What is knowledge? Types of knowledge

Knowledge is the result of the process of cognition of reality, which has been confirmed in practice; adequate reflection of objective reality in human consciousness (ideas, concepts, judgments, theories). 3. is recorded in the signs of natural and artificial languages. There are ordinary and scientific 3. Ordinary, or everyday, 3. based on common sense and forms of everyday practical activity. The ordinary 3. serves as the basis for a person’s orientation in the world around him, the basis for his behavior and foresight. Scientific 3. differs from the everyday in its systematicity, validity and depth of penetration into the essence of things and phenomena. Science combines disparate 3. obtained in everyday practice into coherent systems based on a set of initial principles that reflect the essential connections and relationships of things - scientific theories. The laws and theories of science are consciously and purposefully compared with reality to establish their truth and receive justification in experiment and practical applications. To fix scientific 3. scientific language is used with precise concepts, allowing the use of mathematical apparatus for processing and compressed expression of the obtained data. The use of special cognitive means allows science to obtain knowledge about such aspects and properties of the objective world that are not given to man in his everyday experience. Scientific 3. is usually divided into empirical and theoretical. Empirical 3. - the result of applying empirical methods of cognition - observation, measurement, experiment. It, as a rule, states the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of objects and phenomena. The stable repeatability of connections between empirical characteristics is expressed using empirical laws, often of a probabilistic nature. The theoretical level of science 3. involves the discovery of laws that make it possible to idealize the perception, description and explanation of empirical situations, that is, knowledge of the essence of phenomena. Theoretical and empirical scientific 3. function in close interrelation: theoretical ideas arise on the basis of generalization of empirical data and, in turn, influence the enrichment and change of empirical 3. These levels 3. are expressed respectively in empirical and theoretical languages. The terms of empirical language denote sensually perceived or experimentally recorded objects and phenomena. The propositions of empirical language are directly related to reality - through observation or experiment. The terms of the theoretical language refer to idealized, abstract objects, which makes their direct experimental verification impossible. In the methodology of scientific knowledge, they sometimes talk about the self and the implicit 3. The explicit includes 3, fixed in the language of science - in statements and theories. Implicit, i.e. not expressed in language, 3. consists of skills and abilities to read drawings, graphs, use instruments and instruments, and apply explicit 3. in specific situations. The role of 3. in the development of humanity is constantly increasing. The main source 3. was and remains material practice. However, the production of 3., having emerged as an independent sphere of human activity, has a powerful impact on the development of practice itself. Revolutionary transformations 3. have always caused major changes in the means of production, sharply increased the productivity of social labor, and contributed to changes in people's living conditions. The relationship between scientific 3. and social production is expressed in the concept of scientific and technological revolution, the leading factor of which is the growth of scientific 3.

Definitions, meanings of words in other dictionaries:

Philosophical Dictionary

The result of the process of cognition of reality, which has been confirmed in practice; adequate reflection of objective reality in human consciousness (ideas, concepts, judgments, theories). 3. is recorded in the signs of natural and artificial languages. Distinguish between the ordinary and...

Philosophical Dictionary

Voluntary societies, an organization in the USSR, created in 1947 to disseminate political. and scientific knowledge. The governing body is the Board, elected at all-Union congresses for a period of 4 years. The All-Union Society unites 15 communities “Z.” union republics. Primary organizations of the society "Z..."

Philosophical Dictionary

Usually understood as having the truth. 1) In ancient philosophy, two types of knowledge were distinguished - gnosis (knowledge of the inner depths of space and man) and episteme (knowledge of things achieved by scientific methods). was opposed to opinion (doxa) - a rationally unthought-out belief. 2)...

Philosophical Dictionary

The most general expression to denote the theoretical activity of the mind that has a claim to objective truth (as opposed, for example, to thinking or thought, which can be deliberately fantastic). The question is about the conditions under which, and about the grounds on which the results of our...

Philosophical Dictionary

Reliable (!) information stored in memory is true. The only question is “knowing what?” In many cases, the individual knows something, but does not know the main thing - what exactly this “something” is! A typical example of a situation is mosaic thinking....

Philosophical Dictionary

the result of knowledge of reality, confirmed by practice, the result of the cognitive process that led to the acquisition of truth. characterizes a relatively accurate reflection of reality in human thinking. It demonstrates experience and understanding, allowing you to master...

