Paul Watzlawick Quotes

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. By what conduit do we know what we know?

Indeed, this epistemological theory of the relation between theory and experiment differs sharply from the epistemological theory of naive falsificationism.

All human knowledge takes the form of interpretation.

The intellectual takes as a starting point his self and relates the world to his own sensibilities; the scientist accepts an existing field of knowledge and seeks to map out the unexplored terrain.

Einstein's results again turned the tables and now very few philosophers or scientists still think that scientific knowledge is, or can be, proven knowledge.

Probability is expectation founded upon partial knowledge. A perfect acquaintance with all the circumstances affecting the occurrence of an event would change expectation into certainty, and leave nether room nor demand for a theory of probabilities.

Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.

The clash between Popper and Kuhn is not about a mere technical point in epistemology.

Since Plato, we have been considering the nature of knowledge, the meaning of meaning and the status of the physical world.

Knowledge is justified belief.

While the finish given to our picture of the world by the theory of relativity has already been absorbed into the general scientific consciousness, this has scarcely occurred to the same extent with those aspects of the general problem of knowledge which have been elucidated by the quantum theory.

Philosophy's position with regard to science, which at one time could be designated with the name "theory of knowledge," has been undermined by the movement of philosophical thought itself. Philosophy was dislodged from this position by philosophy.

[Knowledge is governed not by] a theory of knowledge, but by a theory of discursive practice.

I'm an educator, and I'm a scientist, and I speak what is objectively true. And if that offends you, I can try to have a conversation with you to ask why it offends you, and tell you why objective truth should not offend you because that's how the world works.

Life's scientific, but we don't know, do we? Not certainly, I mean.

The wise man is one who knows what he does not know.

Learning results from what the student does and thinks, and only from what the student does and thinks. The teacher can advance learning only by influencing the student to learn.

I have throughout been curious about how much we can be said to know and with what degree of certainty or doubtfulness.

No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion it would be to suppose that what science cannot give us we can get elsewhere.

Truth does not demand belief.

I'm not a fan of technology . I'm a fan of pedagogy, of understanding how people learn and the most effective learning methods. But technology enables some exciting changes.

The central problem of an education based upon experience is to select the kind of present experience that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences.

All appearances are real and negatio; sophistical: All reality must be sensation.

No form, no manifestation of knowledge, is senseless.

Is Knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know?