Is It Possible to Have Ideology-Free Knowledge - Assignment Example

It is possible to have ideology-free knowledge Student’s Name Number Course Code Course Date It is possible to have ideology-free knowledge. Discuss this statement Introduction Several authors find themselves submerged in the ontological idea of information and data. However, they fail to show where knowledge starts as well as the independent form it takes inside the information-bound viewpoints. In the present formation of knowledge, the idea of information is acknowledged as earlier formulated and improved by information experts. After minor changes to the former definition of knowledge, it is proposed that, the initial point of a course along which information and knowledge takes place is knowledge and not information or data. The kind of knowledge possessed by individuals originates from the mind of human beings, where sensorial contributions are grouped, and where observable distortions are adjoined to produce the basic components of knowledge (Geisler 2008, p.12). By referring to the works of a number of authors, this paper will present a discussion on whether it is possible for people to have knowledge that is ideology-free. Origin of Knowledge According to Geisler (2008, p.13), the cognitive mind’s processes wherein sensorial inputs like sound and taste from human senses are grouped into knowledge totally differ from the present notion of information getting converted into knowledge. Relatively, human beings posses the capacity to transfer, share and write down the knowledge they posses in a mode that can benefit others. The written down and shared type of knowledge can be referred to as information, but the source of its ontology and appearance is that knowledge which is gathered in the human mind from inputs derived from the senses. Such inputs cannot be referred to as data because they do not match the definition of data. Data is defined as representations of ideas or facts, whereas inputs from the senses are very crude type of cognitive transformation of inputs from internal as well as external surroundings. Geisler (2008, p.13), further maintains that, efforts to explain the way data amalgamates into knowledge and into information have been mostly unsuccessful. When the method is turned round and knowledge is perceived as the preliminary ontology which is created by the mind, then information and data constructs become artificial ideologies that are reliant upon the procedures through which individuals diffuse, exchange and share knowledge. Information and data are thus the knowledge’s reification being conveyed from one person to another. There is only one way in the through which knowledge is formed in the mind, which is through conversion of sensorial indications into clusters. Such clusters then make the elemental units or nuggets of knowledge. Even though the presence of a stream of chronological occurrences such as data to information to wisdom is a striking construct, after the reversal of the course of the stream and knowledge becomes the preliminary construct which is generated, a stream of notions becomes unnecessary. From the above point of view, it is very clear that knowledge can be acquired without the presence of any ideology. This is because; the generation of knowledge is possible with exclusive dependency on sensorial signals. On the contrary, whether the stream obeys principles of complexity or temporal merit, such a stream is an irrelevant and superfluous explanation of how human knowledge is transferred and shared (Geisler 2008, p.14). Culture and History as components of Knowledge What people consider real or true is at all times an outcome of the historical period and culture in which they exist. However, it is through practising the sociological thoughts that people see what they know as true today such as nature laws and the causes and medication of certain illnesses, since not every individual everywhere will view it as true or it may be substituted by dissimilar truths in the future. For instance, some people in certain culture consider the reality of witches, demons and spirits as a usual thing while people in other cultures dismiss it as fanciful. Ideas concerning reality also keep on changing over time. For instance, a doctor in the 1990 might have advised an asthma patient to get a cigarette from a local vendor of tobacco, while at the present, cigarette is considered to be very harmful to asthmatic people (Newman 2008, p.53). Newman (2008, p.54) asserts that, the procedure through which knowledge, truth, facts among others are invented, made known, altered and reaffirmed by the society’s members is known as the social creation of reality. This idea is founded on the mere supposition that, knowledge is created by human beings. Sarcastically, a bigger percentage of individuals lead their lives supposing that, a purposeful reality exists, autonomous from them and can be accessed through their senses. Nevertheless, what people sometimes term as real appears to have no relation with what their senses say is real. Thus, reality often becomes a fact of agreement rather than something that exists in the innate world. Sociologists, mainly those operating from the symbolic interactionism and conflict perspective, strive to describe the social creation of reality in relation to its sources and consequences. From the argument presented by Newman, it is evident that, what people know or believe to be real depends on the existing cultures and history in the environments that they grow in. it is also dependent on what those around them like parents, physicians, new reporters and scientists say. It can thus be said that, knowledge and reality are dependent on existing ideologies. According to Berger & Luckman (1971, p.14), the sociological comprehension of knowledge and reality falls at some point between a philosopher and a street man. The former is professionally obliged to assume and take maximum clearness regarding the final position on what the street man considers as knowledge and reality. On the other side, the street man does not bother himself about what he believes to be real as well as what he knows except when stopped by some kind of problem. Sociological interest concerning questions of knowledge and reality is thus primarily validated by their social relativity’s fact. What may be factual to a Tibetan priest might not be factual to a businessman in America. Therefore, specific agglomerations of knowledge and reality relate to particular social contexts and those relationships ought to be incorporated in a sufficient evaluation of the contexts. It is thus wound up that, knowledge’s sociology should link itself with anything that is considered as knowledge in the society, irrespective of the eventual invalidity or validity of that knowledge. This clearly indicates that, whatever knowledge is learned or acquired from individuals regarding different aspects of life, originates from the existing beliefs and ideologies in the individuals’ society (Berger & Luckman 1971, p.15). Jones (2002, p.25) maintains that, preconception is a strong force. People smack against it as professional communities, entire societies and individuals. Once they have settled on an opinion regarding what is true, even the highly trained and conscientious individuals find their thoughts flowing to match their opinion. People depart very fast from what seems like supporting proof and ignore proof to the opposite. If such preconceptions relate to something that is so important like their society’s health or children’s welfare, they may even furiously resist conflicting information since they fear it may weaken their decision in doing what is best. Freudian ideas on sexuality in the nineteenth century have been used as the foundations of fresh preconception in the subsequent decades, which led to dangerous misinterpretations by psychiatrists and doctors of childhood abnormal behaviour. From here it is apparent that, individuals’ knowledge and interpretation of certain situations in their lives is to a very big extent related to past preconceptions and beliefs regarding such situations. Drawing from Gordon (1995, p.635), the view that social sciences ought to be judged with reference to natural sciences remains the most famous topic in the study of social science’s philosophy. This reflects the opinion that there exists an element of scientific technique and that, natural sciences’ practices form the standards that social sciences ought to conform. Considerable doubt continues regarding the scientific merits of social sciences. Science philosophers and practitioners of social disciplines keep on questioning the epistemic basis, some criticizing social scientists as failing to follow the established methodology of science. What is actually being implied here is that, it is only through following laid down scientific methods and criteria that credible knowledge about phenomena can be obtained. Conclusion From the above discussion, it can be said that, it is almost impossible to have ideology-free knowledge. Knowledge originates from sensorial inputs in the mind of human beings and information and data is considered to be dependent on such inputs. However, the explanation given to the flow of knowledge is considered irrelevant. The type of knowledge acquired by individuals and beliefs about truth depends on their historical period and existing culture. Knowledge and reality has a direct relationship with individuals’ particular social contexts. Past preconceptions and beliefs regarding certain situations are used in interpreting similar situations in real life. Adoption of scientific methods in studying social phenomena is considered the only way of acquiring credible knowledge. In other words, reality and knowledge are not independent of past and existing ideologies in the society. References Berger, P & Luckman, T 1971, The Social Construction of Reality, Harmondsworth, Penguin. Geisler, E 2008, Knowledge and Knowledge Systems: Learning from the Wonders of the Mind, New York, IGI Publishing. Gordon, S 1995, The History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences, London, Routledge. Jones, G 2002, Killing Monsters, New York, Basic Books. Newman, DM 2008, Building reality: the social construction of knowledge, Los Angeles, Pine Forge Press. Read More

