The Various Areas of Knowledge and Ways of Knowing - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: “There are only Two Ways in which Mankind can Produce Knowledge: Through Passive Observation or Through Active Experimentation.” Introduction We all claim to know a lot of things to an extent of considering some forms of knowledge such as what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or that there are nine planets in the universe as common sense. We never care to question how we acquire such knowledge and its impact on our worldview. The theory of knowledge is crucial in helping us to understand how we acquire such knowledge and how to substantiate our knowledge claims. The question asks us to explore whether there are other ways in which mankind can produce knowledge other than through passive observation and active experimentation. I will take passive observation to mean knowledge acquired through discovery but in which the knower do not influence the phenomenon they are studying. Active experimentation is whereby the knower participates in creating or producing knowledge. The title presupposes that humankind can only discover or create knowledge. I am going to argue that there are different approaches to produce knowledge in addition to passive observation and active experimentation as evidenced by the various areas of knowledge and ways of knowing. In order to understand whether we discover or create knowledge and whether there are other ways of producing knowledge, first we need to understand what knowledge is. Lagemaat (2015, 23) defines knowledge as “justified true belief” (Lagemaat, 2015, 23). From this definition, arise three concepts that need explaining: truth, belief and justification. Truth is what distinguishes knowledge from belief. People hold many beliefs depending on their cultures some of which are superstitious hence not everything that people believe is knowledge. For example, the Greeks believed in myths such as odyssey to explain extraordinary events such as earthquakes. Such beliefs even if the Greeks considered them true cannot be true and as such are not knowledge. For it to be considered as knowledge what one claims to know must be true otherwise, it may be true or false. Since we cannot be 100 percent sure that what we know is true, a degree of certainty is acceptable hence something is true beyond reasonable doubt (Stuart, 2000). Belief is to believe what you claim to know as true is true (Stuart, 2000). It is having confidence or strong conviction that what you claim to know is true. For example, if you hold the truth that telling lies is wrong, then you should have the conviction to say that you know that it is true. For Lagemaat, belief and knowledge lay in a continuum ranging from the impossible to certainty hence there is no large difference between the two (2015, 25). As regards truth and belief, truth is the objective requirement for knowledge whereas belief is the subjective requirement. Beliefs can also be vague, well supported or beyond reasonable doubt. This is common in courts of justice whereby lawyers and prosecutors claim to prove their cases beyond reasonable doubt that the victim is guilty or not guilty and judge uses the same criteria when delivering rulings. The judge must have strong evidence to reach such a conclusion but cannot be sure if the evidence is 100 percent true. A discovery of one piece of evidence may change the direction of the ruling. Believing beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily mean we know. A belief must be “justified in the right kind of way” to be considered as knowledge (Lagemaat, 2015, 26). This is through the eight ways of knowing: emotion, intuition, sense perception, imagination, faith, language, reason, and memory. A justified belief depends on reliability and context and it involves taking responsibility for the truth of the claim. We can divide knowledge into acquaintance, practical and description knowledge. Acquaintance knowledge is acquired first-hand through perceptual experience; practical knowledge is through learning skills whilst description knowledge is second-hand information gained through language (Stuart, 2000). Knowledge can also be personal or shared. After understanding what knowledge is, the big question that needs answering is; how do we produce this knowledge? Is it through passive observation or active experimentation or are there other forms of knowledge? Where does a priori knowledge most talked about by Immanuel Kant lie? As stated earlier, in passive observation knowledge exists in its own right, as the knower does not play a part in producing it. In the human sciences, which involve observing phenomena or behaviour of individuals and making policy recommendations, most of the knowledge is acquired through passive observation. The researcher goes to the field, observes the behaviour of individuals, records data or conducts experiments in the lab but has no control over the results (Lagemaat 2015, 376-386). For example, in economics, researchers have discovered demand characteristics by studying the behaviour of buyers in market situations and recording what they observe through sense perception way of knowing. By tracing the data over period, they discover that buyers buy more when price is low. In this case, the researchers do not have an impact on