With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.
English philosopher and physicist John
Locke once said, “No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience”.
Similar to John Locke’s quotation, the TOK guide broadly outlines personal
knowledge as ‘depending crucially on the experiences of a particular individual’.
This essay shall understand personal knowledge as that which is obtained
through personal experience and perspective (such as emotions, perceptions,
memories etc.). Shared knowledge is described within the TOK guide as ‘highly
structured, systematic in its nature and the product of more than one individual.’
I understand shared knowledge to be a socio-cultural knowledge, involving the
values and cultural norms within a knowledge system. With regards to the
overarching knowledge question “In what ways does shared knowledge shape
personal knowledge?” many examples will be explored in the AOK’s ‘Indigenous
knowledge systems’ and ‘the Arts’. The impact of prior knowledge when
determining one’s emotional response to a work of art, along with the contrasting
perceptions within Indigenous tribes, demonstrate the influence of shared
knowledge over personal knowledge. Focusing firstly on Indigenous knowledge
systems, Psychologists studying some systems have begun to speculate that the
previous assumption that psychology was merely the observation of universal
aspects of human beings may be incorrect. It is based on these recent findings
that I can both construct, and focus on answering my first knowledge question; “How
is sense perception affected by our cultural background?”
In a study regarding the cultural effects
on visual illusion, psychologists have discovered a strange phenomenon when
testing a group of indigenous tribesman known as the Murray Islanders of
Melanesia. In what was previously
thought to serve as evidence towards human’s universal perceptions, the
‘Müller-Lyer’ optical illusion failed to reproduce those results typical of
other studies when used to test the Murray people[1].
The test involves asking subjects to guess
which of the two lines is longer. There is a common misconception between test-subjects
that the bottom line is longer than the top, however, the correct answer is
that the two lines are of equal length. When used to test the Murray people,
almost none of the indigenous tribe members were mislead by the illusion. This new evidence suggests that perception is
not a universal aspect of human beings, but instead affected by the cultural
environment in which a human is raised. How is this possible? The carpentered
environment hypothesis attempts to explain this phenomenon as a passive development
of the brain based on ones physical surroundings.
Psychologist Takahida Masuda argues that because
the more industrialized western civilization heavily bases its infrastructure on
a variety of lines and angles, an individual’s perception is founded on such environments.
Because westernized rooms, houses and furniture consist primarily of vertical
and horizontal lines, the people living within these environments associate
acute angles (such as the corner of a coffee table) to be closer objects whereas
obtuse angles (such as the joining of two walls and a celling) appear somewhat
farther away. This hypothesis demonstrates not only the way in which our
physical environment shapes our perceptions, but furthermore how shared
knowledge can directly shape our personal knowledge.
Another
prime example of this contrast in perceptional behavior can be seen in the
William Hudson experiment. The experiment involved the use of a picture
consisting of a tribal figure with a spear, an elephant and a gazelle. The
picture is shown to a test subject who must then indicate which animal the
tribesman is hunting.
Because the elephant is smaller, westerners
(myself included) perceive the picture in a three-dimensional light. This
perception of depth indicates that the elephant is, in fact, far off in the
distance, and it is the antelope that is being hunted by the tribesman. However,
when shown the same picture to children and illiterate laborers of an African
Bantu tribe, they perceive the picture to be strictly two-dimensional. Based on
a two-dimensional proximity, they believe the tribesman to be hunting the
elephant. Both the William Hudson experiment and Müller-Lyer illusion express
the ways in which shared knowledge within Indigenous knowledge systems
condition the visual perception of individual’s. Therefore, I have constructed
the knowledge claim, “The Indigenous knowledge system in which we are raised
shapes our visual sense perception” That being said, “To what extent is our
personal knowledge independent of our cultural upbringing?” A study of
identical twins in King’s College, London holds the answer to this knowledge
question.
Barbara and Christine Oliver[3] are only two the
7,000 individual twins being analyzed in King’s College twin studies unit. They
grew up in a similar environment, dressed exactly the same and were essentially
treated as two versions of the same person. Barbara states that her parents did
everything they could to accentuate their similarities. However, during their
adolescence in the 60’s, the differences in their personality traits began to
become more apparent. Barbara was more outgoing and self-confident, whereas
Christine was more introverted and self-conscious, even suffering from severe
depression. Professor Tim Spector, head of twin research at King’s College in
London, expresses that dissimilarity between identical twins is not uncommon. Barbara
and Christine’s differing characteristics are much like the thousands of other
twins being evaluated in Professor Spector’s study. The abundance of identical
twins with drastic personality differences serves as evidence to a scenario in
which our socio-cultural environment has limited influence over other elements
of our personal knowledge. If this influence were more dominant on our personal
knowledge, such differences simply would not exist. Based on this evidence I
have come to the conclusion, “The indigenous knowledge systems in which we are
raised have limited influence over our personal knowledge.” Now that we better
understand the ways in which shared knowledge can shape our view of our environment,
I am now able to use ‘the Arts’ (my second AOK) to demonstrate the ways in
which shared knowledge can alter our WOK emotion, (or emotional response), towards
our environment.
When viewing an artwork, our emotional response
depends heavily on the transfer of knowledge between the object and the
individual. When the transfer of knowledge is strictly one-sided, such as viewing
the artwork above with no initial knowledge of its creation, one’s emotional
response would consist almost entirely of personal knowledge. This personal
knowledge might include feelings of confusion and disorientation due to the
artwork’s abstract nature. However, after obtaining background knowledge of the
work, a deeper understanding of its creation and purpose may alter this
response and enrich our personal knowledge. The artwork above entitled ‘Las
Meninas (conjunct)’ is an example of cubism by Pablo Picasso. Cubism is an
early twentieth-century style and artistic movement in which images are shown
through a collection of different viewpoints using geometric shapes,
interlocking planes and collage[4]. Created in
1957, ‘Meninas’ is one of a series of fifty-eight paintings created by Picasso
as a reinterpretation and analysis of Diego Velázquez’s original painting by
the same name.
The image illustrates a young Infanta Margaret Theresa, daughter of King Philip IV of Spain, surrounded by an entourage of maids, two dwarfs and a dog. Picasso drew inspiration from Velázquez’s artwork, as ‘Las Meninas’ was one of the first, and arguably most influential paintings to question the relationship between ‘viewer and artist’. Some figures, including Velázquez himself, look out of the canvas towards the viewer, breaking the fourth wall, while others interact among themselves. A mirror behind Velázquez shows the upper bodies of King Philip and his wife, and suggests that they are outside the pictorial space in a position similar to where the viewer stands.
When I first came across Picasso’s remake
with no initial understanding of its origins, I perceived it to be a
frustratingly confusing mess of pretentiousness. I was only able to compare it
with my own personal perspective of what aesthetic beauty was, and thus failed
to see the deeper meaning. After my research, I was able to see Picasso’s
playful exploration of the many enigmatic viewpoints of Velázquez’s piece, such
as his portrayal of the mirrored profile of Velázquez’s face and the sideways
perspective of the stairs the man in the doorway climbs[6].
My confusion was replaced with appreciation and in hindsight my personal
knowledge was shaped by shared knowledge.
Beyond my personal experience, renowned designer
and public speaker Richard Seymour hosted a ‘TED TALK’ in which he discussed
our emotional response to beauty and how it’s shaped[7].
Within his discussion, he displayed an image and asked the audience to focus on
their initial emotional response.
Afterwards, he explained that the picture
was the last act of a little girl named Heidi before she passed away from
cancer of the spine. Immediately Seymour noticed a change in the audience and a
woman even began crying. The impact of shared knowledge on personal knowledge
is evident in this response of the woman and by others whom were less visual in
their emotional response.
