Knowledge

Question

This piglix contains articles or sub-piglix about Knowledge

Answer 1

Ridiculous

The ridiculous is that which is highly incongruous or inferior, sometimes deliberately so to make people laugh or get their attention, and sometimes unintended so as to be considered laughable and earn or provoke ridicule and derision. It comes from the 1540s Latino "ridiculosus" meaning "laughable", from "ridiculus" meaning "that which excites laughter", and from "ridere" meaning "to laugh". "Ridiculous" is an adjective describing "the ridiculous".

In common usage, "ridiculousness" is used as a synonym for absurdity or nonsense. From a historical and technical viewpoint, "absurdity" is associated with invalid argumentation and reasoning, "nonsense" with semantics and meaning, while "ridiculous" is most associated with laughter, superiority, deformity, and incongruity. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, while reductio ad ridiculum is invalid. Argument by invective declaration of ridiculous is invalid, while arguments involving declarations of nonsense may summarize a cogent semantic problem with lack or meaning or ambiguity.

Historically, the ridiculous was central to initial theories of humor and laughter as first put forth by philosopher Thomas Hobbes. It was used in psychosocial power struggles in the European court by reducing opponents to the ridiculous using ridicule. It is currently used in the theory of humor to create laughter, shock, parody, or satire. Reactions to the ridiculous have been studied in psychology for its effects on memory, attention, and attitude in social hierarchies. These studies have been applied to the theory of advertisement regarding attention, memory, and alleviation of preexisting negative attitudes toward products. The ridiculous is often contrasted with the sublime, one of extreme inferiority, the other of extreme superiority, and often one can suddenly move from one extreme state to the other.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 2

Scientia potentia est

The phrase "scientia potentia est" (or "scientia est potentia"^[p] or also "scientia potestas est") is a Latin aphorism meaning "knowledge is power". It is commonly attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, although there is no known occurrence of this precise phrase in Bacon's English or Latin writings. However, the expression "ipsa scientia potestas est" ('knowledge itself is power') occurs in Bacon's Meditationes Sacrae (1597). The exact phrase "scientia potentia est" was written for the first time in the 1668 version of the work Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, who was secretary to Bacon as a young man.

The related phrase "sapientia est potentia" is often translated as "wisdom is power".

The earliest documented occurrence of the phrase "Knowledge is power" is from Imam Ali (599-661 CE), as recorded in the tenth-century book Nahj Al-Balagha (originally in Arabic). He said:

Knowledge is power and it can command obedience. A man of knowledge during his lifetime can make people obey and follow him and he is praised and venerated after his death. Remember that knowledge is a ruler and wealth is its subject.

Another account of this concept is found in the Shahnameh by the Persian poet Ferdowsi (940–1020 CE) who wrote: "Capable is he who is wise" (in Persian: توانا بود هر که دانا بود). This hemistich is translated to English as "knowledge is power" or "One who has wisdom is powerful".

A proverb in practically the same wording is found in Hebrew, in the Biblical Book of Proverbs (24:5): גֶּבֶר-חָכָם בַּעוֹז; וְאִישׁ-דַּעַת, מְאַמֶּץ-כֹּחַ. This was translated in the latin Vulgata as "vir sapiens et fortis est et vir doctus robustus et validus" and in the King James Version, the first English official edition, as "A wise man is strong, a man of knowledge increaseth strength".

...

Wikipedia

Answer 3

Self-knowledge (psychology)

Self-knowledge is a term used in psychology to describe the information that an individual draws upon when finding an answer to the question "What am I like?".

While seeking to develop the answer to this question, self-knowledge requires ongoing self-awareness and self-consciousness (which is not to be confused with consciousness). Young infants and chimpanzees display some of the traits of self-awareness and agency/contingency, yet they are not considered as also having self-consciousness. At some greater level of cognition, however, a self-conscious component emerges in addition to an increased self-awareness component, and then it becomes possible to ask "What am I like?", and to answer with self-knowledge.

Self-knowledge is a component of the self, or more accurately, the self-concept. It is the knowledge of one's self and one's properties and the desire to seek such knowledge that guide the development of the self-concept. Self-knowledge informs us of our mental representations of ourselves, which contain attributes that we uniquely pair with ourselves, and theories on whether these attributes are stable, or dynamic.

The self-concept is thought to have three primary aspects:

The affective and executive selves are also known as the felt and active selves respectively, as they refer to the emotional and behavioral components of the self-concept. Self-knowledge is linked to the cognitive self in that its motives guide our search to gain greater clarity and assurance that our own self-concept is an accurate representation of our true self; for this reason the cognitive self is also referred to as the known self. The cognitive self is made up of everything we know (or think we know about ourselves). This implies physiological properties such as hair color, race, and height etc.; and psychological properties like beliefs, values, and dislikes to name but a few.

