Assessing and modifying knowledge: Facts vs. Constellations

There is a rich philosophical and empirical history associated with examinations of the nature of knowledge. Epistemological queries have focused on determining how to characterize knowledge, and on developing methods of supporting people's accurate understandings. The resulting work has led to contentious debates about whether, when, and how knowledge is amenable to change. These are timely disputes given contemporary concerns about the consequences of exposure to inaccurate information from multiple perspectives (including but not limited to social media, fake news, and unsubstantiated reports), and how information from competing sources influences people's understandings of the world. Emerging investigations have focused on when and in what ways people might modify what they know. In the current chapter, we highlight two distinct ways that "what people know" has been characterized - as declarative ideas and as constellations of ideas. Different concepts and topics might reflect either of these representational possibilities, which has crucial implications for epistemological investigations and claims about how to modify knowledge. We highlight the challenges and problems that can emerge when researchers confabulate distinct conceptualizations of knowledge representation. These are important considerations for selecting methodological approaches, deriving theoretical models, and arguing for (or against) the generalizability of findings. Suggestions for wrestling with these issues are offered.