In conclusion, shared knowledge shapes the
way perceive our environment. Whether our personal knowledge is shaped through
physical conditioning, as explained by the carpentered environment hypothesis,
or through deeper understanding, such as my and others changes in emotional
response to artwork, our socio-cultural background has a hand in the way we see
and feel about the world around us. Although personal knowledge can exist independently
of shared knowledge, as seen by the differences in personal knowledge between
twins, both shared and personal knowledge are enriched through their contact
with each other, case and point Picasso’s creation of ‘Las Meninas’.
Bibliography
"How Beauty Feels." Richard
Seymour:. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
Perception, Cultural Effects On Visual. Cultural
Effects on Visual Perception (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
McKie, Robin. "Why Do Identical Twins
End up Having Such Different Lives?" Theguardian. N.p., 2 June 2013. Web.
2 Mar. 2015.
Müller-Lyer Illusion. N.d. Wikipedia. Wikimedia.
Web. 2 Mar. 2015.
.
Hudson, W. (1960). Pictorial depth
perception in sub-cultural groups in Africa. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 183–208.
Picasso, Pablo. Las Meninas (conjunction).
1957. Museu Picasso, Barcelona.
Velázquez, Diego. Las Meninas. 1656. Museo
Del Prado, Madrid.
Heidi. Heidi's Photograph. N.d.
Https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_seymour_how_beauty_feels, n.p.
[1] General Social Survey, National Opinion Research Center (2000). [2] Hudson, W. (1960). Pictorial depth perception in sub-cultural groups in Africa. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 183–208. [3] McKie, Robin. "Why Do Identical Twins End up Having Such Different Lives?" Theguardian. N.p., 2 June 2013. Web. 2 Mar. 2015. [4] Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. . [5]Velázquez, Diego. Las Meninas. 1656. Museo Del Prado, Madrid. [6] See figure 3 [7] Link to video here: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_seymour_how_beauty_feels
With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in
which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge
Shared
knowledge has represented for thousands of years a mechanism of survival for
people living all around the globe. The body of knowledge accumulated by
ancestors and to which each generation contributed with its own discoveries and
wisdom, helped new generations to thrive in their environment. Shared knowledge
is defined as the set of beliefs, customs, values, ideas and philosophies which
are transmitted orally and in written from generation to generation, and may be
learnt in school, or acquired at home or from other members of the society. The
body of knowledge may change, or it may disappear, only to be replaced with
other pieces of information that take its place. However, shared knowledge
cannot exist without personal knowledge which is gained by each individual, by
means of experience, direct witnessing of events and phenomena, or by means of
internal reflection. However, the relationship between personal knowledge and
shared knowledge is a very complex one. It is clear that both types of
knowledge influence each other cyclically. However, in order to discuss the
manner in which shared knowledge influences personal knowledge, this relationship
must be explored from different perspectives. Thus, it would be interesting to explore
whether authentic moments of breakthrough exist at all, or everything that is
new is actually built upon pre-existing information. Related to the previous matter,
it would be interesting to explore what kind of knowledge is gained first.
The causality of the knowledge systems stands at the basis
of question about human evolution itself.
Thus, from birth both personal knowledge and shared knowledge help infants
to learn about the environment. Shared
knowledge helps people to learn how to thrive in their community, and create
the conditions through which new knowledge is learnt. The bulk of shared
knowledge determines the way in which people will look at new information, how
they will interpret it, and what kind of new knowledge they are able to
produce. By looking at ethics and human sciences, I will try to show that
shared knowledge creates personal knowledge, and it also influences the way new
knowledge is interpreted before it becomes personal knowledge.
Does shared knowledge create personal knowledge?
From the perspective of human sciences, the sociological
experiment conducted by Zimbardo is a good example of the same claim that
shared knowledge is able to create personal knowledge. In this experiment, a
group of Stanford university students were asked to play guards and prisoners
in a simulation of the prison environment (Banks & Zimbardo 5). Although
they were ordinary students, in a matter of days, the students took on the
roles of prisoners and of guards. What Zimbardo and Banks noticed, was that the
prisoners and the guards adopted stereotypical behaviour of what they
identified as the quintessential guard and prisoners – they played a role (13).
This means that they used shared knowledge on the prisoner and guard roles,
behaviour and attitudes, most probably from the media, to create their own prisoner
and guard identity, which led to the accumulation of new personal knowledge on
the topic. Therefore, it may be argued that all personal knowledge is created
by means of familiarity with shared knowledge. For example, for an inventor to
give birth to a new device, she must base her discovery on already acquired
knowledge in the sciences. It may
therefore be reasonable to argue that authentic moments of breakthrough do not
exist, because everything must be based upon pre-existing shared knowledge.
Even more what often seem to be authentic moments of
creativity may also simply represent the work of memory which gathers
previously acquired information and applies it to the current situation. For example, author Roger Schank (4) describes
a situation in which he asked a group of graduate students to explain why a
competition horse named “Swale” had died. The students used their imagination
to construct different scenarios, such as murder plots or stress. However, the author concluded that what
seemed to be new explanations actually were merely “rewrites of existing
stories in memory”. Therefore, from this perspective, it may seem that
imagination itself, a way of knowing often associated with personal knowledge,
may represent in fact the reinterpretation of information from the body of
shared knowledge, to fit new situations. This also appears to be the idea held
by Schank, when he writes that “understanding the world means explaining what
has happened in it in a way that seems consonant with what you already believe”(5). In other words, in moments of creativity,
when people generally tend to use their imagination as a way of knowledge, the
persons whose mind is filled with information, stories and ideas, has to decide
which fits best in a given situation (Schank 5).
It
may be claimed however that paradigm shifts in the history of mankind contradict
the above claim. Paradigm shifts represent fundamental changes in a system of
beliefs as a result of ground-breaking new information that is proved to be
true beyond doubt. For example, Einstein’s development of the theory of
relativity in the first half of the 20th century replaced the 200 years-old
authority of the Newtonian classical mechanics.
Einstein developed the theory of relativity by experimenting and by using
his reason and his peers did not accept it at first. This is a case of new
knowledge which needed to be tested first, before being accepted as part of the
scientific body of shared knowledge which would further inform other scientists
for years to come. Of course however, his theory of relativity did not evolve
in a void, and it is based on his pre-existed knowledge of physics.
Does shared knowledge influence the way new information is
perceived before it becomes personal knowledge?
New knowledge may be acquired by means of sense perception
or emotion. Sense perception gives infants ideas about the world around from
the moment that they are born. They are able to acquire new information by
means of seeing, hearing, or touching elements of the surrounding environment.
However, sense perception is a limited way of knowing because our senses are
limited. For example, one cannot distinguish organisms as little as bacteria,
but most children learn from very early on that bacteria do exist. Therefore,
shared knowledge helps to overcome the limitations of the senses. In addition, small children construct meaning
upon perceptions by means of shared knowledge. From an ethical perspective,
this is the way that the children’s knowledge of right and wrong is formed.
Therefore, for example, a child may witness a certain violent situation but
they must be taught whether what they experience first-hand, their ‘new’
knowledge of the world, is right or wrong. Their parents teach their children depending
on their own knowledge on the deed. In an article suggestively called “parents
must teach children right and wrong”, author Vera Bauder argues that children
cannot learn, for example, that speeding on the highway is wrong if their
parents do not teach them that it is illegal (7). Therefore, each new piece of
information about the world of children is shaped by shared knowledge that
children learn from tutors, parents, and other adults. When accumulating
personal knowledge by means of the senses or by means of emotion, children
interpret it by means of their shared knowledge. In addition, shared knowledge
shapes their understanding because it influences on their bias and their
perspective.
