023 .
Power, Richenda (2014). Una cuestión de conocimiento . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-88375-3.
Pritchard, Duncan (2007). "Trabajo reciente sobre el valor epistémico". American Philosophical Quarterly . 44 (2): 85–110. JSTOR 20464361.
Pritchard, Duncan (2013). ¿Qué es esta cosa llamada conocimiento? . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-57367-7.
Pritchard, Duncan; Turri, John; Carter, J. Adam (2022). "El valor del conocimiento". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 10 de julio de 2022 . Consultado el 19 de septiembre de 2022 .
Rambachan, Anantanand (2006). La cosmovisión advaita: Dios, el mundo y la humanidad . SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-6851-7.
Reginster, Bernard (2017). "El autoconocimiento como libertad en Schopenhauer y Freud". En Renz, Ursula (ed.). Autoconocimiento: una historia . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022642-8.
Reif, Frederick (2008). Aplicación de la ciencia cognitiva a la educación: pensamiento y aprendizaje en dominios científicos y otros dominios complejos . MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-18263-8.
Repko, Allen F. (2008). Investigación interdisciplinaria: proceso y teoría . Sage. ISBN 978-1-4129-5915-5.
Rescher, Nicholas (1998). "Falibilismo". Enciclopedia de filosofía de Routledge . doi :10.4324/9780415249126-P019-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Recuperado el 23 de marzo de 2024 .
Rescher, Nicholas (2005). Lógica epistémica: un estudio de la lógica del conocimiento . University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-7092-7.
Rescher, Nicholas (2009). Incognoscibilidad: una investigación sobre los límites del conocimiento . Libros de Lexington. ISBN 978-0-7391-3615-7.
Rescher, Nicholas (2005a). "El conocimiento, sus límites". En Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
Rescher, Nicholas (2009a). Ignorancia: sobre las implicaciones más amplias de un conocimiento deficiente . University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 978-0-8229-6014-0.
Rodríguez, Ángel García (2018). "Graneros falsos y nuestra teorización epistemológica". Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía . 50 (148): 29–54. doi : 10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2018.02 . ISSN 0011-1503. JSTOR 26767766. S2CID 171635198.
Barnett, Ronald (1990). La idea de la educación superior . Open University Press. pág. 40. ISBN 978-0-335-09420-2.
Rothberg, Helen N.; Erickson, G. Scott (2005). Del conocimiento a la inteligencia: cómo crear una ventaja competitiva en la próxima economía . Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7506-7762-2.
Russell, Bruce (2020). «A Priori Justification and Knowledge» (Justificación a priori y conocimiento). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Laboratorio de investigación metafísica, Universidad de Stanford). Archivado desde el original el 12 de agosto de 2021. Consultado el 18 de septiembre de 2022 .
Rutten, Emanuel (2012). Una evaluación crítica de los argumentos cosmológicos contemporáneos: hacia una defensa renovada del teísmo . Vrije Universiteit. ISBN 978-90-819608-0-9.
Sayre-McCord, Geoff (2023). «Metaética». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 12 de julio de 2023. Consultado el 19 de diciembre de 2023 .
Scheler, Max; Stikkers, Kenneth W. (2012). Problemas de una sociología del conocimiento (Routledge Revivals) . Routledge. pág. 23. ISBN 978-0-415-62334-6.
Schneider, W. Joel; McGrew, Kevin S. (2022). "La teoría de Cattell-Horn-Carroll de las capacidades cognitivas". En Flanagan, Dawn P.; McDonough, Erin M. (eds.). Evaluación intelectual contemporánea: teorías, pruebas y problemas . Guilford Publications. ISBN 978-1-4625-5203-0.
Schoonenboom, Judith; Johnson, R. Burke (2017). "Cómo construir un diseño de investigación de métodos mixtos". KZFSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie . 69 (T2): 107-131. doi :10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1. PMC 5602001 . PMID 28989188.
Schwitzgebel, Eric (2021). «Creencia: 2.1 Creencia actual versus creencia disposicional». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 15 de noviembre de 2019. Consultado el 8 de junio de 2022 .
Shapiro, Stuart C. (2006). "Representación del conocimiento". Enciclopedia de la ciencia cognitiva. Wiley. doi :10.1002/0470018860.s00058. ISBN 978-0-470-01619-0.
Shorten, Allison; Smith, Joanna (2017). "Investigación con métodos mixtos: ampliación de la base de evidencia". Enfermería basada en evidencia . 20 (3): 74–75. doi :10.1136/eb-2017-102699. PMID 28615184.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2019). «Moral Skepticism» (Escepticismo moral). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Laboratorio de investigación metafísica, Universidad de Stanford) . Consultado el 3 de marzo de 2024 .
Sonneveld, Helmi B.; Loening, Kurt L. (1993). Terminología: aplicaciones en la comunicación interdisciplinaria . John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 978-90-272-7400-7.
Spaulding, Shannon (2016). "La imaginación a través del conocimiento". En Kind, Amy; Kung, Peter (eds.). El conocimiento a través de la imaginación . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-102619-5.
Stanley, Jason; Willlamson, Timothy (2001). "Knowing How". Revista de Filosofía . 98 (8): 411–444. doi :10.2307/2678403. JSTOR 2678403. Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
Stehr, Nico; Adolf, Marian T. (2016). "El precio del conocimiento". Epistemología social . 30 (5–6): 483–512. doi :10.1080/02691728.2016.1172366.
Steinberg, Sheila (1995). Introducción a la comunicación, libro 1: conceptos básicos . Juta and Company Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7021-3649-8.
Steup, Matthias; Neta, Ram (2020). «Epistemología». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 21 de julio de 2020. Consultado el 22 de mayo de 2022 .
