Everything is knowable to an extent. Things that we are certain are knowable are mainly personal to us or knowledge that we acquire through personal experiences, but it is very easy to state that some or most things are knowable because for something to be classified as knowable we need to have some sort of knowledge on the topic regardless of what the background context is. For example future is unknowable as we can predict what would happen but we lack certainty therefore, yes certain things are completely unknowable such as the true emotions someone might be feeling. For example, we will never know for certain what someone is feeling or experiencing unless they say it, and even then, they could be lying. All we can do is assume, based on their body language and facial expressions or our intuition which ultimately is enough. We don’t need to have any prior knowledge about what the person has experienced in order to depict how they might be feeling.

The picture I have chose to portray my idea is of a Russian cartoon that used to be a part of my childhood many years ago. I used to watch this cartoon every single morning before school and although I did not understand many of the words that were being spoken, I still made use of the knowledge I had at the time of words that have been taught to me by my father and other members of my family and understood from the actions of the characters what was taking place. Besides that, as I mentioned above we don’t have to have any prior knowledge in order to be quite confident in what we believe is true in this case.

There are other instances however, such as the future which are different. To conclude, I do believe some things, an impressive amount to be more exact are unknowable. We don’t know everything and we will not know everything. Even if we thought we were certain about a particular subject, we could be wrong and that depends on the source we acquire our information and knowledge from as some sources may be more reliable than others.

Are some things unknowable? Do we know what’s happened in the past? Can we know what will happen in the future? We can imagine: will we be able to hyper-loop from England to Australia? Will cars fly? Will a world exist underground? Can we call a pod to transport us from A to B by just a tap? That’s what the kids in the picture imagined the future to be like. Fast forward twelve or thirteen years, are these notions still a figure of child imagination or is it a reality? I can say hand-on-heart that I am yet to see an underground society or have a smart pod pick me up and take me to school everyday, but who is to say that that can never happen?

Children have a much more active imagination than adults. As we grow up, we learn more how the world works, adapt to our environments and therefore lose our imaginative and creative elements. People in creative professions develop personal systems to stay creative. A regular, day-to-day person develops a subconscious routine of how to navigate through life, which becomes their norm. As cognitive misers (being lazy) we have a tendency to stick to these routines because: we know them well, they become effortless and we feel comfortable doing them. This is why we lose our creativity as we age.

However, although this may be the case, we still don’t know everything. We can’t know everything. The kids in the picture had high expectations of a world that you can power by your fingers. Those kids now haven’t necessarily seen this world, but, those kids (in another twelve or thirteen years) might. No one can say it can’t happen, because no one knows.

Are some things unknowable? Maybe. Here is a photograph of my Dad I found at my Grandma’s house tucked away, his name is Matt; and this photograph was taken in 1995 when he graduated college in Worthing, West Sussex. At this time, he was half-way through the 90s, about 23 years old. Will I know all about his life during this time? I can ask him, and he can give me infinite detail: for example, he’s told me the story of living in Islington in London during this time, when his neighbour’s flat was firebombed. As well, I can ask about his friends and who they were, what their jobs were and how they were to him. Like Tom Tang, who owned a Chinese Takeaway. Take his other friend Matt, they both robbed a laundrette when they were 18 and my dad has told me how he died suspiciously in Hong Kong in 97′. Given the stories he’s told me, I can get a good understanding of how his life was back then, but can I truly know all of it?

I can say for certain that I will never know everything he lived through during the 90s, not every day to detail. How he felt, what he saw- what he doesn’t want me to know. I won’t ever know. Say he’s forgotten about some events; he can’t talk about them and therefore it is unknowable. Even this photograph, can I ever know who took it? My Dad doesn’t remember, nobody in the photograph does. Sure, I could check archived CCTV footage, interview masses of people who may have witnessed it- but at least in one case alone, nobody will have documented or remembered it. I can hear about and know a lot about the life he led during that decade, but I won’t hear about the other half of that time. The stories I do hear however, could be false. The majority of sources are memories of other people, which are often false or exacerbated. I can’t take this as truth then. So, given the fact that some details no longer exist, and that many of the other details can be fallible due to the nature of these sources: therefore, yes, some things are unknowable.

I personally believe that the most useful knowledge comes from past personal experiences, also known as posteriori. Obviously there are many more components of knowledge that will give us a certain level of knowledge however, in my opinion none of them compare to what posteriori can teach us.

In the image above you can see a basketball. If someone was to ONLY tell me that if drop/bounce that basketball on the floor it bounce back up, firstly I would have to rely on trust to believe them (which I think is the most unreliable source of knowledge), and also, it will leave me with a large space of uncertainty (things that I don’t know). Such as, How high will it bounce back? How hard do I need to bounce it? ECT… Whereas if I just take the basketball and bounce it myself, I will be able to experience what I need to do to make the ball bounce, and what happens if I increase or decrease the force I exert on the basketball. This means that the next time I want to play basketball or tell somebody how to, I can refer back to my personal experience (posteriori) of bouncing the basketball because I KNOW what will happen. That is why I believe Posteriori is the most useful source of knowledge,

If someone told me that same thing but gave valid, reliable justification behind it, with scientific evidence on why it would bounce back up, not only will I know more about how and why it works but I can use that same knowledge to bounce that basketball easily for the first time rather than having to experience it.