It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to give a clear and comprehensive definition of what “knowledge” is: firstly, this concept is one of the most general, and it is always difficult to give an unambiguous definition to such; secondly, there are quite a lot of different types of knowledge, and it is impossible to put them in one row.

First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between knowledge-skill (practical knowledge) and knowledge-information. Knowledge-skill is also called “knowing how”. In this sense, we can say that I know how to play the guitar, how to ride a bicycle, etc. “Knowing how” is different from knowledge-information, or “knowing what.” When I say “I know that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles,” “I know that a whale is a mammal,” I am saying that I have some information. “Knowledge that” expresses and characterizes a certain state of affairs: the presence of certain properties, relationships, patterns, etc. in objects.

It is not difficult to see that the concepts of truth and validity are not applicable to “knowing how”. You can ride a bike well or badly, but can you do it true or false?

In epistemology, the main attention is paid to the analysis of knowledge-information, because only it can be unambiguously assessed as justified and unjustified, reliable and unreliable, true or false. Namely, the search for ways to substantiate knowledge, criteria for its reliability and truth have long been the main motive for the philosophical analysis of knowledge.

Even ancient philosophers believed that knowledge cannot be false, since it is an infallible state of mind. Modern epistemology also considers knowledge to be true, although it does not appeal to such infallible, absolutely reliable states of consciousness. Simply, the word “knowledge” in its meaning cannot refer to delusion or lies.

Taking everything that has been said into account, let us try to clarify what knowledge is. Usually, when we say that we know something, we believe that we have a correct and reliable idea about this “something”. We are also convinced that our representation is not a misconception, an illusion or just our personal opinion. Finally, we can provide some reasons and arguments to support this belief. Thus, in ordinary life, we consider as knowledge those beliefs that correspond to the real state of affairs and which have certain grounds.

The general spirit of this understanding of knowledge, characteristic of common sense, is preserved in epistemology, which at the same time clarifies and clarifies the points inherent in this understanding. The standard epistemological account of “a subject S knows some thing P” includes the following three conditions:

(1) truth (adequacy) - “S knows P if it is true that P” I know that St. Petersburg is located north of Moscow if

St. Petersburg is indeed located north of Moscow. If I claim that the Volga flows into the Pacific Ocean, then this statement of mine will not be knowledge, but an erroneous opinion, a delusion.

(2) conviction (faith, acceptability) - “if S knows P, then S is convinced (believes) in P”

When I say, for example, that I know that there is a president in Russia, then I believe that he really exists. In ordinary cases, knowledge, in fact, is such a belief or such a faith; they cannot be separated. Imagine the situation: you go to the window and see that it is raining. You say: “It is raining, but I don’t believe it.” The absurdity of this phrase shows that our knowledge must include belief.

(3) validity - “S knows P when he can justify his belief in P.” This condition allows one to distinguish knowledge from lucky guesses or random coincidences. Suppose you asked a six-year-old child: “How many planets are there in the solar system?” - and heard the answer - “Nine”. Most likely, you will decide that he only accidentally guessed the correct number. And if the child cannot justify his answer in any way, at least by reference to the fact that he heard this from his dad, then you will assume that he does not have real knowledge of this fact.

So, in accordance with this “three-part” interpretation, we can give the following brief definition: knowledge is an adequate and justified belief.

But even with this standard definition of knowledge, things are not easy. About 30 years ago, epistemologists came up with examples in which beliefs have all three characteristics of knowledge, but are still not knowledge. Let us give one of these simplest examples.

Suppose that an institute teacher saw that student Ivanov arrived at the institute in a very beautiful white Zaporozhets. The teacher decided to find out at the seminar who in the group had cars of this brand. Ivanov said that he had a “Zaporozhets”, but none of the other students said that they had the same thing. Based on his previous observation and Ivanov’s statement, the teacher formulated the belief: “At least one person in the group has a “Zaporozhets”.” He is completely convinced of this and treats his conviction as valid and reliable knowledge. But let’s now imagine that in fact Ivanov is not the owner of the car and that, having lied, he decided in this way to attract the attention of one pretty student. However, another student, Petrov, has a “Zaporozhets”, but for one reason or another he decided not to talk about it. As a result, the teacher will develop a belief that is justified (from his point of view) and corresponds to reality when he believes that in this group at least one student has a “Zaporozhets”. But this belief cannot be considered knowledge, since its truth rests only on a random coincidence.

