In philosophy can present "knowledge selection" be replaced by better "knowledge design" ?

That’s an epistemological question. Is that your study subject? Either way please read the small book “Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology”. I know, I know, but it answered a lot of problems that are basic to “knowing how and what one knows”.

In philosophy can present-knowledge-selection be usefully replaced by better-

knowledge-design ?

Only I think on one condition.

And that is if one is prepared to GIVE UP their philosophy or a part of it.

Which part then ?

The subjectively irrational part...

that part say which uses present irrational & useless "induction" to

try-to-steal-a-march upon good, knowledge such as critically rational

or OBJECTIVE Type philosophy.

Deductive systems must start somewhere. And that best be in human experience or you have not said anything about the world.

Human experience starts with consciousness. And understanding how we come to know the world is a vital first step. 

So the human subject must exist in any concept of knowledge. 

That it is objective is a conjecture or belief based on what we believe produces objective knowledge. It depends on that system or process of getting to knowledge we create in the first place.

Nothing was ever produced by humankind that was not as its foundation human consciousness. All the terms and all the systems of thought began there. 

Objectivity is a conjecture. We actually do know we are subjects. It is not immediate that we are objective. 

The conjecture that I actually hold a cup so I can drink coffee serves me. But if I am doing so through a subjective experience. The objectivity of it is a useful belief and that has not failed.

All these systems and designs began in human consciousness. And at times that consciousness should be rechecked. 

Really everything began from the imagination and experience. You are just packaging the results of that primordial process. It is useful to other human subjects to integrate into their awareness. 

Just remember it is only as good as the one who imagined it. And it may serve us well to a great extent but General Relativity is useless at the quantum level. It has usefulness. Because it approximates macroscale phenomena.  

And quantum physics has yet to be applied on such a scale. We do not have the computers to simulate more than a few molecules. 

So the world is full of useful beliefs with non absolute reality. Approximate reality. 

We can only know what we can sense and detect by some device. We end up describing the dynamics of the visible universe but is that the universe in itself?