To conclude, I think that the most useful types of knowledge are things that are justified/proven with scientific evidence, or uses posteriori.

It is widely agreed that Plato came up with the classical definition of knowledge: “justified true belief”. Here, truth is thought to be a correlation between what we think and what is real. Belief is a mental attitude about a concept, for example, I believe the sky is blue. Justification is the way we have reached the belief. Using Plato’s definition for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be attained in a specific way; it can not be the result of chance. We must be certain about the belief and have discovered and developed it in a well-reasoned manner. This brings us to the question: what counts as knowledge?
To answer this question we must first explore our sources of knowledge. It is widely thought perception and sense are the most reliable way to attain knowledge. I am certain there is a laptop in front of me because my senses relaying that information to me.
However, Descartes opposes this concept by using what he referred to as “methodological doubt”. Everyone is in agreement that our senses can be deceiving sometimes. Additionally, there appears to be no definitive way of determining whether or not the information relayed by our senses are from the wider reality of a moment or a construct of our self-conscious, such as a dream. Descartes’ solution to this predicament was to attempt to acquire a singular piece of “indubitable knowledge” which may act as a foundation for all our knowledge. Therefore, I’m certain that I’m having such experiences even thought I may be deceived. This type of knowledge is certain; it is distant and clear.
Nevertheless, this criterion does not seem so reliable. How does one distinguish between a distant and clear thought and an unclear thought? This is a classic example of “internal” criteria, which has been subject to defence and criticism.
With Kant, a more subtle and complex theory of knowledge emanated. Kant pursued a novel line of questioning: ‘What cognitive conditions need to obtain for there to be knowledge in the first place?’ Before attempting to establish what knowledge is, we need to understand how our minds work. Elucidating the concept of knowledge thus necessitates a comprehensive critique of reason, by which we acknowledge its limitations and understand how to most effectively utilise it.
From this evolution we can deduce that what counts as knowledge is interpretational and unique to individuals.

To answer this question I’m using two contrasting images for my exhibition. The first object that I have chosen is my ESS IB textbook, which gives the reader insight into the content they need to learn in order to understand the course, resulting in them gaining Academic Knowledge. However, my second object, the fire we created at Crabbe to cook our food, is vastly different and requires a different form of knowledge, Procedural Knowledge. So is one superior to the other? 

Traditionally books are closely linked to content-based knowledge leading those who read them to consume an academic knowledge in oppose to a practical/procedural knowledge. This academic knowledge, especially in a school environment is viewed as the most useful and beneficial type of knowledge and it could be argued that in this case academic knowledge trumps practical knowledge. However, this association with books and viewing someone as “book smart” could be used in a negative manner to suggest they don’t have practical skills that can be applied to the real world and instead they are viewed as virtually incompetent when it comes to being “street smart”. 

I’ve chosen my ESS book because whilst it gives a lot of content-based knowledge it also shines light on communities and peoples environmental value systems (EVS) resulting in how they view the environment and think it should be treated. This is not only requiring you to reflect upon your own previous knowledge and personal beliefs (your EVS) but it also highlights how people/groups can make changes by harnessing both academic knowledge (learned through the media or reading etc) and then turning this into procedural/practical knowledge to aid the environment – e.g. being tech savvy or creating wind turbines (Hands on) etc. Therefore, in this instance both forms of knowledge are simultaneously being used, making them equally as important. 

My second image, the creation of a fire is a good example of utilizing and applying procedural knowledge. In a situation where you desperately need to stay warm or cook food, being able to create a fire would determine your survival. I chose this image to display the stark contrast between academic knowledge and procedural knowledge in certain instances. For example, if you have obtained knowledge on how to create a fire that you have acquired by reading etc, but you have never worked on turning this knowledge into a functional skill, then it’s practically rendered useless. Meaning in this case Procedural knowledge would hugely upstage academic knowledge as the implications of lacking Procedural Knowledge are far more immediate and dangerous then not having content knowledge. 

Knowledge (by google) is facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, but it could also mean awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. I believe the second meaning of knowledge really explains what knowledge is. I believe knowledge is experience, it might be true or it might to completely false which contradicts the famous quote “knowledge is key”. Yes I believe knowledge is key but not all knowledge is useful and not all knowledge is facts.

Knowledge is an experience that could either be true or false and knowledge could also be facts in some occasions whereas a belief is a vast amount of the same opinions joined to make a community. It is also similar to knowledge because it could be true or it could be false but it is NEVER a fact and an opinion is an emotion or passion on a subject that is expressed to the open world. Opinion are what we base our reality on in my opinion (exactly “my opinion”) because no one has true facts on human existence, it’s more of a gigantic amount of opinions that have been justified by others.

What could really boost up a claim or opinion about a subject is an agreed amount of evidence from every single angle, perspective and scenario to completely justify a claim. After continuous amount of testing and evidence we can evidently call this a fact.

I believe that some knowledge could or bad in some situations, for example knowing knowledge on celebrities and their lives would not be useful in a science class but it could be useful in normal social events and I wouldn’t say some information is more useful than others because knowledge really shines in different scenarios even thought most knowledge isn’t true, it could still be useful