ANSWERS: 5
-
Disagree completely. If the source is unimportant, then the accuracy of the knowledge is affected. One can know and retain any information - valid or invalid. The quality of the source may most important of all.
-
I don't really agree-what's the point of learning something if its source is worthless? I would rephrase that rather as there's no method of learning that is more legitimate than another if you truly learn something, though the source itself is always important, whether from a book or from experience, or again, whether you learn directly or indirectly from it. If you learn not to do something because of something number 2, then you would have never learned it, were it not for pestering occurrence of number 2...for example. It goes without saying, if the source is unimportant, then whatever you ''learned'' from it won't extend much further from its seemingly useless source. :/ Though I suppose you could use the knowledge for something else entirely...knowledge isn't always as direct as everyone thinks, after all. It could make some sense, although generally, we all attribute our gained knowledge at some key point, somewhere in some way or another, enough that I don't think that this segmentation of the general and somewhat subtle should serve to define the starting and ending points of knowledge and its acquisition process.
-
Disagree. I'll give you an example.. If you were to learn about WWII and what the Germans did to the Jews from the leader of Iran(don't wanna spell his name), you would have knowledge, right? Would it be correct? no.
-
Disagree. If the source is unreliable, then your knowledge will be too. Intelligence is an ability and skill - the source for it is always you.
-
The source is important, especially if you have only one source, as that is uncorroborated knowledge. If one has many sources it is always better.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 