The increasingly transitory nature of what is lauded as current or accurate in new and developing fields, as well as the pace of change in Western culture more broadly, has made it difficult for society in general and education in particular to define what counts as knowledge.
Is it true that in old days knowledge was more certain and sure?
The definition of knowledge is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology.
The philosopher Plato defined knowledge as “justified true belief.”
Spinoza had to introduce ‘god’ as a foundation of knowledge to avoid uncertainty. (and doing so cheated uncertainty into his philosophy)
Popper wanted to replace the question “How do you know?” with “I do not know, how can I improve my guess?” (Out of error, Ashgate Publishing, David Miller, 2006, page 31)
Maybe ‘What is knowledge?’ always was a difficult question?
Epistemology is a game with a lot of controversies about what is knowledge and about the way we could distinguish true knowledge from unjustified knowledge. Deleuze is only one party in the struggle for intellectual responsibility and honesty inside epistemology.
There is a gap in the argument of transitioning verified knowledge into curriculum:
The expert translation of data into verified knowledge is the central process guiding traditional curriculum development.
For verified knowledge does not exist according to Plato, Popper and many other philosophers.
Here we could introduce cheating as a strategy.
In the curriculum people (experts and stake holders) do introduce so called ‘verified knowledge’. But ‘verified logic’ is very doubtful. Experts are powerful people and that is why doubt is not tolerated in the curriculum. But education and knowledge have lost their innocence. Education is an industry and knowledge is big business.
Alarmingly, education appears to be acquiring the pathological bad habits of the Catholic Church. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. But neither should we be surprised when Martin Luther pops up!
Because education is an industry now, fairness and delivering real quality in education is becoming to be a problem. Jenny Mackness ask the question
Does living in a digitally networked world, a world of rhizomatic learners change what we commonly understand to be the basic moral principles that govern behaviour between learners?
But the world is bigger than relations between learners, these learners do live in a changing world and their knowledge is merchandised.
I do not know if cheating really is a feature of rhizomatic learning.
Text of the song: http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/33449/
After this a came across cheating in arts http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/grundy7.html You need to know a camera obscura .