Ways of Knowing: Facts and Interpretations - Essay Example

Is it an oversimplification to claim that some Ways of Knowing give us facts while other provide interpretations? There are too many ways of knowingthat a thinking person can apply in various situations and condition, such that out of these different ways may lead him to either factual or interpretative findings. Man is susceptible to learning and to knowledge acquisition, since the world where we move always introduces something that makes each cells of the mind to an exploratory journey. It could be a product of a thorough examination and investigation that lead to getting factual data, or an intuitive approach wherein he tries to interpret something which in some manner is not factual but interpretative. There are ways of knowing that conclusively, gives facts for the benefit of those who seek for knowledge. And there are ways of knowing that leads only to interpretation. The role of a person is to distinguish the margin line between fact and interpretation. When we say fact, it is something that actually exists, and it is independent of our mind. In contrast, interpretation is anything conceived through one’s idea or judgment. Therefore, more often it is opinionated. Sometimes, interpretations from a wordy person seems to make things as concrete as possible, therefore, making a presumption to appear as tangible facts. It is not an oversimplification to tell that some ways of knowing give us facts and others interpretation. This is rather a statement or a conclusion that tries to introduce the implication and the result of different ways of knowing to acquisition of knowledge and truth. Start paying attention to the differences between facts and interpretations provides us clear understanding of how ways of knowing can lead to either the discovery of the fact or to interpretation. We can draw examples from real situations and discussions to prove this. For example, with respect to natural sciences, everything that they are trying to present is mostly through the empirical approach. That means in order to arrive to a certain conclusion; it will require a scientist to put himself in an investigation and data gathering. This is being done in order to get the most correct and accurate information derived from facts. Kerlinger (1973) describes science as, “a combination of experience and reason”. Basically, approach in natural sciences is not mainly of empirical approach. Hypothesis comes first before the actual data gathering. The claim of Kerlinger describing science as a combination of experience and reason is valid. The actual experience or the experimentation process (if the empirical approach applied experimentation) is the key factor of finding out a certain finding. These finding generates a concrete reason or facts. However, empirical approach is not the only way of knowing. Kerlinger again regarded that most of the things in science are out of instinct. Instinct is one way of knowing. And sometimes, when instinct plays to the query, interpretation or fallible theories came. Let us give an example. Long before the invention of telescope, people make theories about the universe. As they perceive the earth is the center of the universe and all heavenly bodies’ orbits this blue planet. That is the Ptolemaic astronomy which has become an authoritative astronomic explanation for such a long time. They do not have sufficient materials and technology to prove or disprove Ptolemy’s explanation. Therefore, his hypothesis gained the support of many people including the Catholic Church (Toomer, G. J. and Owen, G., 1998). Until such time when a certain Copernicus (1473-1543) came trying to disprove the theories of Ptolemy. Eventually, his idea was rejected by the Catholic Church. They also condemned the astronomer Galileo (1564 -1642) for supporting the hypothesis of Copernicus (Hine, W., 1973). They make an assumption that the astronomers’ claims contradict the belief of the Catholic Church. It is not in their knowledge, that Galileo has made his first invention of the telescope which made him conclude and support Copernicus’ heliocentric theory. With the use of his telescope, he was able to make an actual observation of the phasing of the planets and disproved the Ptolemaic Astronomy. This instance gives us a comprehensive idea on how the ways of knowing is essential to knowledge quest. The fact remains fact independent to how we can interpret things, and truth is out of actual findings and not to the theoretical content or interpretation alone. It has been a critical issue raised by E. L. Williams (1995) when he is trying to tell the difficulty of interpretation. He stressed out that facts should be accepted as facts void of interpretations. Williams said that;   “The human mind is ever asking questions--often questions beyond its own power to answer. It pursues meanings to the bitter end. Man is not content to accept facts without pressing an answer on every possible meaning of every fact.” This is the mere reason why interpretations came. When man is no longer able to find answers to his questions, the tendency is to draw interpretations which might not be leading to the facts. If the astronomical technology did not improve, then probably we would just be caged to the interpretation that the earth is the center of the universe. Fallible theories are often solved when essential facts came, and the best way that it could be achieved is not to depend on theories alone but to actual science related findings. And it would not stop there. As the modern technology improves, it provides more gates to greater discoveries that may concretize or disprove previously gathered findings. Oftentimes, ways of knowing are associated with personal experiences and insight, faith and belief or those that are connected with science and the philosophy. Charles Pierce, a philosopher, structured a way by which knowledge or truth could be determined by a person and those surrounding criteria that lead to its discovery. He developed it into four methods, which are, (1) method of tenacity, (2) method of authority, (3) method of intuition and (4) the scientific method. The method of tenacity speaks about truth based on a certain individual or group. By this, way of knowing the truth could be out of introspection, empathy or by acquainting with others. The second is the method of authority, wherein truth is established through a long-term established source. It could be God, men’s tradition or any laws formulated. The third one is the method of intuition which is more prone to interpretation. The fourth one, which is the scientific method, in quest of knowledge is the most comprehensive approach of defining and searching for the truth, with results that could be subjected to other’s re-verification and most of all, self correcting. Kerlinger said, that scientific research is, “a systematic, controlled, empirical, and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among natural phenomena.” We can establish the differences why ways of knowing could be leading in the discovery of the truth of to the interpretations. For example if the way of knowing used is out of method of tenacity, the given fact is one that a person claims to be true may not be true to others. For example, we say that a certain food might be causing a particular disease. This claim might be true to a certain group of people, but not true to the other group since they might have different reaction to the environment. A person should not eat crab because it might not be good could only be true to those person who have an allergy to crab. But this statement would not be true to those who do not have any allergic reaction to eating crab. In the method of authority and in the method of intuition, wherein most of the issues about ethics and religion comes out, the problem is about the preconceived ideas that a person (who are acknowledge as valid sources) have. He might not be teaching facts but instead his own intuition or interpretation of certain aspects (like in religion) that tends to bar the door to the gates of knowledge. To point out particularly, the condemnation of Galileo’s support to heliocentric theory motivated by the Church’s authorities wrong interpretation. Knowing indeed is a perceptual task, and the main foundation of knowing should determine the validity of what is being known. Wald (1998) said, To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be one that recognizes both sides of reality — the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical — as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously. It would be most satisfactory if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as the complementary aspects of the same reality. In short, in achieving knowledge, the essence is whether we check both sides of reality- our mind for our reasons and the real world for facts. If we know that ways of knowing may lead to interpretation, the more we can make a directional approach in determining the truth and getting the facts. By then we will be able to avoid non-essential theories or interpretations. Works Cited: Cohen, M., & Nagel, E. (1934). An introduction to logic and scientific method. New York: Harcourt. Williams, E. L. The Problem of Interpretation. Provocative Pamphlets No. 10. Melbourne: Federal Literature Committee of Churches of Christ in Australia, 1955. Toomer, G. J., and Gingrich, O. Eds. Ptolemys Almagest. Annotated. Princeton University Press, 1998 Hine, W. Mersenne and Copernicanism . Identifiers Isis, volume 64, page 18. 1973. The History of Science Society, 1973. Kerlinger, F. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, (1973. Read More