# data[].attributes.body
To what extent can ethicality affect the day-to-day decisions taken by individuals?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent do ambitions drive ethics in an industrialists life?

# data[].attributes.body
"To what extent does cultural fluency enhance effective communication in learning and using the language?"

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does language shape our perception and understanding of the world?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extend does the application of mathematics in physics enhance our understanding of the natural world?

-Bhavya

# data[].attributes.body
What extend is your behaviour controlled by our surroundings?

- Nipurn

# data[].attributes.headline
Is our behaviour controlled by our surroundings?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is our behaviour controlled by our surroundings?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does mathematical reasoning rely on abstract concepts and logical structures to establish knowledge and understanding?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extend can business organizations be classified as ethical and non-ethical in nature, when talking about their vision and mission statements?

# data[].attributes.body
What is it that differentiates an industrialist and a businessman?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does visual and auditory memory influence our perception of knowledge and shape our understanding of what we see?

# data[].attributes.body
How do personal and collective biases impact the interpretation and acceptance of macroeconomic theories and policy prescriptions?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does external motivation play a role in the acquisition of knowledge?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does our knowledge of limitations and boundaries (scarcity) , affect our rate of consumption/utility of a specific resource/activity

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does the cultural perspective influence our understanding of the foundations of environmental systems and societies?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does Hindi, influence the formation of knowledge and the perception of reality within different cultural and linguistic communities?

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent does persuasion give way to independent thoughts, beliefs and opinions?

-Kabir T.

# data[].attributes.body
what extent does the Young Entrepreneurs conference help in the acquisition of knowledge and the development of critical thinking skills

# data[].attributes.body
How do personal and collective biases impact the interpretation and acceptance of macroeconomic theories and policies?

# data[].attributes.body
Is everything we know historical?
Neel

# data[].attributes.body
How does knowing about chemistry change your perception of the world and how you view daily life objects and surroundings?

# data[].attributes.body
Impact of the knower’s values system on knowledge creation/acquisition

# data[].attributes.headline
The knowledge framework covers four elements - scope, perspective, methods and tools, and ethics. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The knowledge framework covers four elements - scope, perspective, methods and tools, and ethics. 

# data[].attributes.headline
How can we know that current knowledge is a development on past knowledge?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we know that current knowledge is a development on past knowledge?

# data[].attributes.headline
As knowers, do we have a moral duty to examine our own assumptions and biases?

# data[].attributes.subject
As knowers, do we have a moral duty to examine our own assumptions and biases?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The picture "The Seven Deadly Sins" by Otto Dix was written in 1933, immediately after he was deprived of his teaching position at the Dresden Academy of Art and of any state content. Hitler came to power - and a wave of purges and new appointments swept through all the museums and art schools. Directors and teachers are fired if there are Jews in their clan or, in their past, connections with socialist organizations. After the dismissal in the house of Dix conduct a search, rude and arrogant. Pictures no one spares. At the request of the artist's wife, Martha, to treat them a little more carefully the agents smiled: "The best thing that can happen with these pictures is destruction".

The seven deadly sins, which in the Christian tradition are considered basic and entail all other sins, are a traditional plot for art. Have Jerome Bosch - mysterious picture on the treey Peter Brueghel the Elder - series of engravings depicting the deadly sins, each separately. Numerous images of the Last Judgment in the paintings of artists of the northern Renaissance.

Dix's allegorical picture should have been easily read by contemporaries: the crooked old woman is Greed, the white dwarf on her back is Envy, the figure of a dancing skeleton is Laziness, a voluptuous woman with a naked breast - Lust, a horned monster - Anger, a terrible huge head with anus instead of mouth nose up and closed ears is Vanity, and the fat man with a pan on his head is Obzhorstvo.

