I think we can distinguish between knowledge, belief and opinion by using scientific methods in order to establish evidence and find out what’s a fact. The definition of fact is “a thing that is known or proved to be true.” and in order to prove its truthfulness objective evidence is needed, which can be obtained through science. For example, it has been acknowledged that the sky is blue, that is a fact. We know this is a fact because it has been scientifically proven blue light is scattered in all directions of the Earth’s atmosphere and is scattered more than any other colour light as it travels in shorter, smaller waves. However, blue-purple colour blind people see the sky as purple. To them, this may be considered a fact, but it is rather an opinion. What makes this an opinion is that the statement “the sky is purple” is true to them, because that’s what they see and therefore think , but it has not been scientifically proven. On the contrary, it has been scientifically proven that this person is colour blind, which is a fact, so although they may think the sky is purple, there is no proof, as their “proof” relies on the fact they’re colour blind and get blue and purple mixed up.

On the other hand, belief is not based on what you know or think, it is purely based on what you have faith in. It may be an acceptance that something is true, however, there is no evidence or proof confirming this which leaves it to be a belief rather than knowledge. For example, some may believe heaven is above us or in the sky, hence the phrase “they’re looking down on us” when referring to a passed love one. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that heaven is above us, as we cannot see it or prove it to be true using science; we are completely unaware of what happens to us when we die. Because there is no evidence it cannot be knowledge, but it isn’t opinion because it’s not something you think and that is specifically your take on something, it is belief as you have faith in it rather than assuming it is a straight fact.

So hypothetically, let’s say you’ve just had a bad cut on your knee after falling over during a walk. In this situation, would it be useful if I told you ‘Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo on the 18th of June, 1815’? No. It would be more useful for me to tell you that I had plasters or dressing.

What I’m trying to say here is that knowledge is useful all-around, it is the context that specifies how useful that knowledge is, in another situation you could be taking a history paper with a napoleon question and the example of waterloo I gave earlier would be more useful then.

This can be applied universally, and even clickbait articles like ’12 facts that are completely useless’, can in some contexts have equal use as knowledge as any other. Even stories that are distorted, such as the Sun newspaper’s reporting on the Hillsborough disaster, can have use as knowledge.

In brief, a football stadium in Hillsborough was overcrowded and people were crushed as the game went on; trying to escape, people jumped over the barriers onto the pitch where the police overlooking to game beat them with their batons thinking the intention was malicious.

The Sun newspaper reported that it was entirely the football fans from Liverpool’s fault, and that they were ‘football hooligans’. This resulted in the Sun being frowned upon in the city, and the Sun newspaper even lost a few legal battles over the controversy. The knowledge of the distorted facts from the Sun’s reporting can be useful as it shows how Media can manipulate and audience, and it’s effect on whole communities of people.

In conclusion, this all shows that all knowledge can be useful no matter what, and it all depends on the context when it comes to what knowledge is more useful than the last.

This is a tweet composed by Donald Trump, in which he claims that climate change is not real. 

Finding a definition for the word “knowledge” is rather easy. According to the Oxford Dictionary, knowledge is “the information, understanding and skills that you gain through education or experience”. Defining what counts as knowledge, on the other hand, is trickier. 

In this tweet, Donald Trump states that climate change is not real, which is factually incorrect. Factual knowledge is the knowledge that can be evidenced by fact. Trump’s tweet is not factual as it is not based on evidence.  

Another question we have to ask in order to answer the main question is “does knowledge have to be factual?”. In my opinion, the answer to this question is no. Faith, for instance, is one of many other ways of knowing, that is not based on anything really except your own belief. Believing in God, for example, is not something everybody does. But for a person, who believes in God, God exists. And though this cannot be evidenced, it is a “fact” for the person, who believes that God is real. 

So, does Trump’s tweet count as knowledge? Yes, it does. This is because knowledge is information you gain through education. Making him think the way he thinks is probably because this is what he was taught. Furthermore, as explained above, knowledge does not have to be factual. Knowledge is rather a person’s own “fact”. 

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s tweet is knowledge and so is every other opinion, belief, fact and truth, etc. This is because there is always a reason for a person to think, what they think. This could be their education or their experiences. However, even though almost everything counts as knowledge, a knowledge that is not factual can potentially cause damage e.g., Donald Trump’s tweet about climate change not being real.  

I believe, knowledge is someone’s own truth or “fact” and is very much based on opinion as well as experiences. Moreover, there is no wrong knowledge as, considering the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of knowledge, which is “the information, understanding and skills that you gain through education or experience”, knowledge is simply what you personally experienced and therefore, everything you know is knowledge. 

