Knowledge to me is a warranted proposition reflecting the state of things.

It is raining - is one such a proposition and constitutes knowledge.

The Yankees suck is opinion and is subjective and does not constitute knowledge.

If however, one looks at the mlb rankings and realises for example that they’re losing more often than other teams in the current season then such an opinion is true as it reflects the state of things.

Knowledge is unfalsifiable information that is all.

What about science though? If you define knowledge as unfalsifiable information, then science is out of the window.

https://explorable.com/falsifiability

The above might help. I think I’ve confused the term. It appears that unfalsifiable information is in fact utterly useless.

Correction: Unfalsifiable Info might actually be useful.

As for science I’m not sure how to apply the production of useful knowledge from theory that describes some aspect of nature or models them for the sake of prediction.

Science is by definition falsifiable theories, so defining knowledge as "unfalsifiable information" leaves no room for science-based knowledge.

I think you draw a good distinction between scientific knowledge and everyday easily accessible knowledge about the world.

Take for example the common knowledge that the earth is round. It can be falsified by the possibility of it being flat. However empirical and scientific evidence is strong enough for the theory that it is round to be accepted.

The reason for such rigour when it comes to scientific claims (knowledge) is that they must be tested by experiment.

The perfect definition of knowledge that you’re looking for is actually in the dictionary.

facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

The Dictionary

The confusion appears for want of trying to apply it to science. However the definition still holds true as falsafiabilty only applies to the scientific method and not the information or knowledge that is derived from it.

@Cidat

The most common definition is "Justified True Belief", but there are examples called Gettier cases that show that one can have a justified true belief that is not knowledge because the justification for the belief is false. — Cidat

I, and many other people, think justified true belief (JTB) does not reflect how people know things or use the knowledge they have. As someone who had to deal with data, information, and knowledge for 30 years as an engineer, I think JTB is just silly. The one question that's important when dealing with information is—Can I use this information to decide on what to do next? You can't wait around to be sure something is true, you only have control over the level of justification you can provide.

This is a pragmatic approach to knowledge. But perhaps it's the only working epistemic theory.

This is a pragmatic approach to knowledge. — Cidat

Agreed. Knowledge is all about useful information. What other possible meaning can it have? Can't get more pragmatic than that.

How should we define knowledge? In context.

So what is the perfect definition of knowledge? — Cidat

How should we define knowledge? In context. — Fooloso4

The first question to ask is: what do you what from your definition? Do you want it to reflect current use in ordinary language? That is what dictionary definitions do, so the obvious thing would be to consult a good English dictionary. Or do you want a specialized definition for something specific? Then you should be asking a more specific question.

Generally, just inquiring after a definition out of context is not very productive. Words are tools, and as with all tools, we fashion them for a reason.

(This is just to expand what @Fooloso4 said.)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

My answer here.

In sum, we create identities through our experiences of the world, then try to match those identities either deductively or inductively to later experiences. When you can deductively match that identity to an experience, you know it. When you inductively do so, you believe it. However, different ways of inducing can result in beliefs that are more logical to believe in than others.

What I wanted to do was find a solid way of forming knowledge. Pragmatism appears to be the answer.

I like to avoid the metaphysical views of knowledge and go with a more pragmatic one.

Humans have knowledge when they demonstrate the application.

For example, Do you have knowledge of riding a bike. Well yes I do let me show you, and the human proceeds to ride the bike.

For example, do you know the theory of special relativity. Well yes let me explain it, discuss the implications, and set up experiments to show you the data.

Humans have knowledge when they demonstrate the application. — Richard B

I would go one further and say that we have knowledge when we meet the criteria for someone to say we have the knowledge (criteria as the term is used by Wittgenstein in the Investigations). One difference being that there are different kinds of "knowledge" and so different criteria. One overlooked use is as acknowledgement. "I know you are in pain" being a recognition of your pain, your plight, your claim on me morally to react to your situation, etc.

Calling all knowledge belief justified to be true is an imposed (made up) criteria, desiring certainty before looking at how various kinds of knowledge actually work. Science is not justifying beliefs; it is a method. A fact is something you or I or anyone can replicate through a competent experiment. We know that oxygen has a weight of X because when anyone yada yadas it, it always comes to X. The reason for the desire for something certain and the invention of abstact criteria are more complicated, but one reason is that we create "justification of truth" as a way to avoid our responsibility for offering ordinary reasons and standing behind them.

EXPERIENCE.

One historical mistake certain philosophies have made is this search for certainty instead minimizing error for a purpose.

"Knowledge" is information useful for doing, or changing, something that can't be done, or changed, without it.

NB: Information constituting well-tested, explanations is scientific knowledge.

I get it. Knowledge should be seen as a pragmatic tool to help us navigate.

Knowledge is experience and meaning belonging to a conscious subject, and never the property of the object or the world as an object.

That which we can question in some regard. That which cannot be questioned cannot be comprehended.

Experience is always true to the biology having the experience, if the biology is somewhat defective the experience will be so affected. Alter biology and you alter experience; you alter the reality of the given subject.

Who are you talking to and how it is relevant?

Most likely one of them solipsistic types by the looks of it.

Perception is experience knowledge and meaning all of this is biologically dependent upon the biology having the experience/knowledge/meaning. If one alters any biology and you alter the experience/knowledge/meanings of the individual.

So sayeth the wise one

If you find fault with the reasoning, by all means enlighten me.

I thought you were the enlightened & wise one, I’m but a peasant

Knowledge is just an evaluation term we use on claims/statements. Claims that are in agreement with current facts and have an instrumental value (can be used to produce further information) are identified as knowledge.
The value of Truth is not absolute because new facts can and have changed the truth value of previous claims. So a true belief can be proven not true...while an instrumentally valuable statement can always be used as knowledge.
My point is that truth and knowledge are observer relative evaluations, limited by our current observations. Something that is (probably) not true (i.e. Relativity) can be used as a knowledge claim to produce further knowledge.

Your definition is meaningful! The instrumental value (instrumentality-practical purpose) is what introduces the value of "knowledge" in a claim.