Two Ways in Which Humankind Can Produce Knowledge - Coursework Example

Humankind and Knowledge Production Introduction The ability to discern and be familiar with the environment: objects found under water, on land and across the sky in the air, and the need to master and have abundant information about events and objects as they appear to us – not only those we can physically see, touch, smell, hear and taste, but even those beyond our physical sight – are vital for our survival. Knowledge plays a pivotal role in the life of human beings as they struggle to live a comfortable life and meet their short term and long term personal goals. It is even more significant to study and determine where exactly these mastery and understanding of the environment and the happenings observed in it emanate or are sourced from. Knowledge can be defined as the ability to have an idea and sufficient understanding of the environment in terms of expressing accurate, relevant and updated facts about things and occurrences in the environment. One standing thing is that knowledge is produced, meaning it is generated from a particular source through a definite process (Gioia, 2008:89). It is conceptualised that knowledge is produced by two processes: passive observation or active experiments. This paper aims at discussing this debate with evidential propositions to justify the adopted stance. There have been several arguments and debates about whether the knowledge we have is innate and inborn or we acquire it from the environment through experiences such as learning, witnessing, falling victims to situations, socialisation etc (Lemos, 2007:34). The empiricism theorists have taken diverse opinions concerning knowledge sourcing from rationalism counterparts. It is worth noting that knowledge can be received or acquired through experiences (Hume and Millican, 2007:80). Take, for example, a situation where a person is walking down the road in the evening as dusk approaches, and witnesses a head-on collision. From this experience of direct observation, the observer or eye witness can be invited in a court of law to narrate what they saw concerning the accident. The person, therefore, will report their observations based on the experience they had in that unfortunate evening. Knowledge in this case is, therefore, derived from the passive observation made from a distance (Neta and Pritchard, 2009:133). Empiricism versus Rationalism Sources of knowledge have primarily been argued and debated from two points of view, although the conceptions merge, thereby bringing harmony. Empiricism as a perspective focuses on the observational role in knowledge build-up. Empiricists argue that humans gain knowledge through the experiential or pragmatic observations that expose them to the environment, so that for one to know about facts such as the height of their friends or the effects of exposure to cold, then they must have had an experience with it. Additionally, this experience could come either through passive observation or active engagement owing to exposure through their sensory organs. An instance is when a scientist conducts research about a particular community in which the researcher uses observation (overt or covert) to record data, or when the researcher engages in activities and experiments through participation to determine exactly what it is like to be part of that community (Hay, 2008:99). Consequently, rationalism is about saluting the power of reasoning in finding answers to the human’s daily problems (Alchin, 2006:167). It focuses on putting unlikely and uncertain things that may not have been observed or experienced into scrutiny while weighing their possibilities, advantages and disadvantages and probable impacts so as to come up with an answer that forms part of the knowledgebase. Intuition is usually used as well, and it is almost close to reasoning and involves developing claims of knowledge through the ‘sixth sense’. Individuals who use intuition claim that ‘something’ tells them it is A and not B. This has been identified as an unreliable knowledge source as its validity cannot be verified in active experiments and passive observations. However, intuition is mostly used in natural sciences where some knowledge is generated through imagination (Alchin, 2006:175). Active experiments also fall short of their merits in situations such as biasness, in which the experimenter manipulates the subjects to produce results that match their expectations. Also, some experiments may alter the subjects, so that the results produced do not represent the accurate state of affairs, e.g. in situations where placebos applied to subjects produce flawed effects after extensive usage. Active experiments therefore have limitations, where, if they are relied upon as the sole sources of knowledge, the outcome may not represent the factual account of the state of affairs as at the time of the experiment (Dombrowski, 2013:111). Perception Relying on passive observations and active experiments in most cases requires knowledge production based on the observer’s perception. If their perception is flawed, the whole outcome will definitely be inaccurate. Perception is a subjective element of generating knowledge and, in most cases, depends on factors such as cultural background, political affiliation, past experiences, family background, religious views and the state of one’s mental health. These factors risk skewing a person’s perceptual process and make them unrealistically construe events and things when they consciously or unconsciously refer to the aforementioned factors. It is, therefore, essential to note that a person may have observed or experienced the real event but ends up reporting or accounting differently from what was experienced owing to the mental schemas that construct a their perceptual pattern (Blauuw and Pritchard, 2005:112). For example, a person may hold on to the cultural teachings about some phenomenon regardless of whether it is wrong or right such that whoever tries to change this perception will rarely succeed (Lemos, 2007:45). Religion, for example, gives followers supernatural explanations that may not be directly observed or proven. Followers will claim they have knowledge simply from the beliefs and faiths that cannot be proven (Van de Lagemaat, 2005:140). On the other hand, there is the possibility that the religious teachings could just be giving wrong information in an attempt to manipulate the followers. In such cases, perception shall have misled one in believing they know when they actually do not. Perception is, for this reason, quite different from reality. Something, therefore, can possibly be perceived differently from the factual reality. Religions generate knowledge through passive observation in which activities such as prayers and meditation are upheld to reveal things that are unknown. An example is Buddhist’s meditation where a number of observatory techniques are upheld in the process of digging into the world of the. In such cases, active experiments cannot be relevant as the knower does not have to actively subject the source of knowledge to an experimental process (Mathen, 2007:100). Conclusion The propositions made in the discussion above have presented an in-depth evaluation of two sources of knowledge: passive observation and active experimentation. There is also an outline of situations where they accurately deliver reliable knowledge while citing those circumstances in which they cannot be used if valid and factual information is expected. Other factors such as perception disable the achievement of true knowledge. It has been revealed that while it is true that knowledge is generated from the two sources: active experimentation and passive observation, they are not the only sources of knowledge, since other platforms exist through which knowledge is derived as well. It is significant to appreciate the fact that active experimentation and passive observation contribute a great deal toward human knowledge, and verifiability of such knowledge is much easier. It serves best if a variety of knowledge sources are identified and exploited in the right situations, and this calls for a combination of the various knowledge sources. References Alchin, N. (2006) Theory of knowledge: IB diploma programme, London, Hodder Murray. Blaauw, M. & Pritchard, D. (2005) Epistemology A-Z, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Dombrowski, E., Rotenberg, L. & BICK, M. (2013) IB theory of knowledge: for the IB diploma, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Gioia, L. (2008) The theological epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitate, New York, Oxford University Press. Hay, C. (2008) The theory of Knowledge a coursebook, Cambridge, U.K., Luttherworth Press. Hume, D. & Millican, P.J.R. (2007) An enquiry concerning human understanding, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lemos, N.M. (2007) An introduction to the theory of knowledge, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Matthen, M. (2007) Seeing, doing, and knowing: a philosophical theory of sense perception, Oxford, Clarendon. Neta, R. & Pritchard, D. (2009) Arguing about knowledge, London, Routledge. Van de Lagemaat, R. (2005) Theory of knowledge for the IB Diploma, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More