How Do We Know and What We Know?

Knowledge can be built socially based on the language used to describe knowledge. The purpose of knowledge is not just the transfer of information and facts. Members of the military who participate in the war usually know that their cause is "right" and that the cause of the enemy is "wrong". "Reason is different." Therefore, knowledge is considered true or false from its source. As they know to comply with relevant authorities and these orders, soldiers obey their officials and children follow their parents and citizens to comply with their parliamentarians.

How do we know what we know? Do you think the truth is true? The philosophical field aimed at answering these questions and finding the origin of knowledge is epistemology. Many of the things we believe are based on assertions and generalizations rather than established evidence. This is how many people around the world have different beliefs. The details of these worlds will be explained in detail in a later paragraph. I would like to continue to pay attention to the theory of knowledge, but this is a study of knowledge, that is, a method of obtaining knowledge and a proof of its rationality.

This question is part of the epistemological theme. Epistemology is a field of philosophy that tackles issues such as "what is knowledge", "how to get knowledge", "how to know what we know". The first problem to be aware of when solving this problem is that the terms "knowledge" and "belief" are often used interchangeably by religious believers, but technically they are very different terminology is. In many cases, the word "belief" means that the speaker believes that religious beliefs are correct, even though there is no firm evidence. For example, God created the universe, or God sent a message to the Bible prophet Isaiah. Some religious believers believe that there is evidence that this belief is true, but that belief has not been agreed to any of the religions, they are certainly not by their people outside their religion They are not approved, they are philosophers Logicologists and scientists refuse to act as proof