It is not surprising that in the letters of Otto Dix, which began to be published only in 2010, there is practically no mention of his attitude to Hitler, the new government and the new order. Most likely, any dangerous mention was the reason for the addressee to destroy the letter. The only source of information is his painting. After the search and dismissal, Dix and his family left to live in the village, in the old castle, which belonged to Martha's ex-husband, Dix's wife. He borrows money from his art dealer to buy a stove and conduct electricity - and begins to write neutral landscapes, smiling girls and flowers, to earn some money. Difficult times are extremely simple marketing strategies: a small picture, no more than 25x45 cm, a thick frame. Landscapes and girls are gradually sold, it is not dangerous. There are several philanthropists who support and continue to order portraits and murals for their country villas. It barely succeeds to survive, it hardly turns out not to feel useless.

And at the same time, Dix writes "The Seven Deadly Sins", and also "Flanders" and "The triumph of death". Paintings that do not give the obsessed realist Otto Dix finally surrender. The dancing skeleton in "The Seven Deadly Sins" (the figure of Leni) is depicted in such a position that the pattern on his clothes forms a swastika - and this, the artist said later, reproached his compatriots for their laziness and passivity, which led to the Nazis. But the main character of the picture is, of course, Envy. Riding on Greed, firmly taking and ruling it, this smallest, insignificant, but the most important of sins wears the mask of Hitler. In the first sketch, it is quite obvious - it is easy to recognize by the whiskers. But holding on to the picture, Dix did not dare to portray this detail, which gives too obvious a portrait likeness. The picture of a mustache was not until 1945. After the end of the Second World War, nothing could prevent the artist from making these two final strokes. Instead of all burned letters.

Author: Anna Sidelnikova

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seven Deadly Sins, 1933 by Otto Dix: History, Analysis & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The picture "The Seven Deadly Sins" by Otto Dix was written in 1933, immediately after he was deprived of his teaching position at the Dresden Academy of Art and of any state content. Hitler came to power - and a wave of purges and new appointments swept through all the museums and art schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are many ways of acquiring knowledge. Intuition, authority, experience, and reasoning are all ways to gain knowledge. We acquire knowledge from our experience. People who are experts in the subject matter also provide a great deal of information. Here we discuss different ways of acquiring knowledge.

Ways of acquiring knowledge

Intuition

The dictionary definition of intuition is instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes) or the impression that something might be the case but you do not have a reason for that knowledge. Intuition relies on justifications like "it feels right to me". The problem with such an approach is there is no way to separate accurate knowledge from inaccurate knowledge, as there is no way to observe or examine the accuracy of the knowledge. Intuition is the quickest way to obtain an answer to a question or problem when there is no information, or when you cannot refer to any supporting data, and the use of rational justification is not possible.

Authority

This approach relies on acquiring the knowledge from a person who is a respected source of information on that particular subject. This approach relies on the fact that we accept what is fixed or established especially by order or authority. While there is always a chance that the fact stated by the authority/expert might be inaccurate, it can generally be a good starting point as it is one of the quickest and easiest ways to obtain knowledge. But there are problems with authoritative sources of knowledge too. For example, we often hear about conflicting testimonies by an expert witness in court trials. Another issue with this approach to knowledge is the ability of an expert to present facts in an unbiased manner. And lastly, authoritative information from one field may not generalize to other fields. For example, the skills for running a successful business may not necessarily translate to the skills and expertise required for running a government agency.

Empiricism or Experience

This approach to acquiring knowledge relies on the idea that all knowledge is gained through experience which can be verified or disproved by observation, experimentation, or experience. Philosophers John Locke (1632-1704) and David Hume (1711-1776) argued that virtually all knowledge is based on experience. We gain knowledge through sensory perception. Empirical or a posteriori knowledge comes through senses. But we also know from research, that our past experiences and motivations at the time of perceiving can drastically influence our senses. There is also evidence that memory of events does not remain constant. Nonetheless, empiricism is a vital approach to gaining knowledge.