From the perspective of human sciences, human societies have
always interpreted new information from the perspective of their shared
knowledge on the topic. For example, a psychological phenomenon such as
sleepwalking would be interpreted differently depending on the shared knowledge
of the community about the topic. I once walked in my sleep and my mother found
me. However, even though she was scared, she remembered the information she had
on sleepwalking and did not woke me up, but rather, she helped me to get back in
bed. However, the next day she took me to the doctor, who concluded that I had
been very tired. Therefore, my mother witnessed this type of behaviour for the
first time, but her memory helped her to interpret it from the perspective of
shared knowledge as a potential psychological condition and she took me to the
doctor. In other cultures, sleepwalking may be interpreted differently,
depending on the people’s shared knowledge on the topic.
Of course, it may be argued that people cannot always rely
on shared knowledge in order to interpret new information. For example, in
trying to deal with a new kind of crime, such as the first cyberattack in
history which occurred when Robert Morris developed the first computer worm in
1989 (Julian), the researchers had to use their reason in order to develop new
security systems to deal with this new kind of threat. Their pioneering work represented the basis of
cybersecurity which has an important world in many countries’ national security
today. Therefore, the personal knowledge
they developed through experimentation and experience contributed to the body
of shared knowledge in the field.
Shared knowledge
influences human life from its very beginning.
From the smallest to the greatest discoveries, people need shared
knowledge to interpret and even to create new knowledge. Although by means of
sense perception, emotion, or reason, we may be able to gain new knowledge, we
are only able to interpret it through the framework of our societies’ shared
knowledge, before it can even become personal knowledge. It may therefore be inferred that even though
authentic new knowledge does exist, shared knowledge is gained before personal
knowledge, because we need the body of previously agreed –upon ‘truths’ to
interpret and accumulate personal knowledge.
Works Cited
Bauder, Vera. “Parents Must Teach Children Right and Wrong”.
Kingston Whig-Standard. 1998. Web.
Haney, Craig and Zimbardo, Phillip. “A Study of Prisoners
and Guards in a Simulated Environment”. Naval Research Reviews. 1973. Web.
Julian, Ted. “Defining Moments in the History of
Cyber-Security and the Rise of Incident Response”. Infosecurity Magazine. N.d.
Web.
Schank, Roger C. & Abelson, Robert P. Knowledge and
Memory: The Real Story. Robert S. Wyer, Jr (ed) Knowledge and
Memory: The Real Story. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. 1995. Print. 1-85
“Ways of Knowing are a check on our
instinctive judgements.”
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Instinctive judgements are the first response
of individuals to any given situation, may it be a question or even an extreme
scenario like a physical confrontation. Such intuitive behavior is built upon a
mixture of previously acquired knowledge that subconsciously causes the human
to respond without any rational cogitate thought (called learned behavior[1]) and an
instinct, which is integrated into the human genome[2],
thus heritable and inflexible when it comes to modification through personal
knowledge[3]. This is
referred to as innate behavior3. Previous experiences, cultural influences and
distorted forms of shared knowledge potentially cause the learned behaviour to
be flawed and cause an unreliable judgement to be formed[4].
The same concept applies to innate behaviour. We have evolved according to the
change in external stimuli,[5] causing our natural
instinct to slowly be altered. However, rapid change of our modern environment
causes innate behaviour or the so-called ‘gut-feeling’ to not necessarily be the
solution to a situation[6], as[7] biologically we
haven’t been able to adapt swiftly enough. Fortunately, the conscious mind is
able to reanalyse a situation, to establish the origin of an instinctive judgement and whether there is a more rational way of approaching an issue:
through the ways of knowing. The knowledge questions, “To what extent can
language as a way of knowing alter our instinctive judgements?” and “How does
the way of knowing Intuition lead to instinctive judgements to be formed in the
area of knowledge of ethics?” will be explored throughout this essay and through
the use of various ways of knowing (WoK) the background of where instinctive judgement come from will be assessed in order to establish whether I personally
agree with whether the “Ways of Knowing are a check on our instinctive
judgments.”
It is important to note the correlation
between instinctive judgments and the WoK intuition, as both[8][9] are forms of
subconscious decision-making without the requirement of rational reasoning.
Both also consist of learned behavior (memory/reason) and innate behavior (sense
perception/emotion). Due to the concepts being almost entirely identical to
one another, the concept of Instinctive judgment will be form the WoK intuition.
To what extent can language as a WoK alter
our instinctive judgments?
Being able to detect a colour is innate
behavior as the human eye is capable of visualizing different wavelengths of colour spectrums.[10] Furthermore, language
contributes to the cause of categorizing these colors into different terms,
which is learned behavior. Henceforth, deductive reasoning suggests that seeing
color is thus an instinctive judgment.
Therefore, consider this knowledge claim: If
I see the color blue, so do other humans. I can explain this claim through the WoK
reasoning, explored within the area of knowledge (AoK) of the Natural Sciences.
Dr. Anne Franklin[11] explored the
hemispheres of the brain in which different age groups responded to colour[12]. An infant,
with no concept of language, upon seeing different colours responded with
activity in the right side of the brain. Through the WoK reasoning, I justify
my knowledge claim as this has the implication that, an infant, even without
understanding language, is able to see colors, which in turn implies that all
humans are capable of seeing the color blue. The experiment was then conducted
on a child with exposure of language and the categorization of different
colors. The child responded with activity on the left hemisphere, the side used
in relation to language. This has the implication, that the WoK language is
used to categorize colour, influences the part of the brain used to process the
instinctive judgement, henceforth has an effect on the way individuals structure
the visual world. Furthermore it implies that the right side of the brain
processes colors through intuition, whilst the left side checks the instinctive judgement through the WoK Language.
In contrast when exploring the AoK
Indigenous Knowledge systems, a counter claim to the knowledge claim becomes
apparent, due to the way language influences this instinctive judgement. The BBC
Horizon TV Blog[13] recently
published an experiment conducted with the Himba people; a tribe mainly located
North of Namibia[14], in regards to
their lingual assessment of color. In western society, we mainly have 11 colors
categories[15]; many having
different shades, but these often don’t have a distinct lingual expression.
Instead the Himba tribe has five13. For example, the English words blue and
green for the Himba people is made up of a single word[16].
The first experiment consisted of multiple green squares, along with one blue
square. The Himba tribesmen were unable to distinguish between the squares
whereas people from a western society, whom have words that distinguish between
the colors, are able to do so without an issue. The implication of this is,
that the way language is used, actually changes the intuitive ability of
visualization of a color. To offer a different perspective, these indigenous
people have two different words for different shades of green. When a picture
is presented to them, with in our eyes all green squares they are able to
distinguish between the green shades. This could question whether every
individual sees the color in the same wavelength as others and that intuitively
individuals see colors differently. Evidently, this indicates the fact that the
visual ability to see colors, an instinctive judgment, varies depending on the
language used to categorize them. Therefore a counter claim would be that the WoK
Language maintains the capacity to alter the visual representation of the color
blue for humans. This implies that although genetically, colour spectrums are
intuitively observable, the learned behaviour through the WoK of language
created through shared knowledge can alter the way the brain processes colour
spectrums and therefore Language alters the way individuals perceive different
instinctive judgements.
How does the way of knowing Intuition lead
to instinctive judgments to be formed in the area of knowledge of ethics?
