3 Answers

  1. If we still accept that knowledge is impossible, then science is still possible. Let's take the example of stars. At the moment, just knowing will not solve the problem of the position of all visible stars and constellations. We don't even have enough materials to record this, especially since the situation is changing by the second. Science provides an understanding of how stars move, which allows you to use formulas to calculate the position of any of the stars at any given time, using a computer.

    Here we can say that science has highlighted the knowledge of how stars move. But no. Science distinguishes the logic of the movement of stars, based on the understanding of the world around them, which is recognized. But after some time, for example, the nature of dark matter will become known, and the mathematical logic of motion will remain approximately the same, but the reasons for the movement of stars will change.

    Science does not provide knowledge in 100% truth and lives separately.

  2. A brilliant example of the misuse of words.

    Knowledge is possible. Because knowledge is subjective and relative. It is impossible to prove the truth of theories empirically. You can only prove it false.

  3. If knowledge is not possible, then your question does not exist.

    For example, animals can't ask questions. They can only ask. For example, food. But only someone who knows at least that it is possible to ask someone about something can ask.

    Author, please tell me, do you recognize the existence of information that is indifferent to the carrier? And do you recognize the existence of a certain something that you consider yourself? If both answers are yes, then knowledge is information cyclically passed through the constantly self-adjusting matrix of your perception.

Leave a Reply