To avoid such counterexamples, we can make our definition of knowledge more strict: require, for example, that beliefs that claim to be knowledge are based only on premises and data that can be considered reliable and infallible. Let's consider this position.

in combination with skills and abilities, they ensure the correct reflection in the ideas and thinking of the world, the laws of nature and society, relationships between people, a person’s place in society and his behavior. All this helps to determine your position in relation to reality. As new knowledge is acquired and self-awareness develops, the child increasingly masters evaluative concepts and judgments. By comparing new knowledge with already acquired knowledge and assessments, he forms his attitude not only to the objects of cognition and action, but also to himself. This determines the development of his activity and independence as an active personality.

KNOWLEDGE

English knowledge).

1. The current result of an open for discussion and criticism (within a certain community) study of problems, phenomena (according to the rules of description and standards of satisfaction adopted by this community) according to some formal or informal procedures. The essential point in the concept 3. is the claim that it is a general expression reflecting the activity of the mind, and claims to be an objective truth (in contrast, for example, to opinions and fantasies, which are not subject to equally strict rules and norms of selection ), which is confirmed by practice.

Even in ancient philosophy, one of the central problems was the problem of relationship 3. and opinion, truth and error. Even then it became clear that the opinions and theoretical constructs used by different natural philosophers when describing the same phenomenon can vary greatly.

In the XIX-XX centuries. a program was launched to eliminate or minimize theoretical components in 3. - positivism and neopositivism. One of the results of its development can be considered its abandonment and the recognition that almost all measurements or facts are “theoretically loaded.”

3. about the same phenomenon of different subjects and communities m. b. not only different in scope, but also poorly commensurable, because the ways of cognition by different subjects and communities can be fundamentally different. In scientific studies, the position of T. Kuhn is popular, who analyzed the state of science (as a system of rational 3.) using the concept of a paradigm (fixing the rules for the formation of 3., norms and criteria accepted by the community). Moreover, at any given moment there may be several fundamentally different paradigms supported by different communities.

3. is usually contrasted with ignorance as the absence of verified information about a phenomenon (or process) and pseudo-knowledge (para-knowledge), the methods of obtaining which do not satisfy some basic criteria 3.

2. In a broader sense, 3. is identified with more or less adequate results of cognitive (cognitive) processes. Sometimes elementary 3., determined by biological laws, are also attributed to animals, in which they serve as a way of adaptation to changing conditions. From the standpoint of the modern systems approach, the generation and functioning of systems (in particular, human and human-machine systems) using 3., is in many ways successfully described by schemes similar to those used in the description of biological systems (the scheme of afferent synthesis and its generalization).

The processes of obtaining, justifying, verifying and disseminating 3. are studied by logic, methodology, theory of knowledge, science, and sociology. 3. classified in a variety of ways. Sometimes they are divided into empirical and theoretical, explicit and implicit, declarative, procedural, epistemic. M. Polanyi introduced the concept of personal skills (closely bordering on implicit skills and skills), the translation of which in symbolic form is difficult. It is also bordered by the concept of direct 3. (intuition), which denotes 3. obtained through direct discretion, without rational justification with the help of evidence. In philosophy, speculative 3. is separately distinguished - a type of theoretical 3., which is derived without recourse to external experience, with the help of reflection. (B. N. Enikeev.)

Editor's addition: 3. often confused with experience, with understanding, with information, reflection. Along with this, genuine understanding, erudition and awareness are often mixed up. In everyday consciousness, the boundaries between them are blurred, as are the boundaries between 3. and information. Nevertheless, such boundaries exist. 3. always someone’s, belonging to someone, it cannot be bought, stolen from someone who knows (except along with the head), and information is no man’s territory, it is impersonal, it can be bought, exchanged or stolen, which is often is happening. Language is sensitive to this difference. There is thirst 3. and there is information hunger. 3. are absorbed, bitten into, and the information is chewed or swallowed (cf. “swallowers of emptiness, newspaper readers”). Thirst 3., apparently, has a spiritual nature: “we are tormented by spiritual thirst.” However, from time immemorial, both one and other thirsts have been opposed by “vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.”

