Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PT2 Is our most revered knowledge more fragile than we assume it to be?…

- - - - What knowledge do we revere the most?
        
        oldest?
        
        influencial
        
        many people know
        
        efforts are made to preserve
      - How do we determine which knowledge should be revered and which should not?
    - - authority?
        
        What role do authority figures play in establishing revered knowledge?
  - - - what caused knowledge to be fragile?
    - - lead to its dismissal or rejection?
  - - - Do we assume that because something has been revered for centuries, it is inherently true or will continue to be valid?
      - Is it possible that revered knowledge is more vulnerable to being overturned because it has not been rigorously questioned in a long time?
- - - - how can new knowledge be fragile?
      - to what extent does the fragility of revered knowledge depend on the area of knowledge?
        
        arts?
        
        history?
      - How does the fragility of revered knowledge impact societal or cultural values that are built on it?
    - - revered knowledge is already fragile but...
        
        is it more fragile that we assume?
        
        what caused knowledge do be fragile at the first place
        
        why do we assume RV to be fragile?
      - more fragile than we assume?
      - less fragile than we assume
    - - Will the knowledge last forever?
        
        can't imagine a world without them
        
        this knowledge is important, therefore it always going to remain intact
        
        good knowledge - we revere - not fragile
      - do we take these things for granted?
        
        the fragility make it suprising
      - we know the knowledege is fragile
        
        that's why we protect them!!
  - - - Why do we assume that long-established knowledge is less fragile?
      - To what extent does the new evidence or perspective can challenge our assumption that on the fragility of the knowledge?
      - How does the recognition of fragility of knowledge impact its continued reverance?
      - Do our assumptions about the strength of knowledge actually hide how vulnerable it really is?
      - Can society function if we constantly think knowledge will change, or do we have to assume it’s stable for practical reasons?
  - - - Do we assume that revered knowledge is beyond doubt because of who supports it, rather than because it’s actually true?
      - Why do we assume that revered knowledge doesn’t need to be challenged?
      - Can revered knowledge become outdated, even if we assume it to be timeless?
      - Can knowledge be revered because of its emotional or cultural significance, even if it’s not factually correct?
      - If we assume certain knowledge is unquestionable, do we miss out on new or different ways of thinking?
  - - - What makes revered knowledge more fragile than we assume?
      - Can knowledge still be revered if its fragility is exposed?
        
        Once revered knowledge is shown to be fragile or incomplete, can it still hold the same level of respect or trust?
      - How do our assumptions prevent us from recognizing the fragility of revered knowledge?
        
        Do we ignore signs that revered knowledge could be flawed because of the assumptions we’ve built around it?
      - Does the fragility of revered knowledge suggest that we should be more cautious in assuming its stability?
        
        Should we always question revered knowledge, or does its long-standing acceptance make it trustworthy enough despite its fragility?
- - - - what is the artistic revered knowledge (in paintings/producing art)?
        
        renaissance