The Theory of Knowledge - Research Paper Example

Theory of Knowledge Plato once defined knowledge as a justified true belief (Macdonald, 2000). Since Plato’s time some more definitions have been given but still they do not go far away from Plato’s definition. Knowledge has also been defined as a body of facts and principles that are held by an individual and they accumulate with time. Whatever definition given, it should at one time or another state categorically or imply that knowledge is a belief. A strong correlation between knowledge and the mind has been drawn. Knowledge cannot exist outside the mind i.e. no mind no knowledge and maybe no knowledge no mind. Some studies have been carried out to establish how knowledge is gained, how it can be used, when can knowledge be said to be knowledge indeed, should truth be factored in knowledge etc. These factors considered in the study of knowledge consists a branch of philosophy called Theory of Knowledge (ToK). ToK as Bertrand Russell (1926) puts it is a product of doubt. He further asserts that only when you subject facts, concepts etc into sufficient doubt then you can know whether the facts, concepts etc can be said to be true and thus become knowledge. In other words knowledge is not knowledge if it isn’t true and facts, concepts, principles etc graduate to knowledge once they reach the threshold of truth. Therefore ToK ventures into four ways of knowing i.e. through emotion, language, perception (use of senses) and through reason. It also features the areas of knowledge such as Science, Arts, Mathematics, history etc while investigating how students, the actors of knowledge, gain knowledge. This paper seeks to discuss the fact that an area of knowledge is not necessarily a collection of facts. An area of knowledge, be it science or mathematics, is not a mere collection of facts even though collection of facts constitute an area of knowledge (Lehrer, 2000). Science is dependent on facts that can be ascertained to be true. A number of facts describe science. The philosophy of science entails two parts. The first part is about the process of acquiring scientific knowledge (Scientific in the sense that it can be tested and ascertained scientifically) and the second part is about the purpose, implications and uses of the scientific knowledge acquired. One most important thing to note is the fact that the facts that make up science should have a way to be tested. Therefore, an accumulation of facts alone do not make science but if the facts can be tested scientifically and ascertained, then they qualify to constitute science. The major function of science is to predict. Actually, science moves from specific to general. Science picks a fact from experience and tries to draw a generalization in a bid to predict. However it has been noted that at times, some of the generalizations stand the test of time and the empirical authenticity associated with science but others do not. The question that remains is what shall be done with those facts, concepts or principles that do not stand the test of experience, empiricism and time? Well, if a fact that originated from a given experience, was tested to be true and was used to draw a generalization aimed at prediction and solving of problems in the society, is installed as a fact in science, it will remain so provided it continues to satisfy the very conditions that brought it into being. A collection of such facts builds a unit which is termed as science. However, if a fact or group of facts becomes obsolete because of the changes in the circumstances that led to its birth, in that the fact no longer compliant with truthfulness and empirical test, then the fact is said to be obsolete. It can’t stand the test of time, empiricism and experience. When this happens, then there exists a divergence between the observed and reality and this calls for the dropping of such a fact or facts (Bird, 1998). As much as the accumulation of facts makes up science, the facts, principles, hypotheses etc need to be analyzed from time to time so as to ascertain their validity. As time changes, the validity of some scientific facts is made impotent and incapacitated to serve the purpose they were intended for. This explains the dynamic nature of science. Scientific facts, theories, principles etc need to be reviewed from time to time because scientific facts made in the 19th century may not hold water in this 21st century. Therefore, however big the accumulation of facts is, it will be useless if all the accumulated facts do not meet the empirical test. In such a case, the accumulation doesn’t form science any more. It is important to note categorically the fact that it is not an accumulation of facts alone that makes up science but an accumulation of facts that stand the test of empiricism and also retain validity for a very long time. (Bird, 1998). Therefore, scientific facts, principles, hypotheses etc, need to be tested empirically and not through the use of experience that bore the facts. In other words, experience only suggests facts but it has no capacity to justify them. The facts in science are meant for prediction and thus if a prediction rooted in a given fact or principle shows inconsistence, then the fact has to be scrubbed because of this inconsistence. However, the scrubbed fact, principle or hypothesis has a profound importance because it sheds more light into the conditions and factors that led to the fact, principle or hypothesis. Thus, science is not all about an accumulation of any other kind of facts but an accumulation of facts whose validity has been