N. L. Muskhelishvili and Yu. A. Schrader (1998) consider 3. the primary concept. Without defining 3., they cited 4 metaphors of 3. available in culture. An ancient metaphor of a wax tablet on which external impressions are imprinted. A later metaphor is a vessel that is filled either with external impressions or with a text that carries information about these impressions. In the first 2 metaphors, 3. is indistinguishable from information; accordingly, the main means of learning is memory, which is identified with experience and 3. Next. obstetrics metaphor - Socrates' metaphor: a person has 3., which he cannot realize himself and he needs an assistant, a mentor. The latter, through maieutic methods, helps to give birth to this 3. Finally, the gospel metaphor of growing grain: 3. grows in a person’s consciousness, like grain in the soil, i.e. 3. is not determined only by external communication; it arises as a result of the cognitive imagination stimulated by the message. In the Socratic metaphor, the place of the teacher-mediator is clearly indicated, in the Gospel it is implied. In the latter metaphors, the knower acts not as a “receiver”, but as a source of his own 3., at least as a “successor” of another 3.

In the last 2 metaphors we are talking about the event of knowledge or its eventfulness. A. M. Pyatigorsky (1996) distinguishes between “event 3.”, “3. about the event” and “3. about event 3.”. The middle term - 3. about an event - is closer to information, and the 1st and 3rd are 3. in the true sense of the word, i.e. 3. as an event from which one step to consciousness. Event knowledge and consciousness are subjective, meaningful, and affective. These properties of 3. and consciousness make them living formations or functional organs of the individual.

Whatever the sources and origin, everyone has 3. information about the world, about man, about themselves, and it differs significantly from scientific 3. even when it belongs to a scientist. This is 3. living things about living things, i.e. living things 3. See Living knowledge, Human knowledge. (V.P. Zinchenko.)

KNOWLEDGE

1. Collective meaning - an array of information that a person possesses, or a broader meaning: a group of people or a culture. 2. Those mental components that arise from any and all processes, whether they are given from birth or acquired through personal experience. The term is used in both of these senses with the clear implication that knowledge is "deep" or "deep" and that it is more than just a set of predispositions to certain reactions or a set of conditioned reactions. The use of this term, at first glance, means a denial of the applicability of the behaviorist model to human thinking. Philosophical and cognitive psychological approaches to epistemology and cognitive science typically distinguish between different forms of knowledge; for the most frequently mentioned ones, see the following dictionary entries. Note that memory is often used as a de facto synonym for knowledge. Composite terms such as "episodic knowledge" and "declarative knowledge" will be used interchangeably with the terms "episodic memory", "declarative memory". For more details and other compound terms not listed here, see memory and the following articles.

Knowledge is the basis of our existence in this world, created by man according to the laws formed by human society. Huge amounts of information of various types have become our heritage, thanks to the discoveries of our ancestors.

Knowledge and skills are what the system into which we find ourselves almost immediately after birth orients us. And it’s great that we can use ready-made data and draw our conclusions based on them.

But what is knowledge? The definition of social studies and other concepts accompanying this are of interest to us in our article. We hope that the information collected will help you consciously approach the problem of knowledge and accept its importance in the life of a modern person.

What is knowledge? Social studies definition

One of the sciences about all phenomena related to human social life is social science. She gives us a clear definition of this term. So, in accordance with the terminology of social science, knowledge is the result of cognitive (in other sources - cognitive) human activity.

In addition, knowledge is a certain form in which formulated conclusions and fixed facts exist, are systematized and stored for the purpose of transmission and use.

Knowledge and Cognition

In addition to the immediate question of what knowledge is (we gave the definition in social science above), it is worth understanding the related concepts. We consider the concept of cognition to be the most relevant for a full consideration of the issue.

Cognition is the process through which a person acquires certain knowledge. Facts about objective reality are reflected in a person’s consciousness, taking their place there. The subject of knowledge is the person himself, and the object is that array of facts about phenomena and objects of reality, collected and presented in a certain form.

Characteristics of knowledge

The decoding of the concept of “knowledge” is dealt with not only by social science, but also by philosophy and psychology. Thus, in modern philosophy, debates about what information received is knowledge are still relevant.

According to the prevailing opinion of modern thinkers, in order to move into this category, information must have certain characteristics, namely, be true, confirmed and trustworthy.

As you can see, all criteria are very relative and subjective. This is the reason for the openness of this issue to modern sciences, which include questions in social science.

Classifications of knowledge

Thus, one of the obvious classifications of knowledge is by carrier, in other words, by location of knowledge. As we can imagine, they are stored in people’s memories, printed publications, all kinds of electronic media, in databases and others.