Reasoning or Rationalism or Metaphysical method

This approach to acquiring knowledge rests on the idea that reason is the primary source of knowledge. Favored by many philosophers, it assumes that the behavior of natural objects is governed by a set of laws and that people can discover these laws by their efforts. That is, truth is knowable or can be discovered independent of observations, purely through thinking, including mathematical and logical reasoning and other thinking processes. There is a priori knowledge that is supplied by our consciousness independently of all experience, achieved by pure reasoning alone. This type of reasoning begins with the search for true premises. Then, by the use of logic, deduces natural laws from these axiomatic truths. For example, physicists first extend their understanding through reasoning and logical thinking using mathematical models which have led to theoretical discoveries like the Higgs Boson particle or gravitational waves.

Scientific Method

Empiricism and rationalism are the key cornerstones of the scientific method. Scientists use reasoning (mostly deductive reasoning) to provide a theoretical and empirical rationale for the research, to develop hypotheses, and to determine the validity of the results. And they make empirical observations under controlled conditions and provide systematic documentation to reduce biases. This provides objectivity to validate or refute the hypotheses. Thus the modern science stands tall on the two main pillars: rationalism and empiricism For more information on the scientific method please refer here.

Bibliography

Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. London, England: Hutchinson and Co.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

Cite this article (APA)

Trivedi, C. (2020, November 22). Ways of knowing/acquiring knowledge. ConcpetsHacked. https://conceptshacked.com/ways-of-acquiring-knowledge/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ways of acquiring knowledge (knowing) - Concepts Hacked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ways of acquiring knowledge. Intuition, authority, experience, and reasoning are all ways to gain knowledge. We acquire knowledge from our experience. People who are experts in the subject matter also provide a great deal of information. Here we discuss different ways of acquiring knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent can relationships between variables, that are backed up by knowledge,predict real life situations?

Aditya Chandiok

# data[].attributes.body
Pros and cons of processing knowledge through the cultural lens.

“Language and culture are the frameworks through which humans experience, communicate, and understand reality” - Lev Vygotsky’s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CT 4.2b Identifying Biases and Assumptions 2 - RESOURCES | Coursera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Video created by The University of Sydney for the course "Academic Skills for University Success: Capstone". This module is for the resources from the other courses you have studied. There is no new, or extra, material here. You do not have to ...

# data[].attributes.headline
What criteria can we use to distinguish knowledge, belief, and opinion? 

# data[].attributes.subject
What criteria can we use to distinguish knowledge, belief, and opinion? 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What criteria can we use to distinguish between knowledge,...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One definition of knowledge that is commonly cited is one developed by Plato many centuries ago: Knowledge is something that we believe, that is true, and that...

# data[].attributes.body
Plurality of perspective in understanding certain types of knowledge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our understanding of the Cold War has been shaped by the work of historians. The global tensions of 1945 and beyond have been researched, studied and interpreted by thousands of historians. These historians have explored and hypothesised about the causes of the Cold War. They have examined the ideas, motives and actions of significant Cold War leaders. They have weighed the numerous political, social, economic and cultural factors of the period. They have evaluated the outcomes and effects of the Cold War, both globally and in particular countries and regions. These historians have formed different interpretations and reached different conclusions. As a consequence, the historiography of the Cold War - much like the Cold War itself - contains a range of views, perspectives and arguments.

Why have Cold War historians formed different and often competing arguments? There are two main reasons for this. The first pertains to historians and their unique perspectives. Historians come from different backgrounds, learn history from different people and embrace different values and methodologies. Their views and priorities are shaped by their places of origin, the times in which they live and the company they keep. Secondly, the recency of the Cold War and its political divisiveness are also complicating factors. The Cold War ended less than 30 years ago and its political tensions and competing viewpoints still reverberate in modern societies. Unlike historians who focus on the Middle Ages or the French Revolution, for example, most Cold War historians actually lived through the event they are studying.

