Knowledge in itself has not a negative or positive value, but truth and falsehood exist, as they are not human values - but how we view the current natural laws. For example, I could claim that binary code does not exist - but hey, we are still on this website which could not have been here without bindary code. What I just said, is knowledge, as you know(-ledge) that I have just expressed that binarycode does not exist. That does not make the content of the claim "true". "Correct knowledge" are facts like, Humans are, if you zoom in enough - just particles. "Correct knowledge" can also imply something, as, "Humans in their current state would never have evolved to their exact current state if water did not exist".
"If someone else perceives it differently, who's to say which is truly "right"?"
You cant have two truths that crosses eachothers theories, and still claim both to be correct. But I think you misunderstood me, it is not as if you cannot look at things in different perspectives. Look at the situation of raising a child. Is it overall "right" to hit a child? That is a matter of perspective and moral. Knowledge can be acted upon, in making the choice of should I or not hit the child. My own take on this situation, is that a moral that is based upon knowledge, is the correct one. "Correct" is basically the optimal answer for an multiple answer-test.
You should not drive a car, unless you know how you should drive a car, in accordance to safety, comfort and joy of other persons, passengers and yourself. This type of information is gradually starting to develop itself as more research is done.
I had little time to say this before class, but I will check on this from time to time if anyone comments - I will gladly take more time to give a more precise and articulated answer.
Knowledge in itself has not a negative or positive value, but truth and falsehood exist, as they are not human values - but how we view the current natural laws. For example, I could claim that binary code does not exist - but hey, we are still on this website which could not have been here without bindary code. What I just said, is knowledge, as you know(-ledge) that I have just expressed that binarycode does not exist. That does not make the content of the claim "true". "Correct knowledge" are facts like, Humans are, if you zoom in enough - just particles. "Correct knowledge" can also imply something, as, "Humans in their current state would never have evolved to their exact current state if water did not exist".
"If someone else perceives it differently, who's to say which is truly "right"?"
You cant have two truths that crosses eachothers theories, and still claim both to be correct. But I think you misunderstood me, it is not as if you cannot look at things in different perspectives. Look at the situation of raising a child. Is it overall "right" to hit a child? That is a matter of perspective and moral. Knowledge can be acted upon, in making the choice of should I or not hit the child. My own take on this situation, is that a moral that is based upon knowledge, is the correct one. "Correct" is basically the optimal answer for an multiple answer-test. You should not drive a car, unless you know how you should drive a car, in accordance to safety, comfort and joy of other persons, passengers and yourself. This type of information is gradually starting to develop itself as more research is done.
I had little time to say this before class, but I will check on this from time to time if anyone comments - I will gladly take more time to give a more precise and articulated answer.