-Euclid’s axioms - mathematical statements that are self-evidently true

-Math invented or discovered? - if it is invented, is it linked to culture? If it is discovered, is it knowledge independent of culture?

-emotional responses to loss or achievement, etc (what we consider loss or achievement - or whatever else - may be cultural, but the fact we respond to it emotionally may be something beyond culture? A function of humanity?)

-communication, art, music- inherent capabilities (haven’t only occurred in one part of the world/one culture- they all look different because of culture)

-power, domination, etc

Fact: (objective?) deals with the non-social, non-emotional ‘descriptive’ elements of the world

Truth: (subjective?) deals with more complex, ‘inner’ parts of humanity- truth of feeling, being, etc.

-Could discuss how ‘alternative facts’ challenge the objective reality we seek

-Could discuss the three ‘theories’ of truth - pragmatic, correspondence, coherence 

- ‘truth in Angelou’s sense is closer to narrative than to data

 - 24 hour rolling news channels (eg CNN) offer ‘facts’ (breaking news) but lack context;

The question is about the relationship between facts and truth. 

If we accept that, in order to be a fact, something needs to be true, and in order for something to be true, there need to be facts that support it - why do we still see such a “world of difference” between the two? Human sciences + History

Could truth be considered to be comprised of many small facts? How might these many facts sometimes compete for supremacy? And to what extent might this make a truth more complex and “muddled” than individual facts?

-that society values it?

-who, exactly, in society must value something for it to be considered ‘highly’ regarded?

Natural Sciences AoK:

-Falsification Principle (Popper) - science tries to prove itself through experimentation (and trying to falsify a claim first) - the most rigorous and self-critical knowledge 

-Quantum physics cannot explain - yet - the fundamental nature of the universe (although it tries to) - in this sense, is quantum physics much like (religious) faith?

-COVID-19 - science needed to prevent mass death, however, an increasing amount of society are rejecting this science- who is regarding this science highly? Who is not? Why not?

-Payscales: scientists < artists (we pay some actors, for example, more than most scientists- does this reveal who we regard more highly?)

-researchers do not make the money. Entrepreneurs - or the “celebrified” faces of the science - the people

 who *use* the science are the ones who are more ‘highly regarded’?

The Arts AoK:

-We see art as a sort of ‘accessory’ to life- however, are we overlooking some sort of more fundamental purpose? I.e. social function, political, historical, cultural -- what is life without art?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: do we require the knowledge gained from the Natural Sciences more acutely for our survival than knowledge in, say the arts of the human sciences?

History: Colonial powers have historically justified colonisation in terms of bringing (scientific) enlightenment/advancement to ‘underdeveloped countries’ - it has been valued by dominant powers over culture, art, traditional practices, etc 

Narrative thread - which links/connects data

Telling stories, ie. contextualising knowledge - what motivates this and how might those motivations change over time? What makes these AoKs particularly well-suited to telling stories and how do these stories affect how knowledge is accepted/valued?

This quote by JFK implies that as we learn more, our lack of knowledge expresses how ignorant we are. Knowledge and belief are somewhat alike in the sense that most of the time they are both based on perception and on what one is told rather that what one knows for a fact. Knowledge unfolds your beliefs and your beliefs affect what knowledge you seek.