Knowledge can be anything such as religion or belief this is knowledge because it is what people have thought for millions of years and what people keep thinking this creates a sense that that is correct. My expedition for example is Cristo rei in Lisbon Portugal this has been up since 1959 which is most of our lifetimes this gives people like a reason to believe as why would someone build a statue so large and so time consuming if it had no deeper meaning?
I think this statue was built as a sacrifice of time and resources to show how they want to represent their religion.
Knowledge can also be opinion which what everyone believes this could be caused by not being educate or just never being exposed to things like how some kid which have been surrounded by war ever since they were born then they might not know a world where bombs and gunshots are going of everywhere.
Knowledge can also be facts and be proven by science this include things like how coronavirus is a virus this is proven after extensive testing on characteristic and how the cell is made which many years back couldn’t of been proven this can mean that technology advancing has allowed us to use stuff light x rays and microscopes to see things we would of never seen like little bone fractures or how large a bacteria is very accurately all due to advances it technology which have proven ideas or theories but also have falsified theories and ideas which made new thing been proven.
Knowledge can also be experiences like how maybe one day you saw a squirrel for the first time, and it was a red squirrel so until you found out that there where many types of squirrels whenever someone asked what colour was a squirrel that person that has only ever seen a red squirrel then they will get the image that the squirrel is red and replay with the wrong answer.

In this question I’m going to be exploring the meaning of knowledge, and if we can ever truly know something in order to draw a boundary between things that are known and that aren’t.

To answer this question, we must first consider : what is knowledge? The dictionary defines it as “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. ” Taking this meaning, we see that knowledge is directly related to experience. In practice, the application of our senses allow us to interpret and know what objects lie around us due to what we’e been told they are called previously, say at school or by our parents. However, this implies we can only know and grasp concepts which fit with our preexisting truths or “knowledge” ( Coherent Truth ). The problem should be becoming clear – how is this knowledge reliable? If I base my knowledge off of what I’ve been taught how do I know what I was taught wasn’t wrong? It needed only to coincide with the teachers’ prior knowledge in order to seem appropriate to teach to me. All over the world, people are raised in different conditions and with different values and different learning processes. Take my painting, for example. I may tell you it is unfinished, but I may be lying because I want it to appear this way. Your social experience and knowledge of paintings and my painting history will have to be used in order to determine whether I am telling the truth or not. This truth validates the knowledge I’ve given you, letting you “know” it as you have evidence for it. In the end, each of you will form a different opinion on whether I tell the truth and thus gain different knowledge.

What I’ve proven is that none of us know things in the same way – knowledge is not a shared in its exact form between individuals – and thus there is no boundary to knowledge. Since we rely on each other’s words, our shared knowledge of their meaning and whether they are telling the truth, there can be infinite interpretations of things we see firsthand and things we are told. It even extends to the imagination. I may know in my mind what something is, but you can’t reliably know if it is the case if I tell you, or exactly imagine and know what describe : there are too many factors of uncertainty.

That painting is my most recent IB artwork, (spoilers, it is actually unfinished!) and I decided to use it since it ties well into opinion and knowledge – visual stimuli always causes great debate and is easy proof that we all see differently, and thus can never know the same things in the same way.

To conclude, if we can’t know things in the same way – our thoughts and concepts are always subjective and influenced – then there is no baseline knowledge and thus no boundary to the interpreted knowledge. We have no way of truly identifying the nature of something in an objective way, thus even the meaning of knowledge itself is speculation. We aren’t limited to what is and isn’t, because we cannot agree on a foundation of knowledge.

Ivan Sproats.

Knowledge is generally classified as what you learn and understand, but also what is true or scientifically proven. Your knowledge can come from numerous places such as friends, family, school or even personal experiences that have impacted you and that you have learned valuable lessons from; these experiences can be positive or negative. But does that mean that all knowledge has to be proven in order for it to be true or reliable? The picture I have chosen to answer this question and reflect upon the discussion is from a castle I have visited last summer at home, in Romania. This relates to history which is an area of knowledge that studies the past; history may contain certain truths, but cannot be 100% proven as we have not lived in the times of the events to have an authentic experience. However, the truth of history is established by reconstructing small events and placing those facts together in order to form truth or something very close to it.

In most cases such as what you learn in school for example an experiment in chemistry will require a stable and precise outcome to what has already been proven by scientists. But what about your personal experiences? The way you behave or speak to an individual can have positive or negative outcomes depending on that individuals perspective on your interaction. For example if during an argument with your parents you choose to raise your voice and disregard their boundaries or views on the subject that is being discussed you may risk getting grounded or having your phone taken off of you. Although this isn’t necessarily proven if it happens you now know that you need to be aware how you treat and behave around others, therefore it counts as knowledge because you have experienced it and you know the outcomes which in most cases are true.

Knowledge also comes from within and this can be things you learn on your own such as the example I gave above. People can also do this by having hobbies that they do often such as painting which is a process that you keep learning from regardless of what you have been taught or how much experience you had previously and in my opinion you can make no mistakes with art its just a matter of perspective and belief; science on the other hand is pretty much exact.

Therefore anything you believe is true due to you experiencing it is ultimately true. It might not be true to others as they have different life experiences that might not prove if the subject is true or not, but that doesn’t make it invalid and in some cases it doesn’t have to be proven for it to be true.