There are three main movements or schools of thought in Cold War historiography. These are broadly known as the Orthodox, Revisionist and Post-Revisionist schools. Historians in these schools share a general approach or position on the Cold War and its causes. This does not mean they think alike or advance similar arguments - in fact, they often disagree on...
The Orthodox school
Orthodox views of the Cold War emerged among historians in the United States and other Western nations in the early 1950s. This perspective is also known as the 'Traditional view'. Broadly speaking, Orthodox historians attribute the outbreak of the Cold War to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. They argue that the Soviet regime initiated the Cold War by seeking to expand and exert control over Europe and Asia. They attribute this to Russia's inherent expansionism, the doctrine of Marxist-Leninism which preached international revolution and world communism, as well as Stalin's anti-Western paranoia. Orthodox historians argue that Stalin broke the agreements forged at Yalta and Potsdam, in order to expand Soviet communism into eastern Europe and throughout the world. The Soviet leader's duplicitous actions led to the collapse of the Grand Alliance and the beginnings of the Cold War.

"According to the influential Orthodox account, the conflict was unavoidable owing to the nature of Soviet objectives and Stalin's character. It was an illusion to believe that the 'Uncle Joe' of pro-Soviet wartime propaganda corresponded to reality. Stalin was no horse-trading statesman or American-style political boss, but a ruthless dictator determined to extend his totalitarian system far beyond the strict requirements of Soviet security. Nothing the United States or Britain might have done would have persuaded him to moderate his designs."
John Lamberton Harper, historian

In the Orthodox mind, the United States had only a passive or reactive role in these events. American leaders entered the negotiations in 1945 with benign objectives: they sought no territory and were guided by principles rather than self-interest. Roosevelt and Truman both sought conciliation with Stalin and a post-war working relationship with the Soviet Union. When Stalin violated the agreements of 1945, however, they acted in defence of self-determination and democracy. Many Orthodox histories also offer scathing criticisms of economic policy and political repression within the Soviet system, while ignoring the shortcomings of American capitalism.

The Orthodox view became the accepted historical position of the United States during the 1950s - not surprisingly since it aligned with American interests and justified US policies like the Truman Doctrine and the Domino Theory. It remained the prevailing explanation of the Cold War until the emergence of Revisionist historians in the 1960s. Notable advocates of the Orthodox school included Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, Herbert Feis, Thomas A. Bailey and Louis J. Halle. It may come as no surprise that many of these historians held official positions with the US State Department or other government bodies.
Revisionist historians
"The Revisionists disagree among themselves on a wide range of specific issues [but] tend to divide into two recognisable groups. The 'soft' Revisionists place far more emphasis upon individuals than they do on the nature of institutions or systems. They see a sharp break between the foreign policies of Roosevelt and Truman and the men around him. Truman, according to this view, broke apart a functioning coalition soon after he took office... The 'hard' Revisionists raise more fundamental issues [about] the American system as it developed over the years."
Robert James Maddox, historian

Revisionist historians attribute greater responsibility for the Cold War to the United States. According to Revisionists, US policy after World War II was neither passive nor benign. It was driven more by economic considerations and national self-interest than the principles of democracy and self-determination. American policymakers pushed to contain Soviet communism in Europe for selfish reasons: they wanted a European continent populated with capitalist nations open to trade and American exports. Policies such as lend-lease, post-war loans and the Marshall Plan all worked toward this objective. Some Revisionist historians also point to America's "atomic diplomacy" in 1945. Gar Alperovitz, for example, argues that Truman used nuclear weapons against Japan, not for military reasons but to flex America's diplomatic muscle when negotiating with Stalin. Justifiably or not, the Soviet Union felt threatened by America's policies and diplomatic approaches of the mid to late 1940s, which contributed to the collapse of their alliance and a lost opportunity for post-war conciliation.

The first significant Revisionist work was William Appleman Williams' The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, published in 1959. In this thorough but controversial book, Williams concluded that since the 1890s, the overriding function of US foreign policy has been to secure foreign markets for American-made goods and services. He calls this the 'Open Door policy' because it seeks to open up other nations for American capitalists by removing tariffs and other trade barriers. Williams' analysis shattered two popular illusions: first, that the United States was an isolationist, anti-imperialist neutral power, and second, that US foreign policy during the Cold War was reactive, peace-seeking and not agenda-driven.

