Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Re: Knowledge

Expand Messages
  • Steven Gordon
    As long as this off topic thread has dragged on so long, I thought I would try to reel it back in by pointing to one of my favorite articles, which presents a
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      As long as this off topic thread has dragged on so long, I thought I would
      try to reel it back in by pointing to one of my favorite articles, which
      presents a theory about how knowledge applies to software development:
      http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/360000/357495/p15-armour.pdf?key1=357495&key2=2996429211&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=57400675&CFTOKEN=21176289

      On 10/13/05, Donald Roby <droby@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Williams
      > <anthony_w.geo@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > yahoogroups@j... writes:
      > >
      > > > From: "Anthony Williams"
      > > >> My wife studied Theory of Knowledge at college, so I was
      > subjected to lots
      > > >> of
      > > >> it (though I don't claim to "know" much ;-). There are various
      > attempts to
      > > >> define knowledge (e.g. knowledge is justified, true, belief), but
      > most of
      > > >> them
      > > >> have holes. However, one thing they do have in common is that you
      > *cannot*
      > > >> know something if it isn't true.
      > > >
      > > > I had to take a philosophy class in college that covered that
      > > > exact question: what is knowledge. There's a name for that
      > > > particular branch of philosophy which I seem to have mercifully
      > > > forgotten.
      > >
      > > "Theory of Knowledge". That's what I was referring to.
      > >
      >
      > Or you might have been looking for "Epistomology", which is admittedly
      > harder to remember... Somehow I haven't mercifully forgotten it.
      >
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistomology
      >
      > > > The only thing I really learned from it is that philosophical
      > > > questions are never solved; succeeding generations of
      > > > philosophers simply ignore them as the tides of intellectual
      > > > fashion shift. [1]
      > >
      > > Agreed.
      > >
      > I suspect personally that many philosophical questions are in fact
      > unsolvable, which would explain this phenomenon to a degree.
      >
      > > > The formulation: "you cannot 'know' something unless
      > > > it is 'true'" begs the question: "what is truth". Either truth
      > > > is inate (see the Platonists), truth is externally discoverable,
      > > > or it is impossible to know truth, it is only possible to get
      > > > closer and closer (see Karl Popper and 'falsifiability').
      > >
      > > Yes. Lot's of philosophy hinges on very precise definitions and careful
      > > wording; you can argue over the definition of a word until you're
      > blue in the
      > > face.
      > >
      > > > I'm a cynic on the subject: I think philosophy is
      > > > a way of keeping certain people occupied so they
      > > > stay out of trouble.
      > >
      > An interesting thought. Is it working?
      >
      > > Possibly. It's fun to discuss stuff, though.
      > >
      > Yes. For a while. It can get tiresome.
      >
      > - Don Roby
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.