According to the Cambridge dictionary, the noun knowledge means: information, awareness or understanding that has been obtained through a means of study or personal experience. 

The object stimulus of this photograph displays the idea that knowledge can reside within an abstract photograph. For example, geographers can acquire data about the climates of Earth through the distance of tree rings. The utilisation of this data is a useful tool to accumulate knowledge of the current condition of Earth and its predicted path or any anomalies present. Given this, knowledge is recognised as the pinnacle aspect of human society and without it, the world would be full of uncertainties. It is tested, analysed and criticised to the point where it is adamant that it is true, however, that is until new evidence is considered and the cycle continues. 

Photography has been utilised since the early 18th century as a medium for recording historical events, data but also, self-expression within particular time periods. This has led to an abundant amount of acute information that has provided an immense amount of evidence for many years afterwards. For example, evidential footage is available from past events that would not be repeated in today’s society, such as the reign of England’s sovereign Queen Elizabeth II. We are able to get a visual insight into the parades of devoted royalists who gathered for the coronation of her majesty Elizabeth, which arguably captures the current stance of behaviours in society far better then a written document would. 

Previously I used this image as a final piece for my photography coursework, where I learned to theoretically analyse and evaluate my work. I chose this stimulus figure to guide this passage because it highlights the Autumn equinox, marking the rebirth of the Autumn season. Thus, this photograph is a reminder of the empirical knowledge I have acquired through my experience during this season.

One branch of the theory of truth is Empirical knowledge, information that is derived from the faculties of our senses – sight, sound, taste, smell and touch, in which humans and animals experience these stimuli from outside the body. In regards to when I took this photograph, I can recall the autumnal breeze whispering golden aromas and the crisped leaves skittering across the ground. Hence, my suggestion is that knowledge does not have to be derived from material data, but also through personal experiences, extensive research and theoretical debates. 

How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief and opinion?

One of the most fascinating facets in our diverse and complex world, is the differences in how our brains acquire and value information through different processes. For each and every individual in the entire populace, the defining features for Knowledge, belief and opinion are all intertwined with one another. 

In terms of knowledge, the distinctive feature would be how it is acquired through evidence and experience. It is facts, history and proven information that the majority of people agree with and rely on being true. Whereas, belief tends to be more of a personal, cultural and/or a religious aspect that is believed to be true on a wider spectrum than opinion. It is practically the unknown, it is different in every aspect of life with little evidence to support it. An opinion can belong to a singular individual and is non-subjective. It is a viewpoint that an individual sees to be true while others may not agree.  

In certain areas of the world, the way of life is highly influenced by the religious practices in their culture. Take the Vatican city for an example, it has created its own laws for its citizens to follow and it is an area that is highly devoted towards chistianity. In general, people assess their beliefs to be true and are quite reluctant to alter them. This is relatively similar to knowledge where people hold on to what they know to be true and readjusting what they know would be uncomfortable and perhaps distressing.

This image represents a place that is central to many peoples beliefs and faith; to which they will shape their lives around. I took this image while I was visiting a cemetery at St.Brelades and wanted to catch the beautiful scenery. I have realised that this image raises questions in my essay. Does a belief towards religion take a position of greater importance just because it’s central to faith? I would suggest not, because to acquire beliefs in the first place, this would have had to have been shaped from the foundation of a person’s upbringing and their culture, because both of these factors affect how someone contemplates their ideas. Given this, we can only have a belief once we have obtained a means of knowledge from a source which must be of value first.

Religion is a useful tool that can be used within a society in order to keep a civilization in balance. The incentive of the afterlife and the moral of a saint is a reliable way to ensure the behavior of individuals. This is an example of a pragmatic truth as it is an efficient belief that is widely accepted and followed within a community. 

My object for this blog post is this piece of art I saw in a museum in London. It is a bunch of TVs/radios stacked to make a tower that produces static noise.

Anyway my answer to this question is yes, but it could also be no. I believe all knowledge is useful, but depending on context some is more useful than others. By this I mean for example your plane crashes in some jungle in the middle of nowhere, you’re not going to need to know about some radios stacked on top of each other, or how to make a blog post for your theory of knowledge class, you’re going to want to know how to make a fire and other kinds of survival techniques. This means that depending on the context of your life some information is more useful and therefore more important than others.

But if there is a choice more information is always better even in a situation that doesn’t suit it. Going back to my example about the plane crash if you have survival skills and also how to write a blog post, the skills that you know about technology might help you after the initial crash. If you survive long enough you might be able to use these skills to somehow find a way to communicate with the outside world to hopefully get rescued.

In conclusion, it’s best to accumulate as much knowedge as you can even if it seems futile and silly, you don’t know when you’ll need it. But I agree with the statement that some knowledge is more important than others. this does not mean only try and find the knowledge that suits you or that you think is useful, but try to get a varied and diverse intake to be able to overcome and thrive from whatever is thrown at you. Knowledge is power after all.