Debates Concerning Knowledge are not Relevant to Accounting and its Practice - Essay Example

? DEBATES CONCERNING KNOWLEDGE ARE NOT RELEVANT TO ACCOUNTING AND ITS PRACTICE BY PRESENTED Debates Concerning Knowledge are not Relevant to Accounting and its Practice Introduction Discussions about what constitutes knowledge have been ongoing for a long time, and were extensively covered by some of great philosophers like Plato, Humes, Kant and Socrates. David Hume defines knowledge as that which occurs from experience and skepticism (Schmitt, 1992). According to philosophers, knowledge can be acquired through various sources. These include empirical knowledge which implies through exposure, observation of concepts, or may be genetically programed within individuals. As such, knowledge has its limits; some synthesis of object matter is needed through reasoning to create understanding. To objectively generate new knowledge various sources of knowledge exists that include; induction, intuition, observation, experience, testimony, and introspection among others. Plato cautions that those seeking to understand knowledge must distinguish it from opinion. For example, accounting statements have to be viewed objectively other than subjectively in creating reality and true knowledge. In my view, knowledge is fixed, absolute, and eternally true while opinions are changeable. Therefore, for one to be a true knowledge seeker, then they must naturally not consent to opinions, but have to strive with unwavering passion to establish the essential nature of things that constitute facts. However, it is not certain that accounting operations can lead to such knowledge or truth, making knowledge not an essential consideration in accounting profession. On the other hand, Juan (2007) defines accounting as ‘the art of collecting, analyzing, recording and posting, summarizing and reporting financial results in a significant and orderly manner, aimed at providing useful concepts essential in decision making.’ Juan (2007) explains that accounting operates on clearly defined fundamental principles; those working in the profession have little discretion in influencing the output of end results from accounting practices. First, accounting operates on a going concern principle, which assumes that a business entity will continue its operations for unforeseeable future without termination. Secondly, accounting assumes that businesses are legal entities different from owners. In my view, the above two concepts in accounting are much based on assumptions rather than reality, which implies their application may not lead to reality or truth, but have been put in place to facilitate a standardized approach in accounting statements under a conceptual framework. Such assumptions may not lead to truth or reality in knowledge. Hines (1988) argues that the body of knowledge on which the profession of financial accounting is based shows that such professionalization took place a round a number of personal qualities such as respectability, honesty and independence, unlike other professions which presume the existence of knowledge as the legitimate way to claim expertise and professionalism. Hine notes that the knowledge foundation of accounting profession is problematic; in order to advance the accounting profession and maintain its credibility, there was need to stem such threats of the profession caused by the underlying knowledge foundation. For example, accounts perceived in high regard in ethics and morality will presents a perception of reality and truth in their statements compared to those who do not. This explains why some accountants may be preferred over others. Therefore, the increasing advocacy for a conceptual framework is perceived to be the best way to counteract the threat of accounting profession to social legitimacy in the accounting profession .According to Hines (1988), a conceptual framework will bring together national accounting standards, sound accounting rules, stock exchange requirements, and other statutory requirements, which may vary from country to country. In my view, a conceptual framework aims at establishing the use of principles rather than rules in accounting profession. However, such an approach becomes a broad and generalized way of accounting principles; it aims at providing a holistic approach towards solving the above problems. The main problem in this approach is how one may know if the presented accounting statements are true and the reflection of the business position. Theories according to Chalmers (1996) constitute logical reasoning in accounting. This implies that accounting theories aim at instilling the culture of logical reasoning in students. The reality of the reasoning and its neutrality in presenting accounting statements thus influences the probability of acquiring true knowledge regarding the business position (Morgan, 1988). As explained, accounting is about principles more than rules, which call for a detailed application of morals and ethics of the accountant in creating a perceived image, that the presented accounting statements are a true reflection of the business (Chalmers, 1982). In my view, through induction reasoning, accountants are able to make out completely different conclusions due to differences in reasoning and the degree of neutrality observed in the accountant; noting that accounting is a profession that is controlled by bodies with much interest in the profession. People have different perceptions in judging reality and making meaning out of such reality through induction reasoning; this leads to have different perceptions of images portrayed by the one responsible in preparing such statements (Morgan, 1988). Since there are different perceptions depending on people, the issue of presenting reality in these statements, and the fact that statements only report certain concepts and make assumptions make the entire issue of reality and truth questionable (Craig & Jeffrey, 2009). This implies that reality or true knowledge regarding a statement can only be merely based on the perceived neutrality of the accountant in using accounting principles. In my view, such subjective presentation of principles creates more doubts on whether knowledge can be obtained in the accounting profession. This affirms Hine’s argument that knowledge in accounting is problematic and unlike in other professions, accounting legitimacy in accounting is achieved through principles and how they are applied, and not through knowledge or experience. Hospers (1996) explains contribution to knowledge debate stems from trying to develop knowledge based on philosophical doubt. According to him some of the opinions that we hold as truth don’t actually hold to be true when doubted critically. To establish real knowledge in science, he suggests that human beings have to discard what they had given credence before and start afresh for this is the only way lasting knowledge can be gained. Freeing the mind about unverified opinions frees the mind to focus on essential things that are necessary in development of knowledge (Hospers, 1996). On the same breath, the world is not full of certainties and therefore probability helps us to understand what is bound to happen and what is not. He goes on to posit that human beings are thinking beings can doubt, deny, affirm, abstain, understand and aware of images and sensation. Having the ability to do all this helps one to know what is true and not, becomes averse to being deceived and imaging to develop sensible opinions. In actual sense, Hospers is seen as trying to dispute that there can be knowledge through experience or exposure to phenomenon as David Humes had put across. If there is such learning, it must be very little; Hospers considers starting the process of knowledge search afresh as the best approach. Hume explained that human nature in understanding knowledge is superior in search of knowledge. He suggests that power of human nature be applied as they have strong instincts but in a rejoinder he allows for limited skepticism. I perceive that by critically examining the accounting process, perception and the image presented by the accountant are more powerful in defining the truth or reality. Chalmers (1982) in his work on science as knowledge derived from facts of experience pointed that science is held in high regards due to the scientific methods it applies to come up with new knowledge or finding that are often taken as reliable. Science is regarded highly because it is based on facts presumed to be based on what can be seen, heard, and touched as opposed to personal opinions or speculative imagining. According to him objective knowledge is acquired where facts are viewed in unprejudiced way. Applying reasoning to laws and theories helps to generate reliable knowledge. Observation is the most common sense in human beings which exposes human beings to a broad range of experiences. Statements of facts can therefore made based what the eyes have been severally exposed forming experience and foundations for refutable knowledge. In case of accounting, observation is of critical importance, and exposure to accounting tasks gives the much needed experience to accounting professionals. In my view, if there is no learning from experiences, then there would be little to differentiate a fresh graduate in accounting to a professional with work experience spanning years. Therefore, accountants have to operate on well-grounded principles that guide all their operations, implying that with such guidelines, knowledge is not of importance but experience is. My opinion is that deriving statements from such an approach, which is mainly based on the perceived image of the accountant poses the question whether knowledge can actually be achieved or not, which further justifies its background role in the accounting profession. In conclusion, it is evident that knowledge can be acquired from various sources where each source has its strength and inherent weaknesses. To objectively acquire scientific knowledge it makes sense to apply the strengths in each of the different views expressed by different philosophers. Accounting profession is based on sound principles, which have taken scholars much time to think about and consolidate. In addition, true refutation of laws, theories and principles is best done through application. Accounting principles have proved to work and are replicable across board. This implies that unlike in other professions, in accounting principles and experience have a leading role other than knowledge, making it less important in accounting profession. [Word Count, 1590] References List Chalmers, A. F., 1976. What is this thing called science?: An assessment of the nature of science and its methods (3rd ed.). Queensland: University of Queensland Press Craig, D & Jeffrey, U 2009, Financial Accounting Theory Edition, 3 New York: McGraw-Hill, Hospers, J., 1996. Reading in introductory philosophical analysis. London: Prentice Hall Inc Juan, D. A., 2007. Fundamentals of accounting: Basic accounting principles simplified for accounting students. Indiana: AuthorHouse Morgan, G., 1988. Accounting as Reality Construction: Towards a New Epistemology for Accounting Practice’,Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(5) Schmitt, F. F., 1992. Knowledge and belief. London: Routledge Read More