Self-knowledge and its structure affect how events we experience are encoded, how they are selectively retrieved/recalled, and what conclusions we draw from how we interpret the memory. The analytical interpretation of our own memory can also be called meta memory, and is an important factor of meta cognition.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 4

Specialization of knowledge

A modern development and belief that the progress of knowledge is the result of distinct and independent spheres, and that knowledge in one discipline has little connection with knowledge in another discipline. Thus, specialists pursue their work in isolation from one another rather than as aspects of a unity or whole.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 5

Success trap

The success trap refers to business organizations that focus on the exploitation of their (historically successful) current business activities and as such neglect the need to explore new territory and enhance their long-term viability.

The success trap arises when a firm overemphasizes exploitation investments, even if explorative investments are required for successful adaptation. Exploitation draws on processes that serve to incrementally improve existing knowledge, while exploration involves the pursuit and acquisition of new knowledge. Firms and other organizations that have been performing well over an extended period of time are exposed to strong path dependence in exploitative activities, at the cost of explorative activities with which they have little experience. For example, in the 1990s Polaroid’s management failed to respond to the transition from analogue to digital photography, although the rise of digital technology had been evident since the 1980s. Other well-known examples of companies that got caught in the success trap include Kodak, Rubbermaid and Caterpillar.

A key condition giving rise to a firm getting caught in the success trap is the company culture, having been created based on the understanding of what makes success, the culture then solidifies. When the environment changes there is an initial dismissing of the significance of the change and the (over time) subsequent failure to adjust the strategy of the firm. Thus, top managers do not ‘see’ the upcoming exogenous change, because their thinking and policies tend to constrain exploration and experimentation within the firm and inhibit the ability to bring about strategic change. A broader perspective arises from how exploration activities are suppressed in publicly owned companies as a result of the interplay between the CEO and other top executives, the Board of Directors, the pressure for short-term (improvements in) results arising from the capital market, and the substantial delay between the investment in exploration efforts and the return on these efforts.

The success trap can be best avoided early on, for example, by closely monitoring how other (e.g. leading) firms maintain a balance between exploitation and exploration activities, as well as by continually collecting information about changing customer needs, newly emerging technologies and other changes in the market and competitive environment. Drawing on this type of information, the executive board and board of directors together need to develop and sustain a shared long-term vision and strategy regarding the investments in exploitation and exploration activities. Once a publicly owned corporation has been suppressing exploration over an extended period of time, it tends to be almost impossible to get out of the success trap without major interventions - such as a hostile takeover by another corporation or an exit from the .

...

Wikipedia

Answer 6

Tacit knowledge

Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it. For example, that London is in the United Kingdom is a piece of explicit knowledge that can be written down, transmitted, and understood by a recipient. However, the ability to speak a language, knead dough, play a musical instrument, or design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge that is not always known explicitly, even by expert practitioners, and which is difficult or impossible to explicitly transfer to other users.

The term "tacit knowing" or "tacit knowledge" is attributed to Michael Polanyi in 1958 in Personal Knowledge. In his later work The Tacit Dimension he made the assertion that "we can know more than we can tell." He states not only that there is knowledge that cannot be adequately articulated by verbal means, but also that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge.

Tacit knowledge can be defined as skills, ideas and experiences that people have in their minds and are, therefore, difficult to access because it is often not codified and may not necessarily be easily expressed (Chugh, 2015). With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact, regular interaction and trust. This kind of knowledge can only be revealed through practice in a particular context and transmitted through social networks. To some extent it is "captured" when the knowledge holder joins a network or a community of practice.

Some examples of daily activities and tacit knowledge are: riding a bike, playing the piano, driving a car, hitting a nail with a hammer. and putting together pieces of a complex jigsaw puzzle, interpreting a complex statistical equation (Chugh, 2015).

In the field of knowledge management, the concept of tacit knowledge refers to a knowledge which can not be fully codified. Therefore, an individual can acquire tacit knowledge without language. Apprentices, for example, work with their mentors and learn craftsmanship not through language but by observation, imitation, and practice.

The key to acquiring tacit knowledge is experience. Without some form of shared experience, it is extremely difficult for people to share each other's thinking processes

...

Wikipedia

Answer 7

Understanding

Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object. Understanding is a relation between the knower and an object of understanding. Understanding implies abilities and dispositions with respect to an object of knowledge sufficient to support intelligent behavior.

Understanding is often, though not always, related to learning concepts, and sometimes also the theory or theories associated with those concepts. However, a person may have a good ability to predict the behaviour of an object, animal or system — and therefore may, in some sense, understand it — without necessarily being familiar with the concepts or theories associated with that object, animal or system in their culture. They may, indeed, have developed their own distinct concepts and theories, which may be equivalent, better or worse than the recognised standard concepts and theories of their culture.