Revisionist perspectives gained traction and popularity in the United States during the 1960s, a period when the failures of Vietnam led many to question America's foreign policy. Aside from Williams and Alperovitz, other notable historians of the Revisionist school include Denna Fleming, Christopher Lasch, Walter LaFeber and Lloyd Gardner. During the 1960s and 1970s these historians were often referred to as the 'New Left', though this label oversimplified their perspectives.
The Post-Revisionists
"Starting in the 1970s, the study of the Cold War began to move beyond the simple application of blame and responsibility. While still focusing mainly on the diplomatic and military aspects of the Cold War, scholars started to view the conflict as a result of a complex interaction between all the parties involved... As befits a general international atmosphere of détente, most Post-Revisionists deemphasised the role of ideas and ideologies and instead explained the Cold War increasingly in a realist manner: decision-makers on all sides became, in effect, rational geopolitical calculators, advancing their respective national interests in the unique context of the post-war world."
Jussi M. Hanhimäki, historian

Orthodox and Revisionist accounts of the Cold War had many advocates, however, some historians were dissatisfied with the extremities of both perspectives. A new approach, pioneered by John Lewis Gaddis and dubbed Post-Revisionism, began to emerge during the 1970s. Post-Revisionist historians looked for a middle ground between Orthodox and Revisionist histories of the Cold War. These academics synthesised ideas and conclusions from both schools of thought - but they also enjoyed the advantages of time, hindsight, the cooling passions of Détente and, later, access to newly-declassified documents from both sides of the struggle. The Post-Revisionist movement was sometimes referred to as 'Eclecticism' because it borrowed heavily from existing research. Revisionists called it 'New Orthodoxy' because they believed it pushed responsibility for the Cold War back onto the Soviet Union.

The first significant Post-Revisionist account was Gaddis' 1972 book The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947. Gaddis considered existing explanations for the Cold War but widened his focus, examining "external and internal influences, as perceived by officials responsible for [policy] formulation" in Washington. He also acknowledged the limitation of not having access to official Soviet archives, meaning historians must assess Soviet policy "from without". Gaddis identified several factors that contributed to the emergence of a US-Soviet cold war: historical problems pre-1941, including a lack of communication and formal recognition; the delay in opening up a second Allied front in Europe, leaving the Soviets three years to battle the Nazis unaided; Washington's refusal to recognise a Soviet sphere of influence in eastern Europe; and Truman's 'atomic diplomacy' and refusal to share nuclear technology with the Soviets.

Gaddis' account gave birth to numerous Post-Revisionist histories of the Cold War. Among the historians to embrace this new approach were Ernest May, Melvyn Leffler and Marc Trachtenberg. Like the Revisionist school, the Post-Revisionist movement contains a diversity of perspectives and arguments, though there are identifiable trends. Most Post-Revisionists suggest that Stalin was an opportunist and a pragmatist, rather than an international revolutionary who hell-bent on exporting communism around the world. They also accept that American foreign policy often involved overreach and was driven, at least in part, by economic imperatives. Post-Revisionists also tend to focus on domestic systems and factors when examining Cold War policies. Internal and party politics, domestic economic conditions, bureaucracies and security agencies...
Post-Cold War perspectives
The end of the Cold War has also caused a shift in perspectives. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 allowed the opening of Soviet archives, once denied to historians. This access has led to new research and shifting perspectives. Some Revisionist and Post-Revisionist historians have modified their positions, particularly with regard to Joseph Stalin and Soviet policy. Gaddis, for example, published a new text in 1997 after "slogging dutifully through archives in Moscow, Prague, Berlin, Budapest, Beijing, Hanoi and Havana". Gaddis took a much firmer line on Stalin, who "partly driven by ideological and geostrategic ambitions, partly responding to the opportunities that lay before him, built a post-war European empire". Other historians have also returned to claiming the Cold War as an ideological struggle, rather than one based on power or geopolitical rivalry.