When exploring the AoK of Ethics, there are
various different frameworks that can be taken into consideration; for example Moral
Intuition and Ethical intuition. Moral Intuition varies slightly from the
ethical perspective, as it’s more of a subconscious decision-making process,
regarding the principles of right and wrong within an individual’s
characteristic, whilst ethical intuition refers to the rules of conduct
established within a society or culture[17]. Ethics itself refers to a definition created
by others, whilst morals are more of an individual belief[18];
which through shared knowledge is often largely affected, but various ways of
knowing such as emotion may cause personal knowledge to influence this aspect.
An interesting case study in this regard is
the well-known trolley experiment[19], created by
Philippa Foot[20] in 1967. In
this scenario, there is a lever, which controls the direction of a train moving
along the tracks. One path leads to 5 individuals on the tracks and unless the
lever is moved, these individuals will be killed. However, if the lever is
moved, one innocent individual on the other path will be killed, but the
individual pulling the lever will be the murderer. This is where there is a
conflict between moral and ethical intuition. From an Ethical intuitive
perspective, in any society where murder is punishable, would cause the five
individuals to be killed, as the society itself decided that killing is wrong
and therefore punishable[21]. Thus: Intuition
is based upon a rule of conduct created by society. The WoK Emotion, in
particular fear plays a large role in Ethical intuition, as there is fear of
them getting punished for the action they took, based on the rules established
by society. Conflicting is the Moral intuition; which attempts to
subconsciously established the difference between right and wrong. From an utilitarian
perspective[22], the killing of
one individual in order to save 5 is justified, and possibly morally correct
for certain individuals, which is established through the WoK of reason,
connected to the AoK of Mathematics. Five lives are more than an individual life;
therefore intuitively I will save five. This furthermore interlinks with the AoK
of the Natural Sciences. Humans physically respond to pain due to the network
of peripheral nerves that interconnect with the central nervous system[23], a transmission
of a nerve impulse from one cell, connected to the brain to cause a response to
the stimuli. Physical pain is explained in this way and as 5 individuals will
together create more pain than one individual, the emotional response would be
to reduce the amount of pain caused, hence individuals with moral intuition might
opt moving the lever. This creates a counter claim: Intuition is based on
emotional and reasoned judgments. This implies, that although there are
different forms of applied intuition, which can affect instinctive judgments,
each can be assessed and justified using the WoKs.
After the exploration of the AoKs of the
Human Sciences and Ethics, the initial question, “To what extent do you agree
with this statement?” in relation to “Ways of Knowing are a check on our
instinctive judgments” can be answered. The implications established, implied the
WoK Language has the capability to alter instinctive judgments. This allowed me to check the instinctive
judgment using the WoK of Language, hence in reference to the knowledge
question, “To what extent can language as a WoK alter our instinctive
judgments?” I fully agree with the statement. Whilst exploring the knowledge
question, “How does the way of knowing Intuition lead to instinctive judgments
to be formed in the area of knowledge of ethics?” it allowed me to see that
different intuitive forms within one an AoK can also be justified, and thus
checked using ways of knowing. Therefore, I can use deductive reasoning; in the
sense that both knowledge questions lead me to the same answer, hence using the
AoK of Mathematics (1+1=2. 2>0 = Agree), I agree with the initial statement.
Bibliography:
The Relationship Between Selected Immediacy
Behaviors and Cognitive Learning. Virginia P. Richmond. West Virginia
University, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
Genetics
and Behavior I. Dr Mike Wride. School of Natural Sciences, n.d. Web.
"Exploring Learned and Innate
Behavior." - Science NetLinks. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
Innate
Judgment Heuristics, Deduction, & Induction. California State University.
California State University, n.d. Web.
.
"Evolution." Warming to Evolution.
N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. .
"What Are Our Instinctual Gut
Feelings?" : How Do We Know When Our Gut Feelings Are Reliable? Can You
Trust a Gut Feeling? N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
"Exploring Learned and Innate
Behavior." - Science NetLinks. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
.
"Intuition
- Theoryofknowledge.net." Theoryofknowledge.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb.
2015. .
"Visible
Light and the Eye's Response." Visible Light and the Eye's Response. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
.
"Dr
Anna Franklin." Anna Franklin : University of Sussex. N.p., n.d. Web. 24
Feb. 2015. .
New
Evidence for Infant Colour Categories. Anna Franklin and Ian R. L. Davies.
University of Surrey, UK, n.d. Web.
.
"Colour
Is in the Eye of the Beholder." - BoreMe. BBC Horizon TV Blog, n.d. Web.
24 Feb. 2015. .
"Himba
Study." (n.d.): n. pag. Namibia Gov. Web.
.
Colour,
Blutner. "Colour Words and Colour Categorization." Colour Words and
Colour Categorization (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
.
"How Language Affects Color
Perception." How Language Affects Colorperception Comments. N.p., n.d.
Web. 24 Feb. 2015. .
"Ethik
Und Moralen Fundstellen Im Internet." Cyclopaedia. Cyclopaedia.de, n.d.
Web. 24 Feb. 2015. .
"Ethics vs Morals." - Difference and
Comparison. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
.
"Philosopher's Toolkit: The Trolley
Problem." Philosopher's Toolkit: The Trolley Problem. N.p., n.d. Web. 24
Feb. 2015. .
"The Trolley Dilemmaand How It Relates to
Ethical Communication." Trolley Dilemma. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
.
"Crimes Punishable by the Death
Penalty." Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb.
2015. .
"Utilitarianism | Philosophy." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
.
"IB Guides." IB Biology Notes. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.
[1] The Relationship Between Selected Immediacy Behaviors and Cognitive Learning. Virginia P. Richmond. West Virginia University, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [2] Genetics and Behavior I. Dr Mike Wride. School of Natural Sciences, n.d. Web. . [3] "Exploring Learned and Innate Behavior." - Science NetLinks. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [4] Innate Judgment Heuristics, Deduction, & Induction. California State University. California State University, n.d. Web. . [5] "Evolution." Warming to Evolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [6] "What Are Our Instinctual Gut Feelings?" : How Do We Know When Our Gut Feelings Are Reliable? Can You Trust a Gut Feeling? N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [8] "Exploring Learned and Innate Behavior." - Science NetLinks. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [9] "Intuition - Theoryofknowledge.net." Theoryofknowledge.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. . [10] "Visible Light and the Eye's Response." Visible Light and the Eye's Response. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [11] "Dr Anna Franklin." Anna Franklin : University of Sussex. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [12] New Evidence for Infant Colour Categories. Anna Franklin and Ian R. L. Davies. University of Surrey, UK, n.d. Web. . [13] "Colour Is in the Eye of the Beholder." - BoreMe. BBC Horizon TV Blog, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [14] "Himba Study." (n.d.): n. pag. Namibia Gov. Web. . [15] Colour, Blutner. "Colour Words and Colour Categorization." Colour Words and Colour Categorization (n.d.): n. pag. Web. . [16] "How Language Affects Color Perception." How Language Affects Colorperception Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [17] "Ethik Und Moralen Fundstellen Im Internet." Cyclopaedia. Cyclopaedia.de, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [18] "Ethics vs Morals." - Difference and Comparison. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. . [19] "Philosopher's Toolkit: The Trolley Problem." Philosopher's Toolkit: The Trolley Problem. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [20] "The Trolley Dilemmaand How It Relates to Ethical Communication." Trolley Dilemma. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [21] "Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty." Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. . [22] "Utilitarianism | Philosophy." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. . [23] "IB Guides." IB Biology Notes. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2015. .