Stevenson, Leslie (2003). «Opinión, creencia o fe y conocimiento». Kantian Review . 7 : 72–101. doi :10.1017/S1369415400001746. ISSN 2044-2394. S2CID 143965507. Archivado desde el original el 21 de septiembre de 2022 . Consultado el 21 de septiembre de 2022 .
Stoltz, Jonathan (2021). Iluminando la mente: una introducción a la epistemología budista . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090756-3.
Stroll, Avrum (2023). «Epistemología». Encyclopædia Britannica . Archivado desde el original el 10 de julio de 2019. Consultado el 20 de mayo de 2022 .
Sudduth, Michael (2022). «Defeaters in Epistemology: 2b Defeasibility Analyses and Propositional Defeaters» (Derrotistas en epistemología: análisis de derrotabilidad 2b y derrotadores proposicionales). Enciclopedia de filosofía de Internet . Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022. Consultado el 17 de mayo de 2022 .
Suzanne, Zyngier (2021). Mejorar la investigación académica y la educación superior con principios de gestión del conocimiento . IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-5773-0.
Swartley, Keith E. (2005). Encuentro con el mundo del Islam . InterVarsity Press. pág. 63. ISBN 978-0-8308-5644-2.
Sweller, John; Ayres, Paul; Kalyuga, Slava (2011). Teoría de la carga cognitiva . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4419-8126-4.
Thakchoe, Sonam (2022). «La teoría de las dos verdades en la India». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 16 de mayo de 2022. Consultado el 6 de junio de 2022 .
Travers, Max (2001). Investigación cualitativa a través de estudios de casos . Sage. ISBN 978-1-4462-7627-3.
Trefil, James (2012). "La ciencia islámica". La ciencia en la historia mundial . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-49929-6.
Truncellito, David A. (2023). «Epistemología». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Archivado desde el original el 13 de enero de 2022. Consultado el 8 de marzo de 2023 .
Tufari, P. (2003). "Conocimiento, sociología del". Nueva Enciclopedia Católica . Thomson/Gale. ISBN 978-0-7876-4008-8.
Turri, John; Alfano, Mark; Greco, John (2021). «Epistemología de la virtud: 6. Valor epistémico». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 26 de marzo de 2023. Consultado el 20 de septiembre de 2022 .
Turuthi, David Gitau; Njagi, Kageni; Chemwei, Bernard (2017). "¿Cómo influye la tecnología en la motivación de los estudiantes para aprender proverbios suajili?". En Jared, Keengwe (ed.). Manual de investigación sobre modelos pedagógicos para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de próxima generación . IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-5225-3874-5.
Van Nieuwenhove, Rik (2020). "La morada trinitaria". En Howells, Edward; McIntosh, Mark A. (eds.). El manual de Oxford de teología mística . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-103406-0.
Vempala, Naresh N. (2014). "Creatividad, teorías de la música". En Thompson, William Forde (ed.). La música en las ciencias sociales y del comportamiento: una enciclopedia . Publicaciones SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4522-8302-9.
Walton, Linda (2015). "Instituciones educativas". En Kedar, Benjamin Z.; Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E. (eds.). Historia mundial de Cambridge: volumen 5, redes en expansión de intercambio y conflicto, 500 d. C.-1500 d. C. . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-29775-9.
Wang, Victor CX; Cranton, Patricia (2013). "Adaptación de las filosofías de enseñanza de los educadores de adultos para fomentar la transformación y la emancipación de los estudiantes adultos". Manual de investigación sobre la enseñanza y el aprendizaje en la educación primaria y secundaria . IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-4666-4250-8.
Watkins, Chris; Mortimore, Peter (1999). "Pedagogía: ¿Qué sabemos?". Entender la pedagogía y su impacto en el aprendizaje. Sage. doi :10.4135/9781446219454. ISBN 978-1-85396-453-4.
Weisberg, Jonathan (2021). «Epistemología formal». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 14 de marzo de 2015. Consultado el 5 de junio de 2022 .
Williams, Garrath (2023). «La explicación de la razón por parte de Kant». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University . Consultado el 29 de febrero de 2024 .
Wilson, Timothy D. (2002). Extraños para nosotros mismos: descubriendo el inconsciente adaptativo . Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00936-3.
Windt, Jennifer M. (2021). «Sueños y soñar». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archivado desde el original el 1 de febrero de 2024. Consultado el 12 de diciembre de 2023 .
Wise, C. (2011). Chomsky y la deconstrucción: la política del conocimiento inconsciente . Springer. ISBN 978-0-230-11705-1.
Witzel, Morgen (2004). Gestión: conceptos básicos . Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-36172-4.
Woolf, Raphael (2013). «Platón y las normas del pensamiento». Mind . 122 (485): 171–216. doi : 10.1093/mind/fzt012 . ISSN 0026-4423. Archivado desde el original el 20 de septiembre de 2022 . Consultado el 18 de septiembre de 2022 .
Woolfolk, Anita; Margetts, Kay (2012). Psicología Educativa, edición australiana . Pearson Higher Education AU. pág. 251. ISBN 978-1-4425-5145-9.
Yanofsky, Noson S. (2013). Los límites de la razón: lo que la ciencia, las matemáticas y la lógica no pueden decirnos . The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01935-4.
Zagzebski, Linda (1999). "¿Qué es el conocimiento?". En Greco, John; Sosa, Ernest (eds.). La guía Blackwell de epistemología . Blackwell. págs. 92–116. doi :10.1002/9781405164863.ch3. ISBN.978-0-631-20290-5. OCLC 39269507. S2CID 158886670. Archivado desde el original el 2 de junio de 2022 . Consultado el 12 de junio de 2022 .
