1. Definition of Knowledge Management
Knowledge can refer to a or understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic. In , the study of knowledge is called ; the philosopher famously defined knowledge as "", though this definition is now agreed by most analytic philosophers to be problematic because of the . However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.
Knowledge | Definition of Knowledge by Merriam-Webster
In one response to Gettier, the American philosopher has argued that the only definition of knowledge that could ever be immune to all counterexamples is the one. To qualify as an item of knowledge, goes the theory, a belief must not only be true and justified, the justification of the belief must its truth. In other words, the justification for the belief must be infallible.
Analytic language philosophers have a much narrower definition of knowledge. They identify it with language, logic, and human beliefs. For them, epistemology has been reduced to the "" of statements and propositions that can be logically analyzed and validated.
There are many definitions of knowledge management. We have developed this one since it identifies some critical aspects of any successful knowledge management programme:The problem: This is a clear counter-example to the traditional definition of knowledge. In this case, S possesses a belief p and has a strong justification (i.e. strong evidence, strong reasons) for believing p, and p is true, but S does not know p. Knowledge cannot be defined as ‘justified true belief’ since this is a case where S has a justified true belief that p, but S doesn’t know p.The question: As a matter of fact, it is true that B is in Room 222, S believes that B is in Room 222, and S has strong evidence and is justified in believing that B is in Room 222. (All three conditions of the traditional definition of knowledge are satisfied). But, in this situation, does S really ‘know’ that B is in Room 222 at 4PM? The problem: This is a clear counter-example to the traditional definition of knowledge. In this case, S possesses a belief p and has a strong justification (i.e. strong evidence, strong reasons) for believing p, and p is true, but S does not know p. Knowledge cannot be defined as ‘justified true belief’ since this is a case where S has a justified true belief that p, but S doesn’t know p.There are several different, and sometimes quite confusing statements that claim to be a definition of Knowledge Management' and there are different perspectives on what Knowledge Management is. For example:Likewise the other organisational assets data, information and knowledge should also be managed. The definition of Knowledge Management (KM) by Oracle Magazine (1998) is the following: "Knowledge Management promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, retrieving, sharing, and evaluating enterprises information assets. These information assets may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, as well as the un-captured tacit expertise and experience stored in individual's heads." Knowledge management involves data mining and some method of operation to deliver information to users. To help you get started, we have included immediately below a few definitions of what KM means to some organisations. We suggest you consider them, together with any other definitions you may have, and see if there are any words or phrases that particularly 'resonate' with what you are trying to do. This will help you formulate your own definition of knowledge management. In 187b4–8, Theaetetus proposes a second definition of knowledge:(D2) “Knowledge is true belief.”D2 provokes Socrates to ask: how can there be anysuch thing as false belief? There follows a five-phasediscussion which attempts to come up with an account of falsebelief. All five of these attempts fail, and that appears to be theend of the topic of false belief. Finally, at 200d-201c, Socratesreturns to D2 itself. He dismissesD2 just by arguing that accidental true beliefscannot be called knowledge, giving Athenian jurymen as anexample of accidental true belief.The Theaetetus’ most important similarity to otherPlatonic dialogues is that it is aporetic—it is adialogue that ends in an impasse. The Theaetetusreviews three definitions of knowledge in turn; plus, in a preliminarydiscussion, one would-be definition which, it is said, does not reallycount. Each of these proposals is rejected, and no alternative isexplicitly offered. Thus we complete the dialogue without discoveringwhat knowledge is. We discover only three things that knowledge isnot (Theaetetus 210c; cp. 183a5,187a1).The more I think about it, the more problematic (and, I might say, the more Po-Mo) appears the idea of dropping true from the definition of knowledge. How would you recognise a system of generating beliefs as a system that generates justified beliefs if not, again, by observing that it generates beliefs that can be assumed to be true? If you drop that, you would have to accept any system as justified that does not contain internal contradictions, and everything it produces as knowledge, even if one of its products is that the moon is made out of cheese.