[1] The Relationship Between Selected Immediacy Behaviors and Cognitive Learning. Virginia P. Richmond. West Virginia University, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [2] Genetics and Behavior I. Dr Mike Wride. School of Natural Sciences, n.d. Web. . [3] "Exploring Learned and Innate Behavior." - Science NetLinks. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [4] Innate Judgment Heuristics, Deduction, & Induction. California State University. California State University, n.d. Web. . [5] "Evolution." Warming to Evolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [6] "What Are Our Instinctual Gut Feelings?" : How Do We Know When Our Gut Feelings Are Reliable? Can You Trust a Gut Feeling? N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [8] "Exploring Learned and Innate Behavior." - Science NetLinks. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [9] "Intuition - Theoryofknowledge.net." Theoryofknowledge.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015. . [10] "Visible Light and the Eye's Response." Visible Light and the Eye's Response. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [11] "Dr Anna Franklin." Anna Franklin : University of Sussex. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [12] New Evidence for Infant Colour Categories. Anna Franklin and Ian R. L. Davies. University of Surrey, UK, n.d. Web. . [13] "Colour Is in the Eye of the Beholder." - BoreMe. BBC Horizon TV Blog, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [14] "Himba Study." (n.d.): n. pag. Namibia Gov. Web. . [15] Colour, Blutner. "Colour Words and Colour Categorization." Colour Words and Colour Categorization (n.d.): n. pag. Web. . [16] "How Language Affects Color Perception." How Language Affects Colorperception Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [17] "Ethik Und Moralen Fundstellen Im Internet." Cyclopaedia. Cyclopaedia.de, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [18] "Ethics vs Morals." - Difference and Comparison. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. . [19] "Philosopher's Toolkit: The Trolley Problem." Philosopher's Toolkit: The Trolley Problem. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [20] "The Trolley Dilemmaand How It Relates to Ethical Communication." Trolley Dilemma. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. . [21] "Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty." Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. . [22] "Utilitarianism | Philosophy." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. . [23] "IB Guides." IB Biology Notes. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2015. .
There is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this
statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
“All true questions are neutral. If a question is not
neutral, then it is not really a question, but rather a statement, or a
judgment, disguised as a question”[1]
The notion that a question must be neutral is one open to
much debate. Indeed, Socrates created the idea of Socratic Questioning, also
known as Socratic Maieutics, which is the idea that focused questioning can
allow us to have a better understanding of the world, and can bring us closer
to knowledge[2]. The Theory of
Knowledge guide states that one way of gaining knowledge is through
questionnaires[3]. Both of these
arguments allow us to understand the importance of questions.
A KQ we can look in to would be, “Is it possible for language to be neutral?”
The TOK guide presents language as a WOK[4].
However the question of neutrality in language can easily be answered by the
fact that it is possible for language to have biases, mostly unintentional, due
to connotations[5] of words, and
intonation of how it is said. In written
language a question still maintains some intonation, and would maintain all the
connotations related to spoken language. Language and thought have a close
link, [6] in the sense
that what one thinks is often, but not always, what one communicates through
language. Since, “humans can never be neutral”[7], our thoughts,
and therefore language can never be neutral.
An implication in terms of questions is that it might be
difficult to have a neutral question if humans cannot be neutral themselves.
The AOK, I will asses at this point will be Mathematics, due to the fact that
depending on how a question is posed in Maths it can have biases, or be
perceived as having a bias. The methodology of Mathematics as an AOK is that it
“uses pure reason to form axioms[8]”. Because
mathematics forms “axioms”, which can be described as “self evident statements[9]” we can assume
that it has very little bias, and as such can be deemed as neutral. In this
case the AOK of Mathematics can be seen as a reliable way of gaining knowledge.
However a limitation of this AOK is that it is a matter of great debate whether
Maths is discovered or invented[10]. If it is
invented, it cannot be neutral, because a human element was responsible for
part or all of its formation. The RLS deals with the language of Maths, there
can be a perceived difference between the questions:
“Arthur baked 115 muffins, which was 17 more muffins than
Ann. How many muffins did Ann bake?”[11]
and,
Solve for x;
There may be considered to be a difference in neutrality,
despite the fact that they have the same answer, because the latter uses very little
language based in spoken language. Instead it uses mathematical language. The
first question however allows more room for questioning: why has Arthur decided
to make so many muffins?
These questions stop us from answering the question with
neutrality. When we are presented with the second question we have fewer
questions to ask of its nonsensical nature, because it has been removed from reality.
An implication of accepting mathematical questions as entirely neutral and reliable
may be that society no longer feels we can gain knowledge through arts, and
other concepts that fall outside mathematics, because they aren’t axioms, in
the same way mathematics is perceived to be. Because of this, a paradigm shift may
occur in which it is widely accepted that art can never be neutral and is never
be a reliable way of gaining knowledge. This may lead to new concepts only
being accepted as shared knowledge after they have been proved by mathematics,
leading to a slowing in knowledge gain.
A counterclaim to the idea that Maths is the best way for us
to gain knowledge, is that Maths is unreliable due to the invented or
discovered debate, this would mean it is, by its nature, it’s not neutral
because theorems we base our knowledge on are created by people, and as
previously said, humans have unintentional biases. For example, when we use
Pythagoras Theorem, we are enacting a western perspective bias because we refer
to the theorem as Pythagoras, as opposed to Gougo Theorem, which was the same
theorem, but was discovered thousands of years earlier by Chinese
Mathematicians[12]. This would
encourage us to further question whether Maths is discovered or invented, and
further shows that the AOK of Mathematics also has bias, and is not entirely
neutral. The implications of accepting this paradigm, is that we start to be
unable to trust mathematics, and without a trust of the rationality of
mathematics, the world become far harder to understand, because if we assume
that mathematics is not neutral, then a question in mathematics can never be
neutral, and following the paradigm that for a question to glean reliable
answers, it must first be neutral, mathematical questions and answers can never
be reliable and this would lead to huge implications in our society.
Another KQ I will draw from the essay question is, “How does
the neutrality of questions affect our understanding of the answer?”
When considered closely, it seems almost obvious that the
way a question is asked impacts how it is answered. If a question is not neutral,
it is unlikely that our answer can be neutral; this is because our answers are
very clearly linked to the question we have been asked. The second AOK I will
explore will be Human Sciences. I will
use the RLS of the questioning in Law Courts, and the effects of neutrality in
the questioning. Al Capone was arrested in 1930 for tax evasion. When Capone
was questioned, Revenue agent Ralph Herrick asked questions such as “How long,
Mr. Capone, have you enjoyed a large income?[13]”
This question has biases, such as the assumption that Capone was on a large income;
and the insinuation that he enjoys his wealth furthers the question’s
subjectivity.
However, this mode of questioning is frequently used in law
cases such as that of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in the UK in 1993, in
which one of the suspects was asked, “We believe that you left with baby James
and with Jon.”[14] This is a clear
statement presented as a question and, as such, can’t be argued to be neutral.
Referring back to the initial statement of the essay that a true question is
neutral, meaning the question posed to Capone is more neutral than the latter.
We analyse Human sciences to establish why humans act as
they do[15], in these
examples, they are trying to hold the correct individual accountable for crime.
