In describing knowledge, it should not be anything beyond or past true belief; as it can be useful evidence, good reliability or none of these two views as it is not necessary for the process and part of knowing. In a situation where there is evidence or justified proof of true belief, it should not be required for knowledge to exists. The belief state of being true can be described as knowledge; this is a time where there is evidence or lack of evidence of proof.
Knowledge can be sustained with or without proof of justification; this aspect is a factor that many epistemologists agree with. Intuitively, knowledge can be anything that is more or at times be described as true beliefs. There has to be consistency, as one cannot just be random and claim that everything is knowledge. As Alvin Goldman reveals, a man can permit a mild or weak sense of knowledge to expect to be at list true belief and still makes it accommodate how people communicate and talk. Knowledge, therefore, is substantial information backed by solid evidence that can support its truth while true belief on the hand does not necessarily have evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This particular knowledge has to have its value; this value comes about as a central topic under the view of epistemology. On the other hand, the true belief can be seen in trivial aspects as such as a person who measure grains of sand or rice each time they want to use it. This is not as important as it tends to be. Knowledge, in this case, can be as critical but should not if at all be justified without having for seen the views of the true belief.