There is only one way in the through which knowledge is formed in the mind, which is through conversion of sensorial indications into clusters. Such clusters then make the elemental units or nuggets of knowledge. Even though the presence of a stream of chronological occurrences such as data to information to wisdom is a striking construct, after the reversal of the course of the stream and knowledge becomes the preliminary construct which is generated, a stream of notions becomes unnecessary. From the above point of view, it is very clear that knowledge can be acquired without the presence of any ideology.

This is because; the generation of knowledge is possible with exclusive dependency on sensorial signals. On the contrary, whether the stream obeys principles of complexity or temporal merit, such a stream is an irrelevant and superfluous explanation of how human knowledge is transferred and shared (Geisler 2008, p.14). Culture and History as components of Knowledge What people consider real or true is at all times an outcome of the historical period and culture in which they exist. However, it is through practising the sociological thoughts that people see what they know as true today such as nature laws and the causes and medication of certain illnesses, since not every individual everywhere will view it as true or it may be substituted by dissimilar truths in the future.

For instance, some people in certain culture consider the reality of witches, demons and spirits as a usual thing while people in other cultures dismiss it as fanciful. Ideas concerning reality also keep on changing over time. For instance, a doctor in the 1990 might have advised an asthma patient to get a cigarette from a local vendor of tobacco, while at the present, cigarette is considered to be very harmful to asthmatic people (Newman 2008, p.53). Newman (2008, p.54) asserts that, the procedure through which knowledge, truth, facts among others are invented, made known, altered and reaffirmed by the society’s members is known as the social creation of reality.

This idea is founded on the mere supposition that, knowledge is created by human beings. Sarcastically, a bigger percentage of individuals lead their lives supposing that, a purposeful reality exists, autonomous from them and can be accessed through their senses. Nevertheless, what people sometimes term as real appears to have no relation with what their senses say is real. Thus, reality often becomes a fact of agreement rather than something that exists in the innate world. Sociologists, mainly those operating from the symbolic interactionism and conflict perspective, strive to describe the social creation of reality in relation to its sources and consequences.

From the argument presented by Newman, it is evident that, what people know or believe to be real depends on the existing cultures and history in the environments that they grow in. it is also dependent on what those around them like parents, physicians, new reporters and scientists say. It can thus be said that, knowledge and reality are dependent on existing ideologies. According to Berger & Luckman (1971, p.14), the sociological comprehension of knowledge and reality falls at some point between a philosopher and a street man.

The former is professionally obliged to assume and take maximum clearness regarding the final position on what the street man considers as knowledge and reality. On the other side, the street man does not bother himself about what he believes to be real as well as what he knows except when stopped by some kind of problem. Sociological interest concerning questions of knowledge and reality is thus primarily validated by their social relativity’s fact. What may be factual to a Tibetan priest might not be factual to a businessman in America.

Therefore, specific agglomerations of knowledge and reality relate to particular social contexts and those relationships ought to be incorporated in a sufficient evaluation of the contexts.

Read More