Frankly inferred, it means that beliefs, theories, philosophies, proposals, that are considered to be true, probable or even plausible today, may be regarded as false, improbable or denied tomorrow.
Seemingly, “knowledge” as it derives in the title, is not the type of knowledge that we today would recognise as the philosopher’s ideal of justified true belief, because that would then mean it must had been justified and true by definition. So rather knowledge refers to the collection of theories, hypotheses, or maybe even beliefs that triumph within a community at a certain point in time. So In that sense we can consider knowledge as an evolving entity, so what was once considered to be knowledge during one “age” could be changed or even discarded in another.
Our universe as we perceive it undergoes many continuous changes. Society, our nature, individuals all undergoes does same changes, constantly. Yet our search for the truth and our search for knowledge in this discrepancy between a world of undergoing change and a world with the dimension of time leaves us into pain.
We change and maybe knowledge is not discarded but more modified or adapted. Yesterday we became adults; today we have lost our youth. Tomorrow we are in danger to lose our lives. Throughout every century, we humans have thought that we had finally come to a brilliant and full understanding of the universe, but this Idea has always been disapproved by its post-century, every time we think we got the grasp of it, we are wrong. Does that then mean that our knowledge of the universe now, will be disapproved by the next century? Hence, we can make the syllogism, “every century we think we understand the universe, we are proved wrong by the century after? This century we think we understand the universe hence we will be proved wrong the next century” does that then mean that we cannot have any knowledge about the universe. This idea could be then interwoven with Socrates quote about him being granted the title of being the wisest man in Greece, “The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing ”. This implies that we are foolish to think that we know it all and we must be open towards further inspection of our so-called “knowledge”
Our perception of right and wrong I believe is also very fuzzy, which also leans towards whether knowledge should be discarded or simply refined. There are many degrees of wrong, a piece of knowledge can be wrong, and a piece of knowledge can be less wrong. When our perception and understanding of the universe over the centuries turns out to be wrong, how wrong is it really. Are we always equally wrong about our knowledge?
For instance the knowledge that started many years back that the earth was flat did not start due to the ignorance and stupidity of the people living back then. It started due to fairly complete pieces of evidence. It was not just because they observed the world to look fairly flat, because the earth doesn’t, it has mountains,...