So it is likely that an interviewer, if they believe someone to be guilty, may
ask biased questions in order to bring about the conclusion they would like to
see, because of the unintentional biases that they have, and which limit our
neutrality. Despite the fact that lawyers and other law professionals are
advised to stay neutral in cases.[16] It is possible that
the way a question is posed can effect the outcome of a court case for example,
“Were you there?” may lead to a different outcome then “Why were you there?”
because the latter assumes information not assumed in the former. To answer the question “How does the
neutrality of the question affect our understanding of the answer?” in this
case, the neutrality of the question impacts the answer of the question because
if a question is asked of which one intends to judge the answer, the question
can no longer be neutral, and we would understand the question differently
because we have pre conceived ideas about what the answer should be. So the
neutrality of the question does impact our understanding of the answer,
thereof. An implication of this is that Law Courts would have to spend time
deciding whether a question is neutral or whether it is seeking a certain
answer, this would slow down the justice system, and may allow criminals to
avoid the repercussions of their actions.
A counterclaim would be that the answer is not effected by
the way we ask the question, because we do not always know what the answer
should be when we ask, and therefore we are more able to ask with neutrality,
furthermore, I believe that a question asked without the intention of casting a
judgment upon the answerer can be a neutral question, provided that that
question is open ended.
In conclusion, the initial essay statement, is a bold knowledge
claim. Through explorations of two AOKs: Human Sciences and Mathematics, I have
been able to establish that it is unlikely that a human can never truly ask a
neutral question, because as soon as one intends to judge the answer of a
question, there can be no neutrality in the asking the question. In terms of Maths,
one question may be more neutral than another, but it can never be truly
without bias. And in terms of Human Sciences, it is extremely difficult to ask
a question, in which the questioner has no intention of judging the resultant
answer. This is because humans ask questions to gain new knowledge[17], and the
answers to questions are often taken in and used to form new knowledge. I
conclude, therefore, that that there can be no such thing as a neutral
question, because there can be no such thing as a neutral asker.
Works Cited
"5th Grade Word Problems." K5 Learning. K5
Learning, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 Jan. 2015.
.
Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge. London: John Murray,
2003. Print.
Blythe, Peter. Mathematical Studies Standard Level Course
Companion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Brunschwig, Jacques. A Guide to Greek Thought: Major Figures
and Trends. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2003. Print.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus. Concise 4th ed.
Glasgow: Collins, 2006. Print.
MacInerney, Charles. "The Importance Of Neutral
Questions." SelfGrowth.com. Web. 7 Jan. 2015. .
Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. London:
Penguin, 1946. Print.
Tangredi, Sam J. Anti-access Warfare: Countering A2/AD
Strategies. Annapolis: US Institute, 2013. Print.
Scott, Shirley Lynn. "The Death of James Bulger." Crime
Library. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.
.
"Theory of Knowledge Guide." IB Diploma Programme.
IBO. Web. 7 Jan. 2015. .
"Transcript of Al Capone's Interview." Al Capone
Trial. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
.
Wechsler, Herbert. "Toward Neutral Principles of
Constitutional Law." Harvard Law Review 73.1 (1959): 1-35. JSTOR. JSTOR.
Web. 20 Feb. 2015.
.
[1] MacInerney, Charles. "The Importance Of Neutral Questions." SelfGrowth.com. Web. 7 Jan. 2015. . [2] Brunschwig, Jacques. A Guide to Greek Thought: Major Figures and Trends. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2003. Print. [3] "Theory of Knowledge Guide." IB Diploma Programme. IBO. Web. 7 Jan. 2015. . [4] “Theory of Knowledge Guide” [5] Connotation: an idea or feeling which a word invokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning. For example; “accurate” holds connotations of regularity and scientific knowledge. [6] Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. London: Penguin, 1946. Print. [7] Tangredi, Sam J. Anti-access Warfare: Countering A2/AD Strategies. Annapolis: US Institute, 2013. Print. [8] “Theory of Knowledge Guide” [9] Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus. Concise 4th ed. Glasgow: Collins, 2006. Print. [10] Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge. London: John Murray, 2003. Print. [11] "5th Grade Word Problems." K5 Learning. K5 Learning, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 Jan. 2015. . [12] Blythe, Peter. Mathematical Studies Standard Level Course Companion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. [13] "Transcript of Al Capone's Interview." Al Capone Trial. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. . [14] Scott, Shirley Lynn. "The Death of James Bulger." Crime Library. Web. 19 Feb. 2015. . [15] “Theory of Knowledge Guide” [16] Wechsler, Herbert. "Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law." Harvard Law Review 73.1 (1959): 1-35. JSTOR. JSTOR. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. . [17] “Theory of Knowledge Guide”
With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.
Throughout the course of this essay I will
argue that personal knowledge can only exist in the presence of shared
knowledge, and that personal knowledge is simply an amalgamation of various areas
or instances of shared knowledge. This concept will be analyzed through the
perspective of two different areas of knowledge, namely: the arts & the human
sciences. Two different knowledge questions can be derived from this thesis: “How
does shared knowledge shape personal knowledge?” & “To what extent does
shared knowledge inhibit the development of personal knowledge?”
When musical historians analyze the
progression of the arts over time, they tend to categorize different time
periods based on their general characteristics. In music, the development of ‘classical
music’ shows the following progression:[1]
Using romantic music as an example, there
are a number of general statements that can be made about the time period that
accurately describe most pieces. It can generally be said that romantic pieces
are homophonic in texture, incorporate a variety of tempos and contain long
lyrical melodies[2]. As an example,
if one were to compare Wagner’s prelude to “Tristan und Isolde” to Berlioz’s
“Symphonie Fantastique” using sense perception as a way of knowing, one would
clearly be able hear that both pieces conform to the same characteristics of
romantic music that were put forth previously. A clear distinction emerges when
this example is connected to our overarching knowledge question that concerns
the effect of shared knowledge on personal knowledge. The probability of an
entire generation of composers adhering to the same set of guidelines simply by
chance is close to 0. It is often said that the emergence of free thought and
speech[3] in the romantic
period is what caused romantic composers to adopt the somewhat radical
compositional techniques that the music of the romantic period is known for. Therefore:
shared knowledge, in this case being the new and generally ‘free’ modernist mentality
that was taking over Europe, altered the personal knowledge that was instilled
within composers that concerned the elements of ‘good’ music.
The obvious counterclaim is that some
composers do not adhere to the social norm and thus compose works that are
entirely anachronistic in style. An example of such a work is “Große Fuge” by
Beethoven. Stravinsky was quoted saying that this piece was “an absolutely
contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever.”[4]
To expand upon the Stravinsky quotation, it
is often said that Große Fuge was a precursor to the very abrasive style of 20th
century music[5]. In the context
our central knowledge question, this is a case in which the personal knowledge
and paradigm of an individual (Beethoven) shaped the future development of
shared knowledge in regards to the accepted characteristics of music.
This issue can also be analyzed through the
lens of the human sciences as an area of knowledge, and the information put
forth by this analysis supports that the statements made above in regards to
the relationship between shared and personal knowledge are not exclusive to the
arts as an AOK.
The rise of “Gluten Free” foods in the
United States of America can be used as a supporting example. Celiac disease is
an immune disorder that causes damage to the smaller intestines if gluten is
ingested[6]. The American
Journal of Gastroenterology reports that celiac disease cases increased by
approximately 1.54% in the past 10 years[7]. Mintel, a
London based market research institution stated that the US market for gluten
free foods expanded by 44% between 2011-2013[8]. It can clearly
be seen that these numbers do not align in any way, as the market for gluten
free foods is expanding much faster than celiac disease in the USA. Thus we can
come to the conclusion that there are a growing number of individuals that
consume gluten free foods but do not have celiac disease. A recent study by
Mintel demonstrated that 75% of the individuals that are not affected by celiac
disease that buy gluten free foods purchase them because they believe that
gluten free foods are “healthy”[9]. Therefore, the
categorization of foods as “Gluten-Free” as a form of shared knowledge directly
causes individuals to personally perceive these foods as “healthy”. Relating
this back to our central knowledge question: the presence of shared knowledge
in the form of classification essentially shapes and influences the development
of personal knowledge in regards to the classified item.