A more interesting, in our opinion, classification of knowledge is according to the degree of scientificity. In accordance with it, knowledge can be scientific and non-scientific. Each species has its own subspecies.

Thus, scientific knowledge can be empirical (obtained as a result of one’s own observations, knowledge) and theoretical (perception as truth of abstract models of data about the world - tables, diagrams, abstractions, analogies).

There are more varieties of non-scientific knowledge, and they are interesting in themselves as categories. Non-scientific knowledge includes those that are data about basic everyday things - everyday practical ones. Pseudoscientific knowledge is that which operates on well-known scientific hypotheses that have not yet found confirmation or refutation. Pseudoscientific knowledge is what we call prejudices, misconceptions, and speculation. There are also quasi-scientific (propagated by theories, but not confirmed by facts), anti-scientific (utopian, undermining the idea of ​​reality), parascientific (which have not yet had the opportunity to find confirmation).

Social studies questions examine a small subset of types of knowledge. However, for the purpose of self-education, it is interesting to know about existing theories and divisions of information arrays accumulated by humanity.

Conclusion

In our article we examined one of the fundamental definitions of social science - knowledge. So what is knowledge? The definition in social science tells us that this is the result of human cognitive activity, as well as the form in which this result is stored and transmitted.

The modern classification of knowledge is very broad and takes into account many criteria. Both our everyday and professional knowledge, and exclusively scientific facts, and utopian hypotheses are all separate types and subtypes of knowledge.

We hope you found our article interesting.

It is difficult, perhaps even impossible, to give a clear and comprehensive definition of what “knowledge” is: firstly, this concept is one of the most general, and it is always difficult to give an unambiguous definition to such; secondly, there are quite a lot of different types of knowledge, and it is impossible to put them in one row.

First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between knowledge-skill (practical knowledge) and knowledge-information. Knowledge-skill is also called “knowing how”. In this sense, we can say that I know how to play the guitar, how to ride a bicycle, etc. “Knowing how” is different from knowledge-information, or “knowing what.” When I say “I know that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles,” “I know that a whale is a mammal,” I am saying that I have some information. “Knowledge that” expresses and characterizes a certain state of affairs: the presence of certain properties, relationships, patterns, etc. in objects.

It is not difficult to see that the concepts of truth and validity are not applicable to “knowing how”. You can ride a bike well or badly, but can you do it true or false?

In epistemology, the main attention is paid to the analysis of knowledge-information, because only it can be unambiguously assessed as justified and unjustified, reliable and unreliable, true or false. Namely, the search for ways to substantiate knowledge, criteria for its reliability and truth have long been the main motive for the philosophical analysis of knowledge.

Even ancient philosophers believed that knowledge cannot be false, since it is an infallible state of mind. Modern epistemology also considers knowledge to be true, although it does not appeal to such infallible, absolutely reliable states of consciousness. Simply, the word “knowledge” in its meaning cannot refer to delusion or lies.

Taking everything that has been said into account, let us try to clarify what knowledge is. Usually, when we say that we know something, we believe that we have a correct and reliable idea about this “something”. We are also convinced that our representation is not a misconception, an illusion or just our personal opinion. Finally, we can provide some reasons and arguments to support this belief. Thus, in ordinary life, we consider as knowledge those beliefs that correspond to the real state of affairs and which have certain grounds.

The general spirit of this understanding of knowledge, characteristic of common sense, is preserved in epistemology, which at the same time clarifies and clarifies the points inherent in this understanding. The standard epistemological account of “a subject S knows some thing P” includes the following three conditions:

(1) truth (adequacy) - “S knows P if it is true that P” I know that St. Petersburg is located north of Moscow if

St. Petersburg is indeed located north of Moscow. If I claim that the Volga flows into the Pacific Ocean, then this statement of mine will not be knowledge, but an erroneous opinion, a delusion.

(2) conviction (faith, acceptability) - “if S knows P, then S is convinced (believes) in P”

When I say, for example, that I know that there is a president in Russia, then I believe that he really exists. In ordinary cases, knowledge, in fact, is such a belief or such a faith; they cannot be separated. Imagine the situation: you go to the window and see that it is raining. You say: “It is raining, but I don’t believe it.” The absurdity of this phrase shows that our knowledge must include belief.

