Theory of knowledge

[Janus]

Hi comrades, I have to write an essay for my Theory of Knowledge class dealing with epistemology. The essay questions that I am probably going to do are:

1. If someone claims that both the division of knowledge into disciplines and the division of the world into countries on a map are artificial, what does this mean? What is the nature of the boundaries between Areas of Knowledge (math, natural sciences, human sciences, arts, and history), in your view?

2. Belief has been described as “certainty about what cannot be seen”. Does this statement hold true in any, some, or all Areas of Knowledge (math, natural sciences, human sciences, arts, and history)?

As you can see, this whole assignment is pretty pointless but any help will be appreciated since I’m not sure if I can write 5 page response.

[Chrysalis]

If you could say what you think about these questions, then you could at least focus the inquiry (make it narrower).


Originally posted by Janus
1. If someone claims that both the division of knowledge into disciplines and the division of the world into countries on a map are artificial, what does this mean? What is the nature of the boundaries between Areas of Knowledge (math, natural sciences, human sciences, arts, and history), in your view?
Pretty much the areas of knowledge has something to do with explanatory framework one is using. Empirical-based inquiries, i.e. natural sciences, use physical laws and facts as evidence for knowledge claims. Social science, on the other hand, uses common sense observations to explain human interactions and society. Your question is very broad for we can delve into subjectivity and objectivity of observations depending on what area we're talking about. Arts and human sciences must include psychology, whereas, physics excludes ordinary-sense visual claims. We say red or blue, and they say wavelenghts nm. So, given the same phenomenon, depending on what framework is operating, you get different explanations, which aren't really contradictory to each other.

So, I think the question of the divisions we have now being "artificial" has something to do with: it is only so because of what we think knowledge should be. It could be otherwise. I believe, the two most important questions of epistemology are 1) What is knowledge, and 2) What should count as knowledge. And depending on the type of inquiry---math, natural science, philosophy, social science, etc.---you get either Math is the only true knowledge, or natural science is the only true knowledge, etc.