Following the same line of reasoning, the
obvious counterclaim would be that personal knowledge shapes shared knowledge
in the human sciences. To continue the idea of classification, this
counterclaim can be supported by examining the life and work of Carl Woese, a
key figure in the history of microbiology. Woese rejected the commonly accepted
shared knowledge that put forth the idea that there were two biological
kingdoms (pro and eukaryotes) as this did not align with his research[10]. Woese’s
findings led him to introduce the three-domain system (bacteria, eukarya &
archaea) that is considered a standard to this day. In the frame of our central
knowledge question: an individual (Woese) used his personal knowledge of
biological classification to alter the shared knowledge that is conveyed in
regards to the fundamental axioms of biological classification.
To close the discussion on the relationship
between shared and personal knowledge, it can be concluded that personal
knowledge is often an amalgamation of shared knowledge. However, anomalous
cases do exist in which unique personal knowledge truly shapes the development
of shared knowledge. In music and art the shared knowledge (i.e. the mentality
of society) of the time often influences the artist’s perception of ‘good’ art.
In essence, the definition “good art” that artists adhere to is a product of
shared knowledge. In the human sciences, shared knowledge in the form of
classification often shapes personal knowledge. Therein lies the answer to our
central knowledge question that concerns the relationship between shared and
personal knowledge.
To continue the knowledge claim made above
in regards to the presence of unique individuals that shape shared knowledge; a
potential implication may be the notion that shared knowledge has the potential
to inhibit the development of personal knowledge. This can be expressed in the
form of a knowledge question: to what extent does shared knowledge inhibit the
development of personal knowledge?
Within the arts as an area of knowledge
there are many examples in which shared knowledge effectively inhibited
personal knowledge. When Schönberg first performed his second string quartet in
1908, Vienna was overrun by riots, as the Viennese society could not come to
terms with the progressive nature of Schönberg’s work[11].
Similar riots and protests occurred after the famous “Skandalkonzert” of 1913,
which ended abruptly after Alban Berg’s pieces caused the crowd to violently erupt[12]. These riots
often lead to composers reconsidering and scrutinizing their own compositions.
Berg supposedly considered changing his occupation following the monumental
Skandalkonzert. Relating this back to our knowledge question, shared knowledge,
or the way in which society reacts to a piece of art, has the potential to
limit the artists’ horizons and thus the development of personal knowledge in the
arts as an area of knowledge.
Quite similarly, shared knowledge has the capability to inhibit the development of personal knowledge in the human sciences as well. An example of this limitation would the imposition of Bill Gates’ “Stacked Ranking” system in US public schools. Stacked ranking essentially involves the ranking of teachers based on their performance[13]:
To answer the central knowledge question
put forth in the introductory section of this essay, it can be said that the content
of this paper has demonstrated that the development of personal knowledge in
the arts and human sciences is generally shaped by shared knowledge, however
also that there are rare occasions in which personal knowledge is unique and
thus contributes to the development of shared knowledge as a whole. Furthermore,
using both contemporary examples and examples from history, it has been
established that the presence of shared knowledge has the ability to inhibit
the fruition of personal knowledge in the context of the arts and human sciences
as areas of knowledge.
Works Cited
Cohen, Milton A. Movement, Manifesto,
Melee: The Modernist Group, 1910-1914. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2004. Print.
"Gluten-free Foods - US - September
2013." Mintel (2013): 1-9. Web. 8 Feb. 2015.
.
"Gluten-free Foods - US - September
2013." Mintel.com. Mintel, 1 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Feb. 2015.
.
Howland, John L. The Surprising Archaea:
Discovering Another Domain of Life. New York: Oxford U, 2000. Print.
Kerman, Joseph, Gary Tomlinson, and Vivian
Kerman. "Music after Beethoven: Romanticism." Listen. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 233. Print.
Lebrecht, Norman. "Arnold Schoenberg's
Second String Quartet." Arnold Schoenberg's Second String Quartet. Scena,
6 Dec. 2003. Web. 08 Feb. 2015.
.
Ludvigsson, Jonas F. "Increasing
Incidence of Celiac Disease in a North American Population." Nature.com.
Nature Publishing Group, 19 Mar. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2015.
.
Markow, Dana. The Metlife Survey Of The
American Teacher (n.d.): n. pag. Metlife.com. Metlife, 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 8 Feb.
2015.
.
Morris, David. "Bill Gates Imposes
Microsoft Model on School Reform: Only to Have the Company Junk It After It
Failed." Alternet. Alternet.org, 26 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2015.
.
Prokop, Clemens. "Ludwig Van
Beethoven: Große Fuge Op. 133 | BR.de." Ludwig Van Beethoven: Große Fuge
Op. 133. BR, 7 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2015.
.
"String Quartet No. 17 in B-flat
Major, Op. 133, Grosse Fuge." Beethoven,. Earsense, n.d. Web. 08 Feb.
2015. .
"What Is Celiac Disease? - Celiac
Disease Foundation." Celiac Disease Foundation. CDF, n.d. Web. 04 Feb.
2015. .
"The World's Leading Classical Music
Group." History of Classical Music. Naxos, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
.
[1] Naxos – A Brief History of Classical Music [2] Listen 7th Edition, Page 233 [3] Listen 7th Edition, Page 234 [4] Earsense: Große Fuge [5] Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) – Große Fuge [6] Celiac.org – What is celiac disease? [7] AJG - Increasing Incidence of Celiac Disease in a North American Population [8] Mintel.com – Gluten Free Market US September 2013 [9] Mintel.com – Gluten Free US Market Structure Report September 2013 [10] The Surprising Archaea: Discovering Another Domain of Life, Page 20 [11] Scena.org - Arnold Schoenberg's Second String Quartet [12] Movement, Manifesto, Melee: The Modernist Group, 1910-1914 [13] Alternet.org – Bill Gates School Reform [14] Metlife – Metlife Teacher Survey 2013
"There are only two ways in which
humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active
experiment.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Watching the interactions between
blackbirds, I attempt to understand their behaviour, exemplifying a process of
acquiring knowledge that fundamentally underpins the way we comprehend our
surroundings: the ‘production’ of knowledge.[1] Our essay
question focuses on this ‘production’, whereby it implies the perception and
understanding of at least the existence of a truth and the ‘importance’ of it.
This question, however, considers how we conduct this process of ‘production’,
limiting to and distinguishing between – implied through “only” and “or”
respectively – the suggested methodologies of passive observation and active
experimentation. These twin implications, limiting and isolating the processes
that ‘produce’ knowledge, seem contentious and hence lead me to begin by
considering the related knowledge question: how effectively can limited and
isolated methodologies produce knowledge?
This knowledge question considers whether
we can produce knowledge using only one method. Our thesis limits our options
to two methods, so by analysing how each alone produces knowledge; we can deduce
more significant conclusions. Passive observation can be considered a process
whereby we record data using externally stimulated sensory perception.[2] This lends
itself to the way of knowing sense perception. Similarly, the empirical nature
of sense perception links closely to the Natural Sciences (AOK).[3] For example, in
1851 Foucault proved that the Earth spins with an observation. He observed that
a pendulum swinging along a vertical plane would change its path in relation to
its surroundings as the earth rotates beneath it.[4]
Instantly we observe two points, which form the premises of our conclusion.