Some writers and academics have pondered what the Cold War means for the future. Two of the best-known theories were developed by political scientists Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. Writing in 1992, Fukuyama claimed that the end of the Cold War was the final victory for democracy and capitalism. Liberal democracy had emerged as mankind's highest-evolved and best form of government, surpassing all other systems. According to Fukuyama, this marked the "end of history": not of historical events or change, but of the great historical struggle between ideologies. Huntington's view of the future was more pessimistic. A former advisor to the US government during the Vietnam War, Huntington suggested that the collapse of the Soviet Union would produce significant changes in the world order. Future tensions and conflicts, he argued, would be driven not by ideology or competing economic interests, but by fundamental differences in social structure, culture and religious values. Huntington's thesis became known as the 'clash of civilisations' theory.

1. Historians have reached different conclusions and formed different arguments about the Cold War, including how it began, who was responsible and what conditions and factors perpetuated it.

2. Orthodox historians attribute the origins of the Cold War to Joseph Stalin and Soviet aggression. Stalin's violation of post-war agreements led to a defensive policy response from the US and the West.

3. In contrast, Revisionist historians argue that US foreign policy was unnecessarily belligerent, seeking to contain Soviet communism to create a Europe that was more amenable to American trade and exports.

4. Post-Revisionists draw on the Orthodox and Revisionist schools and seek a middle ground. They suggest that neither superpower was wholly or mostly responsible but that complex factors were at play.

5. Post-Cold War historians, some of them with access to previously unavailable Soviet archives, have returned to describing the Cold War as an ideological conflict. Some, like Huntington and Fukuyama, have attempted to understand the implications for the future.

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, "Cold War historiography", Alpha History, accessed [today's date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cold-war-historiography/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our understanding of the Cold War is shaped by the work of historians. The global tensions of 1945 and beyond have been researched, studied and interpreted by thousands of historians. As a consequence, Cold War historiography contains different perspectives, conclusions and arguments about the events of 1945-1991.

# data[].attributes.body
Explore the concept of truth through Plato’s definition of ‘true justified belief’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave - Alex Gendler

# data[].attributes.headline
 Coherence Test: Does it make sense?  Is it plausible?  Does it hang together?

# data[].attributes.subject
 Coherence Test: Does it make sense?  Is it plausible?  Does it hang together?

# data[].attributes.body
The Coherence Test evaluates the truth of each new statement in the context of the body of statements already accepted as true.  Does the statement fit with our other set of beliefs? It involves seeking rational consistency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Correspondence Test: Where is the evidence?

# data[].attributes.subject
Correspondence Test: Where is the evidence?

# data[].attributes.body
The Correspondence Test evaluates the truth (or falsity) of a statement on the evidence and sound justifications.  It involves looking outward, and checking or testing.  It is the most objective of all the tests.

# data[].attributes.body
A consensus theory of truth is the process of taking statements to be true simply because people generally agree upon them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pragmatic Test: What difference does it make?  So what?

# data[].attributes.subject
Pragmatic Test: What difference does it make?  So what?

# data[].attributes.body
The Pragmatic Test evaluates the truth of a statement on the basis of its usefulness—the workability of predictions based on it, or the practicality of its consequences.  (You may wish to distinguish between practically useful, as in science, and psychologically useful, as in the benefit of believing in self-flattering statements.  The latter is not a convincing test for truth!  Also, consider ethics—is the practical value violating any ‘universal code’ of ethics, e.g. poisoning dogs keeps them out of the neighborhood?)

# data[].attributes.body
·         Does the word ‘truth’ have different meanings in different contexts?

·         What are the best grounds for saying that we know something rather than believe it?

·         In what ways can we overcome problems of knowing to arrive at an understanding of things as they really are?

·         How do provisionally accepted but distrusted beliefs become ones we are certain are true?

·         Are there areas where it is not necessary to rely on one’s experience and culture to understand something?

·         To what extent can we understand knowledge claims from a different culture?

·         How do provisionally accepted but distrusted beliefs become ones we are certain are true?

·         How does understanding differ, if at all, from knowledge