(3) validity - “S knows P when he can justify his belief in P.” This condition allows one to distinguish knowledge from lucky guesses or random coincidences. Suppose you asked a six-year-old child: “How many planets are there in the solar system?” - and heard the answer - “Nine”. Most likely, you will decide that he only accidentally guessed the correct number. And if the child cannot justify his answer in any way, at least by reference to the fact that he heard this from his dad, then you will assume that he does not have real knowledge of this fact.

So, in accordance with this “three-part” interpretation, we can give the following brief definition: knowledge is an adequate and justified belief.

But even with this standard definition of knowledge, things are not easy. About 30 years ago, epistemologists came up with examples in which beliefs have all three characteristics of knowledge, but are still not knowledge. Let us give one of these simplest examples.

Suppose that an institute teacher saw that student Ivanov arrived at the institute in a very beautiful white Zaporozhets. The teacher decided to find out at the seminar who in the group had cars of this brand. Ivanov said that he had a “Zaporozhets”, but none of the other students said that they had the same thing. Based on his previous observation and Ivanov’s statement, the teacher formulated the belief: “At least one person in the group has a “Zaporozhets”.” He is completely convinced of this and treats his conviction as valid and reliable knowledge. But let’s now imagine that in fact Ivanov is not the owner of the car and that, having lied, he decided in this way to attract the attention of one pretty student. However, another student, Petrov, has a “Zaporozhets”, but for one reason or another he decided not to talk about it. As a result, the teacher will develop a belief that is justified (from his point of view) and corresponds to reality when he believes that in this group at least one student has a “Zaporozhets”. But this belief cannot be considered knowledge, since its truth rests only on a random coincidence.

To avoid such counterexamples, we can make our definition of knowledge more strict: require, for example, that beliefs that claim to be knowledge are based only on premises and data that can be considered reliable and infallible. Let's consider this position.

Cognition

Cognition- a set of processes, procedures and methods for acquiring knowledge about the phenomena and patterns of the objective world.

Cognition is the main subject of epistemology (theory of knowledge). By establishing the essence of knowledge, its forms and principles, the theory of knowledge seeks to answer the question of how knowledge arises and how it relates to reality.

Cognition is studied not only by philosophy. There are a number of other special sciences and scientific disciplines that study the same subject: cognitive psychology, scientific methodology, history of science, science of science, sociology of knowledge, etc. However, most of these sciences study cognition, considering only its individual aspects. In general, knowledge remains a special subject of study in philosophy.

The purpose of knowledge

Descartes saw the purpose of knowledge in mastering the forces of nature, as well as in improving human nature itself

Forms of knowledge

Speaking about the forms of knowledge, we distinguish, first of all, scientific and non-scientific knowledge, and the latter includes everyday and artistic knowledge, as well as mythological and religious knowledge.

Scientific

Scientific knowledge, unlike other diverse forms of knowledge, is the process of obtaining objective, true knowledge aimed at reflecting the laws of reality. Scientific knowledge has a threefold task and is associated with the description, explanation and prediction of processes and phenomena of observed reality.

Artistic

Reflection of existing reality through signs, symbols, artistic images.

Philosophical

Philosophical knowledge is a special type of holistic knowledge of the world. The specificity of philosophical knowledge is the desire to go beyond fragmentary reality and find the fundamental principles and foundations of existence, to determine the place of man in it. Philosophical knowledge is based on certain ideological premises. It includes: epistemology, ontology and ethics. In the process of philosophical cognition, the subject strives not only to understand the existence and place of man in it, but also to show what they should be (axiology), that is, he strives to create an ideal, the content of which will be determined by the worldview postulates chosen by the philosopher.

Mythological

Mythological knowledge is characteristic of primitive culture. Such knowledge acts as a holistic pre-theoretical explanation of reality with the help of sensory-visual images of supernatural beings, legendary heroes, who for the bearer of mythological knowledge appear to be real participants in his everyday life. Mythological knowledge is characterized by personification, personification of complex concepts in the images of gods and anthropomorphism.

Motor cognition

Concept motor cognition covers the phenomenon of cognition embodied in action in which the motor system engages in what is considered mental processing, including processes that enable social interaction. Motor cognition takes into account the preparation and production of actions, as well as the processes involved in recognizing, predicting, simulating and understanding the behavior of other people. Basic unit of the motor paradigm cognition - action, expressed as movements made to satisfy the intention of a specific motor goal, or expressed in response to a significant event in physical and social environments. This paradigm has received much attention and empirical support in recent years from a variety of research giants (Sommerville JA, Decety J), including developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience and social psychology.

