I see the Awesomeness.
Are we defining knowledge in a limited fashion?
Fight smart, not fair.
Just awesome like that
I thought knowledge came from knowing things.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
わからない
It's just two sides of the same coin.
I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.
Street Writing Man
My answer would be that a balanced human needs both, simply because acquiring personal experience in everything is simply not feasible. However, when the opportunity to acquire a personal perspective on something presents itself it is usually a mistake to shrink from it.
Being there and doing it is the best way to know things. But that's not always possible, so read as much as you can as well.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
Is that cake frosting?
Patterns, ideas, and concepts exist independently from minds or objects — they inhabit some sort of abstract "realm of ideas" that a human mind can, to a degree, access and examine. Learning is generally either about discovering new aspects and properties of this "realm of ideas", or about recognizing correspondences between abstract ideas and physical phenomena.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Who Am I?
I'm siding with Kant.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
Lesbarian
With Drunk on this one. Figure as much as possible from experience; learn about the rest with reason.
Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-
scratching at .8, just hopin'
The procedural/declarative knowledge needs to be addressed, as does the fact that certain aspects of human procedural knowledge may be innate: Universal Grammar in language, for example. In short, take some cognitive science courses (cog psych, linguistics, neurology) instead of trying to dumb down a complex question; we've come a little way since Kant, y'know. Just saying.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Depends how you define knowledge I guess. Logic and reasoning doesn't create information out of nothing, but it refines information to make it accessible to us. The human mind is relativly poor at realizing implications so it often won't be able to access more than a fraction of the information it has available without concious effort.
So what are your opinions about this epistemological issue? Does knowledge derive primarily from sensation and physical experience (Empiricism), or does knowledge primarily come from the human mind and from logic and reasoning, independent of the physical world? Or, in the words of Immanuel Kant, "although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience"?
Halper's Law: as the length of an online discussion of minority groups increases, the probability of "SJW" or variations being used = 1.