Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PT 2: Is our most revered knowledge more fragile than we assume it to be?,…
PT 2: Is our most revered knowledge more fragile than we assume it to be?
assume
analysis
expect
only theoretically
accept the fact
thought
something is taken for granted or accepted without question
believing something is true/ false without proof
unexamined beielfs
create a gap between assumption and reality
raising questions
can we make an assumption without any proof?
Where does assumption lead us to?
How do assumptions about strength of knowledge affect our approach of preserving it?
Why do we make assumptions about our knowledge?
what make us assume certain knowledge is stable?
does our assumption influenced by the people close to us?
how to differentiate between assuming and knowing?
fragile
raising questions
what is considered as fragile?
does everyone’s degree of measuring fragile the same?
how can we determine the fragility of knowledge?
why does the knowledge be considered fragile?
what makes a knowledge fragile?
can fragility be measured or quantified?
does fragile means that the knowledge has no solid proof supporting it?
is fragility inherently negative?
are all forms of knowledge equally fragile?
does the period of time expose the fragility of knowledge?
analysis
weak
vulnerable
more likely to change
can be argued
but if the change is to ensure its relevance?
unstable
easy to erode
breakable
feeble
revered knowledge
raising questions
what method are used to determine one’s revered knowledge?
how does one's revered knowledge differ from another?
what is considered as a revered knowledge?
can the same method be used in determining one’s revered knowledge in different aok?
is revered knowledge universally understood or does it vary across cultures?
can a knowledge lose its reverence status over time? If so, what might cause this shift?
Does the respect and honor given to a knowledge shield it from scrutiny?
how do one establish a knowledge is regarded as revered?
is it possible for an individual to not have any revered knowledge of their own?
does people from the same community subjected to the same revered knowledge?
can revered knowledge be re-evaluated without losing its revered status?
analysis
worship
held with honor/high regard
deep respect/admire
wisdom that is highly valued
a knowledge that is held with high esteemed, often with a sense of sanctity.
to show devotion
usually considered sacred or divine
usually comes from authorities figures and institutions
remain influential in a long time
foundation for belief system
Assumptions of the pt
is the knowledge we look up to unreliable?
how strong is our perception on a certain knowledge blinds us from the fragility?
Is the revered knowledge itself fragile, or is it the connection to the knowledge that is fragile?
Are there certain area of knowledge that are inherently more fragile than others?
Arguments against 'Is our most revered knowledge more fragile than we assume it to be?
Most revered knowledge can be reinterpreted to new context, ensuring its continued relevance.
As long as there are people or institutions dedicated to preserving and upholding it, revered knowledge can remain strong and influential.
There must be a reason why an individual regard a certain knowledge as 'revered' knowledge
Public access to knowledge is expanding, empowering more people to contribute to its dissemination and preservation.
written records that has ben preserved protect knowledge from losing over time
specialised experts work to preserve and expend the knowledge in their field
Arguments for 'Is our most revered knowledge more fragile than we assume it to be?
New evidence can always challenge existing theories, makin it difficult to assert that any knowledge is certain.
it may be influenced by cultural or social bias
knowledge is usually based on human assumptions that may later will be disproven
knowledge is rely heavily on methods and tools avaible for discovery
scientific theories always change constantly based on recent discoveries
knowledge may be intentionally influenced by political factors
There are knowledge that is only limited and applicable to a certain field.
is revered knowledge biased towards one's opinion?
does the addition of new evidences would affect our stance on our most revered knowledge?
does it mean we are biased to our revered knowledge when we defend it from people who challenged it?
could the loss of expertise in their field threaten the preservation of our revered knowledge?
what does it reveal about us if our most revered knowledge is fragile?
are our current knowledge preservation system able to handle unforeseen global crisis
how can we differentiate between knowledge that is genuinely stable and knowledge that is stable because of our assumptions?
Link Title