Levels of scientific knowledge

There are two levels of scientific knowledge: empirical (experienced, sensory) and theoretical (rational). The empirical level of knowledge is expressed in observation, experiment and modeling, while the theoretical level is in the generalization of the results of the empirical level in hypotheses, laws and theories.

History of the concept

Plato

In Book VI of the Republic, Plato divides everything accessible to knowledge into two types: sensually perceived and cognizable by the mind. The relationship between the spheres of the sensory-perceptible and the intelligible also determines the relationship between different cognitive abilities: sensations allow us to cognize (albeit unreliably) the world of things, reason allows us to see the truth.

Kant

“There are two main trunks of human knowledge, growing, perhaps, from one common, but unknown to us root, namely sensibility and reason: through sensibility, objects are given to us, but through reason they are thought.” I. Kant

Cognition in psychology

In psychology, cognition (cognition) is considered as the ability to mentally perceive and process external information. This concept applies to the mental processes of the individual and especially to the so-called “mental states” (beliefs, desires and intentions). The term is also used more broadly, denoting the act of knowing or knowledge itself, and can be interpreted in a cultural-social sense as denoting the emergence of knowledge and concepts associated with this knowledge.

The study of types of cognitive processes is influenced by those studies that have successfully used the “cognitive” paradigm in the past. The concept of "cognitive processes" has often been applied to processes such as memory, attention, perception, action, decision-making and imagination. Emotions are not traditionally classified as cognitive processes. The above division is now considered largely artificial, and research is being conducted to study the cognitive component of emotions. Empirical studies of cognition usually use scientific methodology and quantitative methods, and sometimes also include the construction of models of a particular type of behavior.

Cognitive theory, unlike neurocognition, does not always consider cognitive processes in their connection with brain activity or any other biological manifestations, describing individual behavior in terms of information flow or functioning. Relatively recent research in fields such as cognitive science and neuropsychology seeks to bridge this gap between informational and biological processes, using cognitive paradigms to understand exactly how the human brain performs information processing functions, as well as how systems that deal exclusively with processing information (for example, computers) can imitate cognitive processes (see also artificial intelligence).

The theoretical school that studies thinking from a cognitive perspective is usually called the “school of cognitivism.” cognitivism).

The success of the cognitive approach can be explained, first of all, by its prevalence as fundamental in modern psychology. In this capacity, it replaced behaviorism, which dominated until the 1950s.

• Philosophy of consciousness
• Linguistics (especially psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics)
• Economics (especially experimental economics)
• Learning Theory

In turn, cognitive theory, being very eclectic in the most general sense, borrows knowledge from the following areas:

• Computer science and information theory, where attempts to build artificial intelligence and so-called "collective intelligence" focus on simulating the recognition abilities of living beings (that is, cognitive processes)
• Philosophy, epistemology and ontology
• Biology and Neuroscience
• Mathematics and probability theory
• Physics, where the observer principle is studied mathematically.

Evil troll

I would define “knowledge” as the first step in the chain “knowledge - understanding what you know - awareness of what you understand.”

Having knowledge without understanding it is erudition.

In essence, it is a meaningless baggage of information.

But it happens that a sufficiently large amount of knowledge in different fields leads to the transition of quantity into quality.

That is, a new concept is “born” - understanding. Understanding the connection and interaction between individual pieces of information.

The next step is awareness of understanding. When a vision of the reasons and Laws for which knowledge is connected and interdependent appears.

Borisov Igor

Knowledge, ability, skill. I will try to give a non-descriptive definition of them (without pretending to be scientific). So, knowledge is a systematized set of information about something or someone. Skill is the ability to apply one's knowledge in practice. And finally, a skill is a skill that has been improved to the point of automatism (almost to the level of conditioned reflexes).

Analostanka

I dare to suggest that knowledge is a set of information that a person has about the world around him and life, the possibility of action and the expected consequences of even something that he himself has not done before, information about the experience of other people. Information learned by one individual.

There is a possible parallel of knowledge = theory.

Gematogen

To be honest, it immediately seems like a stupid question.

But when you really think about it, you don’t understand the whole essence of the word “Knowledge”.

I myself often hear from others: I “know” that you were not sleeping (for example), but I was sleeping and therefore a person’s knowledge is erroneous.