tested over time. Another thing worth noting is the fact that fact alone is nothing if it can’t be used constructively. The person who has gained any kind of knowledge is under obligation to use that knowledge to better his life and that of the society as a whole. A collection of facts can form science but this is not science any more if the facts do not get transformed into knowledge. Facts become knowledge only when they are true, the person holding the facts believes they are true and the truthfulness of the facts can be justified beyond any reasonable doubt as Russel puts it. Therefore, as much as the accumulation of facts forms science, the accumulation is useless if it is not converted into justified true belief i.e. knowledge. This can also be compared to the fact that barley makes beer but barley alone cannot be beer if it is not processed. The facts need to be taken in by the student who will start by doubting the facts, set out to ascertain them beyond any reasonable doubt and then internalize them as true before he can use them to make claims, generalizations, conclusions, inferences etc as a way of applying the knowledge that results from the facts (Russell, 2007). Let’s consider another area of knowledge other than science. Mathematics is such an area of knowledge. Mathematics has often been seen as a logical science or well still, a branch of logic. This then calls for the definition of logic so as to shed light into the real nature of mathematics. Logic may be taken to refer to the formal science of reasoning that embraces the criteria for testing validity of inference and demonstration. Mathematics being a branch of logic, embraces the practice of inference more often than not as a way of validity installation. Mathematics often deals with abstracts represented in terms of facts or axioms. The facts and axioms have a way of verification. Through this emphasis on verification of facts, mathematics presentation has been that of standard precision and certainty. However, this presentation has been received as a mere illusion with the question of how the truth of mathematical propositions can be established ringing in many a mind. Another question that has claimed popularity is how the abstract knowledge of mathematics can be applied in today’s real life. In the marriage of mathematics into logic, one thing has been stated: Mathematical prepositions are a priori which can only be verified by logical proof (Creighton, 2000). Mathematics as a logical science is build by a number of facts, propositions, axioms etc. The accumulation of these facts, axioms and propositions with time makes mathematics. However, the accumulation of these facts alone is not sufficient to define the scope of mathematics. The student needs to not only know the facts and propositions but to also verify them logically. This logical verification is mathematics. Dealing with facts that can be verified to be true is an epistemological ideal. As stated earlier, knowledge is constituted of facts that can be verified to be true. As Russsel stated, the practice of methodic doubt should be applied. In fact, Russel advices one to doubt everything that comes to mind except the fact that he/she is doubting i.e. doubt everything but the fact that you are doubting. Doubt removes uncertainty and establishes facts, principles, axioms etc as true. It is only after verification of these facts that knowledge is gained. In this way knowledge becomes the product of doubt. Therefore, the logical verifications of the mathematical proposition is a central aspect of mathematics and a mere accumulation of propositions or facts is not. The most important thing is the fact whether the facts can be verified. For example, if you see an equation such as 1+1=2, this constitutes a fact in mathematics. This and many more facts make mathematics which can be useless if the facts can not be verified logically. Who said that 1+1=2? Can’t it be 11? Such are questions involved in methodic doubt that leads to the logical verification to the truthfulness of the axiom or proposition (Friedrich etal, 1952) Therefore, in conclusion, accumulation of facts, principles, hypotheses, concepts alone doesn’t make an area of knowledge. Only the verifiable facts, principles, hypotheses, concepts can make up an area of knowledge. Every area of knowledge has its own method of verifying what is held to be true. Ways of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that what is held as truth is indeed the truth. Therefore, the students in any given area of knowledge need to be familiar with the methods of verifying what they hold as true. Knowing a thing is not the issue, verifying its validity is. The students should also be encouraged not to accept facts without ascertaining their truth. This has been the greatest problem in the practice of the theory of knowledge in that students only memorize facts without paying attention to prove of truthfulness of the facts. This memorization of these facts assumes that the accumulation of facts make up an area of knowledge which is not the case. References Lehrer, K, (2000) Theory of Knowledge: Second Edition West view Press p.10 Macdonald, F.C, (2000) Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. New York. Routledge, p.15 Friedrich R, Hoernlé A. & Robinson D.S, (1952) Studies in Philosophy California Allen & Unwin, Publishers p.3 Russell B, (2007) The Problems of Philosophy Biblio Bazaar Publishers p.109 Creighton, J.E, (2000) An Introductory Logic Adamant Media Corporation p.1 Bird, A, (1998) Philosophy of Science McGill-Queens University Press. p.1 Read More