what they are studying. Empiricism claims that the mind is a blank slate and that all our ideas come from senses. Empirical observation, which is the main method of human sciences, relies on sense perception. Sense perception involves acquiring knowledge through the five senses (Lagemaat, 2015, 117). Knowledge produced through passive observation using sense perception may be criticised in that sometimes it is hard to differentiate appearance from reality. Some researchers may choose what they want to see and disregard what they actually see or interpret what they see based on their beliefs leading to biased information (Lagemaat, 2015). Rationalists also argue that senses cannot be trusted. For example, Rene Descartes even doubted his own existence until he realised that he was thinking so he must be existing. Moreover, language is used to interpret what we see and if we do not have a concept for the phenomenon observed, then it is hard to know if what we think we know is knowledge. For example, for those who are colour blind, it is hard for them to distinguish appearance and reality. Knowledge in human sciences can also be produced through active experimentation when researchers engage fully with participants. The researcher gains acquaintance knowledge by living among the subjects he/she is studying, interacting with them, directly observing and experiencing knowledge first-hand. The researcher thus engages actively with participants to create knowledge. Another way is through experiments whereby the researcher manipulates the subjects thus affecting the outcome of what they are studying such as in the Milgram experiments. Natural sciences on the other hand, involve both discovery and creativity. The scientific method uses reasoning as well as empirical observation (Lagemaat, 2015, 347). First, scientists come up with hypothesis which they then test using empirical observation in order to generalise phenomena. For example, to check whether proposition that ‘all swans are white’ is true, scientists empirically observe swans and this is passive observation, as they cannot change what they are studying. They engage in inductive reasoning (active experimentation) to come up with general principle. Karl Popper however, refutes this claim and advocates the hypothetico-deductive method. Popper argues that scientific theories should be falsifiable; that is, instead of using specific principle to generalise conclusion, they should start with general principle to come up with specific conclusions. As such, instead of confirming the hypothesis, falsifiability requires the scientists to falsify it by observing phenomena (Lagemaat, 2015, 358). Sometimes active experimentation results in a scientific revolution or paradigm shifts as Thomas Kuhn calls it. For example, the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview was replaced by Einstein’s relativity. This does not only occur in natural sciences but also in human sciences. An example is replacement of Say’s law in economics by Keynesians who were later replaced by monetarists or the behavioural psychologists who were replaced by cognitive psychologists. In addition to passive observation and active experimentation, we do have other ways of producing knowledge. In religious studies, people or masters claim to discover knowledge through revelations from divine beings (Stuart, 2000). This knowledge acquired through faith or intuition cannot be considered as either passive observation or active experimentation. For example, the Buddha and Qigong masters claim to learn from the divine through revelation with aim of achieving enlightenment. This is to be achieved through discipline and meditation. They engage in neither empirical observation nor active experimentation to gain this knowledge. Intuition is innate knowledge (Lagemaat, 2015, 199) thus is not produced either way. It is a priori knowledge hence no discovery or creativity is involved in acquiring it. In ethics area of knowledge, knowing what is right or wrong does not entail active experimentation. Some behaviour such as telling lies or murder are wrong as per moral principles. However, when we consider moral relativism whereby each culture has its own view of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (Lagemaat, 2015, 475), a researcher can gain knowledge through passive observation or actively engaging with different tribes to get to understand their view of the world. Conclusion In this essay, I have argued that there are other ways of producing knowledge in addition to passive observation and active experimentation. Passive observation entails discovery without the knower affecting knowledge production whereas in active experimentation, the knower actively engages in creation of knowledge. These two methods are most apparent in human sciences and natural sciences, which engage in empirical observation and deductive and inductive reasoning. Areas of knowledge such as ethics and religious studies that rely much on intuition, emotions and faith may not necessarily involve discovery or creation of knowledge; rather, they rely on a priori knowledge. References Lagemaat Richard Van De (2015), Theory of knowledge for the IB diploma, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stuart, Tony (2000), Regarding the world: a primer for TOK, UK: Sevenoaks School. Read More