So what is knowledge?

Knowledge is information that a person has about something, and “knowledge” is not necessarily correct.

Knowledge is a reliable, true idea of ​​something, as opposed to a probabilistic opinion. This contrast between opinion and knowledge was developed in ancient Greek. philosophy by Parmenides, Plato, etc. According to Aristotle, knowledge can be either intuitive or discursive, mediated by inferences and logical evidence. The problem of faith and knowledge is one of the central ones in the Middle Ages. theology and philosophy. The distinction between a priori and experimental (a posteriori) knowledge introduced by scholasticism was developed in the epistemological concepts of modern times.

Knowledge is the result of knowledge of reality, proven by practice, its correct reflection in human thinking; the possession of experience and understanding that is both subjectively and objectively correct and from which one can form judgments and conclusions that appear sufficiently reliable to be considered knowledge.

In addition to scientific knowledge, the modern theory of knowledge distinguishes ordinary, mythological, religious, artistic, philosophical, quasi-scientific knowledge, considering them as equivalent for culture and equally necessary for understanding the essence of cognitive activity.

Ordinary or everyday knowledge is based on everyday experience, is well consistent with common sense and largely coincides with it. Ordinary knowledge comes down to the statement and description of facts. As the universe of facts that man knows about expands, i.e. As science, philosophy, art, etc. develop, the sphere of ordinary knowledge also expands and changes. Everyday knowledge is the basis of all other types of knowledge, so its importance should not be underestimated.

Artistic knowledge is formed in the sphere of art and, unlike scientific or philosophical knowledge, does not strive to be demonstrative and justified. The form of existence of this type of knowledge is an artistic image. The main feature of artistic images is self-evidence and persuasiveness outside and regardless of any evidence. In art, unlike science and philosophy, fiction is allowed and even encouraged. Therefore, the image of the world that art offers is always more or less conventional. But fiction exists precisely in order to more clearly and expressively reveal some knowledge about reality. Of course, knowledge is not the main function of art, so artistic knowledge exists as a kind of by-product. However, it would be wrong to completely deny the epistemological value of art.

Mythological knowledge is a syncretic unity of rational and emotional reflection of reality. In mythological knowledge, knowledge and experience themselves exist in an indivisible unity; observations about the surrounding world are not rationally comprehended. Mythological knowledge is not so much an objective reflection of reality as a reflection of people’s experiences about reality. In primitive societies, mythological knowledge played a very significant role, ensuring the stability of primitive society and the transmission of significant information from one generation to another. With the help of mythological knowledge, primitive man structured reality, that is, ultimately, he cognized it. This initial mythological structuring of the world served as the basis for the subsequent emergence of rational forms of knowledge. Essential characteristics religious knowledge - connection with belief in the supernatural and emotional-figurative

a reflection of reality. In religious knowledge, the emphasis is on faith rather than on evidence and argumentation. The results of religious reflection are formulated in concrete, visual and sensory images. Religion invites a person to believe, experience and empathize, and not to reflect and draw conclusions, it offers absolute ideals, norms and values, at least it calls them such. But any developed religious system, just like philosophy, has the character of an intelligible worldview doctrine. Religion, being one of the options for answering worldview questions, presents its own version of the picture of the world.

Main feature philosophical knowledge is its rational-theoretical form. Philosophy's view of man and the world is a view of objectivity and reliability, the point of view of reason. Philosophy from the very beginning arises as a search for wisdom, meaning the harmony of knowledge about the world and life experience. Instead of the image and symbol characteristic of myth, philosophy offers rational concepts and categories. In early philosophy, the beginnings of new theoretical, objective knowledge and mythological ideas are intricately intertwined.

In addition to those already listed, there is another special type of knowledge that combines the features of artistic, mythological, religious and scientific - quasi-scientific. At the same time, quasi-scientific knowledge is an independent cultural phenomenon that cannot be reduced to science, philosophy, religion, or art. Quasi-scientific knowledge is presented in mysticism and magic, alchemy, astrology, esoteric teachings, etc. Quasi-scientific knowledge performs specific compensatory functions in culture, allowing a person to find psychological comfort in a rapidly changing, difficult to predict reality.

All of the listed types of knowledge differ from each other in form and content, i.e. exist relatively independently of each other. The theory of knowledge reveals the specific features of each of them, correlates them with other cultural forms and determines their place in the cultural universe.