The into new or better theories. ideas or

The word discarded is defined “to get rid of (someone or something) as no longer useful or desirable.”( but I believe that “old” knowledge cannot become useless or undesirable. It could also mean another way of evolution. Sources of knowledge such as theories, laws or just basic facts and ideas all are constantly being reviewed and “evolving” into new or better theories. ideas or facts. Therefore this information is not necessarily “discarded” as the formal definition states but rather, the outdated theories were simply incorporated within the new theories that have essentially “evolved”. Some of these evolved theories have retained facts of the base theories, therefore some knowledge is discarded yet some are incorporated into new theories. Tomorrow might not really mean exactly tomorrow, but rather the near future. The word Accepted, imo implies that knowledge claims have to be approved by someone in order for them to be “correct” and this person can be someone of popularity or someone respected in that field.Knowledge is constantly being changed and altered, also allowing us to build off of and to create complete knowledge such as scientific laws and theories. An example for my claim is Isaac’s Theory of Gravitation, In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton’s theory was “the Truth”. During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton’s theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein’s theory is “the Truth”.So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn’t. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be “true” it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles, and even predict many new and exciting results, eventually new experiments (or more precise ones) show a discrepancy between the workings of nature and the predictions of the theory. In the strict sense this means that the theory was not “true” after all; but the fact remains that it is a very good approximation to the truth, at least where a certain type of phenomena is concerned. When an accepted theory cannot explain some new data (which has been confirmed), the researchers working in that field strive to construct a new theory. This task gets increasingly more difficult as our knowledge increases, for the new theory should not only explain the new data, but also all the old one: a new theory has, as its first duty, to devour and assimilate its predecessors.One other note about truth: science does not make moral judgments. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says “evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism” (or any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic (and will not live live long nor prosper).In these paragraphs I used Human Sciences and history as my areas of knowing and reason and faith as my way of knowing. I used Human sciences and history because I believe the two really do come together when talking about the theories that were discovered back when there were not many there to start with. The effects of using the history when referring to the adjusting to a theory is that it allows us for a platform to look back to when looking at what can be changed and ho if a change is made it would know follow with other things in a theory. Human Sciences also play a big role in this because all the theories looked at throughout this paragraph are scientific ones which are always being changed. I used reason and faith as my way of knowing because you must be a reasonable person to see that theories can always change and nothing is forever, I also used faith because you must have faith in your sources to believe if what their knowledge is truePoint 2: When looking back in time there is often things where we cannot change the A revisionist historian is “a person who identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox views held by professional scholars about a historical event, or introducing new evidence, or of restating the motivations and decisions of the participant people then changing those things so it fits the truth.”(Wikipedia) History is something we can never be completely sure of it is constantly changing and new perspectives all always being discovered, thus history is something that will never be complete, there will never be a time where we will have known everything. So old theories are incorporated into the new theories, resulting in a stronger and more accurate truth of the world created. The truths of history is not always discarded, but rather always adapting and improving. In this case, it’s more like the theories generated by previous generations and accepted throughout the world can change with much ease. An example for my claim is the Armageddon Letters. The Armageddon letters allowed us to enter the days of the cuban Missile Crisis, it was the letters between the 3 leaders, Kennedy, Castro and Khrushchev. The effect these letters had when really looking over the knowledge we had at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis changed many things we believed to have thought, such as how the leaders were writing letters to each other and that the Soviets were entirely justified in their belief that Kennedy wanted to destroy the Castro regime as they were bombing, attempting to assassinate and killing the leader and his country.In this paragraph the area of knowing that I used was history, i used history because I believe that it was a good example of how knowledge can change not become discarded but it can be built on and adjusted to see the new truth of the information we are given. I used history by referring back to the Cuban Missile Crisis and saying that how the letters that were not known at the tie still can change the knowledge that we have about that war decades later.For my Ways of knowing I used memory, I used memory because everyone knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is a very popular topic when it comes to history, and it is also one of the closest nuclear wars to almost happen. I used memory by referring back to my history class and looking back to what happened during those 13 days and adding to what I found out after when looking into the armageddon letters.I can find useful and factual information that is constantly updated by experts in peer review journals on the internet. I am also able to look up websites that promote pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories. Easy access to both good information and bad information is a two-edged sword. People can seek and find knowledge or they can do a simple Google search and find numerous websites to reinforce baseless claims. That’s not an accusation, it’s an 5 observation. Being wrong isn’t fun, yet walking away knowing that you are one step closer to not being wrong is much more rewarding. With an appropriate method of discerning what is and is not likely to be true, one can benefit from analyzing both what we accept as knowledge and what we reject as knowledge. When a knower is able to take a step back and consider why a certain claim is accepted and why another claim is rejected, a knower is able to discard useless and false information while retaining useful yet incomplete knowledge.