The Nature of Boundaries - Personal Statement Example

REACTION PAPER 2007 Reaction Paper If someone claims that both the division of knowledge into disciplines and the division of the worldinto countries on a map are artificial, what does this mean What is the nature of boundaries between areas of knowledge, in your view Geographically, the world is a large territory of 510,065,600 km, comprised of water and land. Mankind has divided it into numerous states with clear-cut boundaries and independent governments which continue to play a critical role in modern world despite the increasingly strong tendency toward globalisation. Similarly, mankind had divided the 'surface area' of knowledge into six major areas (mathematics, human sciences, natural sciences, history, ethics and art) - the divide that remains the most distinct feature of modern science despite the recent rise of transdisciplinary and non-disciplinary perspectives. What are the processes underlying the compelling desire of human to dissect and divide, are these processes comparable, how has the divides occurred - these perplexing questions have puzzled generations of outstanding scholars, but still remain unanswered. The world is multi-dimensional with numerous natural boundaries: mountains and rivers, deserts and forests, fields and lakes, plateaus and slumps compose a unique and highly diverse image of the Earth. These natural boundaries have provided mankind with references points allowing people to move from one point to another, travel, hunt, explore the remote areas always using these natural points to return to the native places and family. Evidently, these natural boundaries have played - and continue to play - an essential role in shaping human civilisation, as we know it, but they have failed to fully satisfy the needs of human society. The artificial boundaries dividing the nations and communities have been created artificially to address these implicit needs. Knowledge does not have a clear defined surface area or natural boundaries; its abstract nature makes it barely possible to calculate or quantify it; senses and measurements do not provide the appropriate tools to divide it. Nonetheless, mankind has also felt the need to divide it into several areas. Perhaps one of the key objectives of such divide was the desire to establish the missing reference points in order to facilitate navigation from one place to another: the artificial boundaries within the body of knowledge were intended to perform the same function the natural boundaries in the physical world played. However, even if that the factors/reasons underlying division of the physical world and the abstract realm of knowledge are similar, the implications and nature of the boundaries are likely to differ signification. Although the geographical boundaries and the divide between different areas of knowledge have been drawn by human, the nature of the boundaries is non-comparable due to several reasons. Firstly, the geographical boundaries, by definition, do not allow for free crossing; knowledge does not imply this sine qua non condition. Secondly, the nature of knowledge is complex, dynamic, and multifaceted: it is not approachable with mere senses or mere thinking; it is rather a process which gets even richer when the separated areas overlap. The ongoing debate about the definition and elements of knowledge1 vividly illustrates why comparing the abstract and physical boundaries lacks credibility and is probably doomed to failure. Furthermore, even the origins of knowledge are not known either: epistemology or theory of knowledge, the branch of philosophy that explores the origins and sources of knowledge, the assumptions upon which knowledge is based, and what we 'can know' and 'do know' fails to provide a clear and exhaustive answer to this question2. The origins of modern epistemological debate can be traced back to the past philosophers. The famous Cartesian mind/body duality introduced by famous philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes divorced body from mind and thinking from sensing. Descartes is considered to be the founder of the rationalist approach with its basic claim that thinking about the world is the only source of true knowledge: reason and logic implied in thinking are objective and flawless, while the sensory experiences of the reality are subjective and flawed3. By contrast, John Locke and David Hume claim that true knowledge comes through sense experience. This claim is the core idea of empiricism4. Thus, Locke introduced the idea of 'essence of substances' and attempted to explain how the perception of these substances leads us to partial knowledge the limited by our perceptive capabilities. Locke identified two levels of ideas: simple and complex. The former fall into two groups: the perception of the intrinsic qualities of an object, for example, that a ball is round. The intensity of an object though, such as the colour, for example, or heat, exists only in the observer's perception generated by his mind5. Contemporary scientists adopt varying epistemological stances with positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism being the most popular among them. The positivist perspective rests upon the founding principles of realism highlighting the notion that objects in the world that surrounds us do not depend of our perception or what people think about them6. Post-positivism