Descriptive knowledge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Descriptive knowledge, also declarative knowledge or propositional knowledge, is the type of knowledge that is, by its very nature, expressed in declarative sentences or indicative propositions. This distinguishes descriptive knowledge from what is commonly known as "know-how", or procedural knowledge (the knowledge of how, and especially how best, to perform some task), and "knowing of", or knowledge by acquaintance (the knowledge of something's existence).


The article epistemology discusses the opinion of philosophers on how one can tell which beliefs constitute actual knowledge.

Acquiring knowledge[edit]

People have used many methods to try to gain knowledge.

  1. By participation.
  2. By acquisition.
  4. By mathematical proof.
  5. By the scientific method.
  6. By the trial and error method.
  7. By applying an algorithm.
  8. By learning from experience.
  9. By intuition (getting them from the subconscious).
  11. By listening to the testimony of witnesses.
  13. By acquiring knowledge that is embedded in one's language, culture, or traditions.
  16. By some claimed form of divine illumination, prayer or revelation from a divine agency.

Types of knowledge[edit]



Inferential knowledge is based on reasoning from facts or from other inferential knowledge such as a theory. Such knowledge may or may not be verifiable by observation or testing. The distinction between factual knowledge and inferential knowledge has been explored by the discipline of general semantics.

Knowledge in various disciplines[edit]

There are many different disciplines that generate beliefs that can be regarded as knowledge. They include science (which generates scientific theories), law (which generates verdicts), history (which generates historical narratives), and mathematics (which generates proofs).

Knowledge in science and engineering[edit]

Scientists attempt to gain knowledge through the scientific method. In this method, scientists start by finding a phenomenon of interest, which generates questions. A scientist then picks a question of interest, and based on previous knowledge, develops a hypothesis. The scientist then designs a controlled experiment which will allow him to test the hypothesis against the real world. He then makes predictions about the outcome of the test, based on the hypothesis.

At this point, the scientist carries out the experiment and compares his predictions with his observations. Assuming that there were no flaws in the experiment, if the observations match the predictions, this is evidence in favour of the hypothesis. If they do not match, then the hypothesis has been falsified.

A hypothesis that has been shown to accurately and reliably predict and characterize some physical phenomenon, and has been sufficiently tested, may become a scientific theory. Scientific theories are widely regarded as knowledge, and they are always subject to further revision or review should new data come to light.


The nature of human reasoning dictates that even a sound piece of scientific work might be regarded as incorrect by the scientific community at large. This is exemplified by Dan Shechtman's discovery in solid states for which he was criticised for some time.

Knowledge in history[edit]

The scientific method is essentially the application of the inductive approach to investigation. This approach is entirely appropriate for exploration of the causal world of nature (physics, chemistry, etc.) but not valid for the teleological social sciences, which includes history. There are no constants in human relations,[citation needed] only unmeasurable and inconstant subjective valuations.[citation needed] Electrons always behave the same way under the same conditions,[citation needed] but humans do not—different people seem to react differently and the same person seems to or might react differently at different moments in time. Thus, it appears that only spurious inferences can be drawn from repeated observations of human behavior[citation needed]. It might be observed that most humans prefer wealth to poverty or life to death, but it might be invalid to infer any universal law of human behavior from this.

Historians often generate different interpretations of the same event, even when reading the same primary sources, and these interpretations are always subject to revision by other historians. This is because, as a social scientist, the historian must constantly make subjective judgements of relevance in trying to interpret historical events[citation needed].

Situated knowledge[edit]

From Knowledge.



Situational knowledge is often embedded in language, culture, or traditions. Critics of cultural imperialism argue that the rise of a global monoculture causes a loss of local knowledge.


What constitutes knowledge, certainty and truth are controversial issues. These issues are debated by philosophers, social scientists, and historians. Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote "On Certainty" – aphorisms on these concepts – exploring relationships between knowledge and certainty. A thread of his concern has become an entire field, the philosophy of action.


Non-scientific methods[edit]

Several groups, most notably the postmodernists and social constructivists, hold that science does not actually tell us about the physical world in which they live. They hold that the world cannot be understood by science, but rather by religious revelations, mystical experience, or literary deconstructionism.[citation needed]

Practical limits for obtaining knowledge[edit]


"Of the three ways in which men think that they acquire knowledge of things—authority, reasoning, and experience—only the last is effective and able to bring peace to the intellect." (Roger Bacon, English alchemist, astrologer, philosopher and a major progenitor of modern science.

See also[edit]