Someone who has a more sophisticated understanding, more predictively accurate understanding, and/or an understanding that lets them make explanations that others commonly judge to be better, of something, is said to understand that thing "deeply". Conversely, someone who has a more limited understanding of a thing is said to have a "shallow" understanding. However, the depth of understanding required to usefully participate in an occupation or activity may vary greatly.

For example, consider multiplication of integers. Starting from the most shallow level of understanding, we have (at least) the following possibilities:

For the purpose of operating a cash register at McDonald's, a person does not need a very deep understanding of the multiplication involved in calculating the total price of two Big Macs. However, for the purpose of contributing to number theory research, a person would need to have a relatively deep understanding of multiplication — along with other relevant arithmetical concepts such as division and prime numbers.

It is possible for a person, or a piece of "intelligent" software, that in reality only has a shallow understanding of a topic, to appear to have a deeper understanding than they actually do, when the right questions are asked of it. The most obvious way this can happen is by memorisation of correct answers to known questions, but there are other, more subtle ways that a person or computer can (intentionally or otherwise) deceive somebody about their level of understanding, too. This is particularly a risk with artificial intelligence, in which the ability of a piece of artificial intelligence software to very quickly try out millions of possibilities (attempted solutions, theories, etc.) could create a misleading impression of the real depth of its understanding. Indeed, supposed AI software could in fact come up with impressive answers to questions that were difficult for unaided humans to answer, without really understanding the concepts at all, simply by dumbly applying rules very quickly. (However, see the Chinese room argument for a controversial philosophical extension of this argument.)

...

Wikipedia

Answer 8

Wisdom

Wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight. Wisdom has been regarded as one of four cardinal virtues; and as a virtue, it is a habit or disposition to perform the action with the highest degree of adequacy under any given circumstance with the limitation of error in any given action. This implies a possession of knowledge, or the seeking of knowledge to apply to the given circumstance. This involves an understanding of people, objects, events, situations, and the willingness as well as the ability to apply perception, judgement, and action in keeping with the understanding of what is the optimal course of action. It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that the universal principle of reason prevails to determine one's action. In short, wisdom is a disposition to find the truth coupled with an optimum judgement as to what actions should be taken.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines wisdom as "Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly;" also "Knowledge (esp. of a high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition."Charles Haddon Spurgeon defined wisdom as "the right use of knowledge".Robert I. Sutton and Andrew Hargadon defined the "attitude of wisdom" as "acting with knowledge while doubting what one knows".

The ancient Greeks considered wisdom to be an important virtue, personified as the goddesses Metis and Athena. Athena is said to have sprung from the head of Zeus. She was portrayed as strong, fair, merciful, and chaste. To Socrates and Plato, philosophy was literally the love of Wisdom (philo-sophia). This permeates Plato's dialogues, especially The Republic, in which the leaders of his proposed utopia are to be philosopher kings, rulers who understand the Form of the Good and possess the courage to act accordingly. Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, defined wisdom as the understanding of causes, i.e. knowing why things are a certain way, which is deeper than merely knowing that things are a certain way.

...

Wikipedia

Answer 9

Wise fool

The wise fool, or the wisdom of the fool is a theme that is an oxymoron in which the fool may have an attribute of wisdom. With probable beginnings early in the civilizing process, the concept developed during the Middle Ages when there was a rise of "civilizing" factors (such as the advent of certain practices of manners in Western Europe) and achieved its most pronounced state in the Renaissance. The wisdom of the fool occupies a place in opposition to that of learned knowledge.

Innocuous fools have often enjoyed special privileges in cultural and economic groups, whereas aggressive madmen have had to be restrained or incarcerated. A fool's powerlessness and helplessness may gain him or her protection of more fortunate people. Since the fool is only guided by his natural instincts, because he or she does not understand social conventions, he or she is not culpable for breaches of those rules. The fool is not expected to "know better" or "know" anything.

Because of this, the fool has often been given great relative freedom, particularly in speech. The advantage of speaking with exemption from punishment has made the fool attractive in the literary imagination, for example, The Fool in Shakespeare's King Lear. Lear's fool is one of only three people in the play who consistently speak to him wisely, and the other two, Cordelia and the Earl of Kent, are punished severely.

Though the fool is in a position separated from normal society which can cause him or her to be subjected to deriding acts and contemptuous treatment, it has also at times caused him or her to be regarded with respect and reverence — the holy fool. In the Middle Ages, and in some primitive societies, the fool was thought to be under the protection of God and in possession of "Godly imparted tongues".

...

Wikipedia