The central question of “knowledge” is, “what is knowledge?” The major conclusion about knowledge is that we ultimately know nothing. People have many beliefs, and those beliefs could also be contradictory to each other. For example, someone could believe that it will rain tomorrow. Someone else could believe that it won’t rain tomorrow. Do beliefs constitute as knowledge? If someone believes that it will rain, does that mean that they know it will rain? In order for this belief to be considered knowledge, it must be true. So is it true that it will rain tomorrow? No, it’s not true because no one can predict the future and be certain when it will rain. Why then are weathermen said to be “knowledgeable” and why do we believe them when they forecast the weather? This leads to acquiring adequate evidence that support the belief and the source from which the belief originated.
Let’s say that you’re watching the news and the weatherman says that it will rain tomorrow. What evidence is there to prove that this is true and to prove the weatherman is knowledgeable? Scientifically, there is equipment that takes measurements of humidity, precipitation, etc. that allows us to predict the weather for the following week. The weatherman gathers his information from these devices and comes to the conclusion that it will rain tomorrow. You believe him because you feel his sources and science are reliable. You acquired this knowledge indirectly meaning that you gained your knowledge based on someone else’s (the weatherman’s) knowledge or experience. Although, the weatherman can be said to have acquired the knowledge indirectly, he got his belief from machines that were made by someone else’s knowledge. Someone else invented those machines, so where did they gain th ...