Pre-Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science.

Text read : 
"Theaetetus", by Plato.
"Critique of pure Reason", by Kant.

Plato and Kant have different approach of defining and conceptualizing a concept, an idea. Plato through Socrate and Theaetetus explains the path to Knowledge. Socrate is used as a tool for Theaetetus to gets his own idea of Knowledge "SOCRATES : I must try by my art of midwifery to deliver Theaetetus of his conceptions about knowledge." With this way of doing things, the reader can understand both point of view on different opinion about knowledge, the good and the bad of each idea. The proeminent idea of the text is that "Knowledge is perception" but they conclude by saying that since we do not hear with our ears nor see with our eyes, knowledge can in no way be the same thing as perception because we hear through our ears and see through our eyes. Therefore, when the information comes in through an organ, the mind must put them together. At the end, they use the metaphor of an aviary as knowledge to make the distinction between Having and Possess.  I think this is the beginning of the real defiinition of knowledge. The one thing they didn't bring up in their conversation was experience. Can we have a true opinion, perception of the right thing without experiencing it ? Those are only theoritical, it will become knowledge as soon as we experience it, as soon as we prove it, as soon as acknowledge it.

Kant in the other hand is not looking to create idea of our own but to expose is own truth which appeared to have been proved since he uses the famous example of copernic to express his idea. The idea is discredites was mentionned by Plato "Man is the measure of all things". We shall not put the humankind in the center of everything otherwise we won't see things as they are but things as we see, as we percieve. As Kant mentionned we shall not see from our perspective (our cognition must conform to the objects) but from a greater point of view, from the god's point of view (Objects must conform to our cognition). We can apply this way of thinking about everything in our personnal life, therefore the "Why me?" feeling tends to dissapear. We did explain the first part of Kant's question :
 "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?
We ought to explains what he means by a priori knowledge. Those are the "axiomes" of life. Those are the things that are true without needing any experiment, experience or theory to prove them right. Even though in Science everything is true until proven otherwise.
Then we have the a posteriori knowledge. This knowledge is earned through experience. This is what is called : Empirical. We have an idea, but until proven, it will stay at the "Idea state". Once we experienced the idea, and it show that it is true, we have earned knowledge. A posteriori knowledge.

In conclusion, the closest definition of Knowledge I get from reading those texts are that we do need to experience things in order to acquire that "knowledge" but keep an open mind (A true opinion) while percieving things through a global point of view of everything.