The phrase "argued knowledge" is not standard in written English and may cause confusion.
It could be used in contexts discussing knowledge that has been debated or contested, but it is not a commonly recognized term.
Example: "The researchers presented their findings, but the concept of argued knowledge remained a point of contention among the scholars."
Alternatives: "contested knowledge" or "debated knowledge".
In this respect, Shoemaker argues, knowledge that a particular arm that is moving is your arm (not immune to misidentification since maybe it's someone else's arm, misidentified in the mirror) is different from the knowledge that you are moving your arm knowledge, that is, of what Searle (1983) calls an "intention in action".
Van Dijk (2014: 171) insists on a relativist view on knowledge, arguing that "knowledge in everyday life only functions by the criteria of a community".
Although trained as a classicist and a mathematician, his most important contribution was to the theory of knowledge, where he argued that knowledge is factive and not definable in terms of belief, and he criticized 'hybrid' and 'externalist' accounts.
Academic subjects are the gateway to "powerful knowledge" not, as Young previously argued, "the knowledge of the powerful", selected and organised to exclude the unwashed masses and protect elite privilege.
In response to Hawthorne's claim about the pivotal role of knowledge in practical reasoning, Matthew Weiner (2009) has argued that knowledge is not important in itself for practical reasoning.
Gong (2011) argued that knowledge sharing and interaction between individuals or organizations in the knowledge network were dynamic.
In sum, we have argued folk knowledge holders in the Maasai Mara possess and continue to collect environmental knowledge yet through various obstructions often struggle to translate this information into practice.
In that paper, Nesse et al. argued that: Knowledge about evolution provides physicians with an integrative framework that links otherwise disparate bits of knowledge.
They argued that knowledge of the target being validated could cue rivals to the pathways being investigated.
John Hawthorne (2004) has recently argued that knowledge is valuable because of the role it plays in practical reasoning.