is a contemporary modification of the traditional positivist philosophy developed by Auguste Comte. Adherents of this paradigm claim that human being is not capable of perfect and comprehensive understanding of reality admitting that only serious analysis and accurate collection of information can bring the researcher close to such understanding. The interpretivist paradigm is rooted in the traditional philosophy of idealism which is the opposite of the realism. Proponents of the interpretivist perspective argue that there is no mind-independent reality; the world and objects that surround us are dependent on human perception and exist only in the form of concepts, social constructs and ideas. The critical theory relies on the assumption that the material world is full of structured contradictions hidden by various ideologies: the observer can objectively perceive the world only upon the condition that the implicit ideological biases are removed7. Adherents of this approach assume that social reality and knowledge is historically constituted, produced and reproduced by people. And finally, constuctivism focuses on the meaning that individuals and groups make of the world around them. Advocates of constructivism reject the conventional views of existence of any enduring context-free truth statements or situations8. This ongoing epistemological debate not only highlights the extreme complexity of the concept of knowledge, but also has direct implications for the question of the nature of abstract and physical boundaries. For example, applying the ideas of Locke or interpretivist conceptions to the problem of boundaries one may argue that they do not exist as such being simply a construct in human perception. The extreme form of interpretivist ideas even implies that the objects of physical world - such as mountains, rivers, or oceans - exist only inside human mind. From this perspective there is little, if any, difference between the division of knowledge into disciplines, the division of the world into countries on a map or variations in the landscape: they all exist only in the human mind. In my opinion, some answers to the questions mentioned in the introductory paragraph can be found in psychology. Thus, one of the key assumptions underlying the cognitive approach is the concept of 'category learning' pioneered by J. Bruner. In his classical study, Bruner offered the participants an array of 81 rectangular stimulus cards printed with a varying combinations of the following four properties: shape (square, circle or cross); number of each shape (I, 2 or 3 instances); shading of the shapes (plain, black or striped); and number of borders round the card (1, 2 or 3). The participants were asked to relate each of the cards to a certain category and explain their choice. Based on the data collected during this study, Bruner suggested that human learn categories using different strategies the choice of which depended upon the situation of learning9. In other words, structuring the processes of thinking and perception is the most effective way to improve their efficiency: categorization of knowledge should be perceived as one of the tools to facilitate the use of knowledge, ensure better flow of information and mutual enhancement of the adopted categories. Therefore, the division of knowledge into several fields refer rather to the mind's capability to extrapolate from its perception to a more complex level of thinking in an area defined by human beings. Looking at the philosophical approach and the psychological one could answer the question 'how do these separations take place' using both types of argumentation justifying either by the psychological need or a need to place this understanding of the world at a higher philosophical level. Therefore, the claim that the division of knowledge into disciplines and the division of the world into countries on a map are artificial should be perceived as mere assertion of the fact that both types of division exist in the human mind, but it is unknown whether they exist in mind-independent reality, if there is such, which is also unknown. I would like to believe that there are no mind-independent boundaries in the realm of knowledge. The recent move toward the transdisciplinary perspective, which relies on the assumption that the richness of knowledge comes from the exchange between the different fields of knowledge, provides certain background to this belief. Bibliography Allison, P. (2000). Research from the ground up post expedition adjustment. Cumbria, UK: Brathay Hall Allison P. and Pomeroy E. (2000). How shall we "know" Epistemological concerns in research in experiential education, The Journal of Experiential Education, 23(2), 91-98 Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Falmer Press Gephart, R. (1999). Paradigms and Research Methods, Research Methods Forum, Vol. 4 [avaialble at http://www.aom.pace.edu/rmd/1999_RMD_Forum_Paradigms_and_Research_Methods.htm] Littleton, K., F. Toates, & N. Braisby (2002). "Chapter 3: Three Approaches to Learning" in: Miell, D., A. Phoenix and K. Thomas (eds) Mapping Psychology. The Open University Phillips, D. C. (1993). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational research: Current issues (pp. 57-72). London: Open University Thiel, U (2001). Locke: His Philosophical Thought (review). Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 39(1), pp. 145-146 Read More