First, the pendulum moves in a straight line and second, the path of the
pendulum curves along a circle. Based on the first observation, we conclude
that the earth must be rotating beneath us for the second observation to be true.
Hence we see how two observations lead us towards understanding our
surroundings.[5] However, can we
describe this process as purely passive observation? Our prescribed title
specifies “passive” observation implying a state of inaction, or in this
instance, a state of unconscious, thoughtless perception.[6]
We consciously observed when we tracked the movement of an object and interpreted
this as a tendency. Indeed, passive observation seems paradoxical, as without
thought, any observation would remain an incomprehensible mixture of shapes and
colours and hence essentially meaningless. Without meaning, how can we perceive
knowledge when knowledge is contingent on consciously ascribing meaning?[7] We can also see
a second flaw in our so-called observational method. Whilst sense perception
allows us to perceive our two premises, I would argue that we couldn’t ‘sense’
our way to our conclusion. The process of going from premise to conclusion is
not an observation – we made this connection ourselves – and hence it resembles
a process of reasoning, in turn refuting that Foucault perceived his universal
truth only through observation. Hence we see that although non-passive observations
allow us to form the basis of a logical thought leading towards a conclusion,
it alone does not allow us to move beyond a set of premises.
The second method suggested by our thesis
is that of “active experiment.” This method also links closely to sense
perception, as experimentation is a process of repetition, whereby we recurrently
examine a behaviour with the aim of evaluating a hypothesis, essentially the
scientific method, utilising sense perception to track the recorded progress of
our sensory stimulus.[8] In the context
of Foucault’s pendulum, whilst we may observe what the pendulum does, the process
of repeatedly and fully justifying our premises uses active experimentation.
This is crucial when producing knowledge, as following Plato’s view of
knowledge as “justified true belief”, the process of active experimentation
serves to justify our belief.[9] [10] Although this
process implicitly leans towards sense perception as a primary focus, “active”
implies a process of reason since it asks us to consciously manipulate a
situation to unquestionably justify a premise.[11]
Hence we see that experimentation uses reason to facilitate our sense
perception to justify the observations made and hence the knowledge produced. Nonetheless,
there are a couple deep-seated issues with this method. First, we ask whether
this process of active experimentation truly functions alone. Throughout our
analysis, we’ve considered experimentation as a process of confirming an
observation. If we remove the observation, can we truly produce knowledge
through experimentation? In the context of Foucault’s Pendulum, that would be
the equivalent of Foucault watching his pendulum oscillate and hoping that over
time some discrepancy of unknown origin shall make itself known to confirm
create and confirm a premise.[12] This is absurd
as this negates the point of using reason or sense perception to justify an
unperceived belief. Secondly, we consider an issue of specificity. Essentially,
even a proven premise remains specific to the situation within which it was
perceived.[13] To move from
our proven premise that Foucault’s pendulum follows a rotational path to a
general truth that the world rotates requires a process of abstraction that
neither method can provide for. In order to make this connection, hence
deriving a proven piece of knowledge, we need to break from our methodology and
use alternative ways of knowing – reason, imagination or perhaps intuition.[14] Only then have
we constructed an idea that holds greater relevance – from shared facts we have
made personal knowledge. The issue remains that this step requires more than
just our two prescribed methods. Thus, we need to look beyond these
self-imposed limits and therefore by beyond the borders of our essay question.
In reaction to the limitations of
observation and experimentation as methods for producing knowledge, we will ask
a second knowledge question that shall pose a counter claim to our thesis: how
do we overcome the limitations of singular methods to produce universal
knowledge? In this instance, universal refers to knowledge as an understanding
of our surroundings that goes beyond the situational confines within which it
was comprehended. Let us consider the real life situation of the French invasion
of the Ruhr in 1923 within the AOK of history to contextualise our counterclaim.[15] Within a field
less commonly associated with empiricism, we immediately encounter issues
regarding analysis of this era using experimentation or observation, perhaps,
by way of example, when analysing the effectiveness of the German “passive
resistance”.[16] A process of
experimentation immediately seems absurd, as history is unique in that specific
events, such as the Ruhr crisis, only happen once. Since history cannot be modelled
ceteris paribus, so the notion of conducting repetitive, isolating experiments on
unique occurrences seems justifiably impossible.[17]
Observation may prove somewhat more successful as although we cannot view these
events in real-time, we can nevertheless observe what happened using primary
sources such as first hand accounts, photos and film.[18]
The issue is that observation results in us recounting what has happened, causing
a narrative that only really serves to retell what we already know, rather than
providing the needed analysis. Hence, because of the nature of the AOK history,
sense perception is rendered ineffective due to the pre-defined distance
history places its subject from our sensory perception of it, limiting the
scope for analysis using this WOK.[19]
An alternative, using imagination and emotion, may be historical empathy
whereby, based on contextual evidence at hand, one attempts to assume a role
within this historical situation, attempting to understand, for example, why
Germans may have reacted the way they did to the invasion of the Ruhr. This ‘empathy’
utilises both our imaginations and emotional understanding in attempting to
recreate the past to enable abstract intellectual experiments that inform and
prompt us to draw, using reason, logical hypotheses and arguments.[20] Hence, we see
that this abstraction replaces our sensory observations whilst our logical
deductions take the place of our previous experimentation, made impossible in
history. The result is we produce knowledge, albeit very differently than how
our thesis suggests. Using emotion and imagination can, however, be flawed as
we risk misinterpreting events with our 21st Century personal biases leading us
astray despite our attempted contextualisation.[21]
Additionally, this method, whilst relevant within the human sciences, may
struggle in the natural sciences, for example when studying the tectonic plates:
empathising with a rock is difficult. Finally, it is untrue that observation
has no place in historical empathy. The historical facts utilised to justify
our premises are found within the accounts of the time, which are perceived using
historical observation.[22] Hence,
paradoxically, observation is useless, yet crucial, in producing historical
knowledge. Consequently, in order to understand how we produce knowledge,
synthesis is needed. Aristotle remarks, “It is the mark of an educated man to
look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the
subject admits”.[23] Essentially,
each method of acquiring knowledge is only applicable to certain AOKs. Thus, logically,
the best way to produce universal knowledge is not through singular methods, as
postulated by our thesis, but rather by combining methods that are best suited
to the type of knowledge under consideration. Only through such an
appropriated, constructive and diverse process can we then produce general
knowledge.
Through a back-and-forth between knowledge
questions, I have hence reached a definitive answer to our essay question. Although
I agree that observation and active experimentation are crucial to the
production of knowledge, stating that these methods constitute the only ways to
produce knowledge is the equivalent falsity of saying the only players a football
team requires is a striker and a goalkeeper. They are important, but as additional
players fulfilling other roles are needed to play football, so other methods
and other approaches are required in the production of universal knowledge within
every context and condition, leading me to fundamentally disagree with our
central thesis.
Works Cited
Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans.
David Ross. Ed. Lesley Brown. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Byers, Ann. Germany: A Primary Source
Cultural Guide. New York: PowerPlus, 2005. Print.
Carr, David. Time, Narrative and History.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1991. Print.
Conlin, Michael F. "The Popular and
Scientific Reception of the Foucault Pendulum in the United States." History
of Science Society 90.2 (1999): 181-204. Print.
Davis, O. L., Elizabeth Anne Yeager, and
Stuart J. Foster. Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social
Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Print.
Fine, Gail. Plato on Knowledge and Forms:
Selected Essays. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. Print.
Hobsbawm, E. J. On History. London: Abacus,
1998. Print.
Holborn, Hajo. A History of Modern Germany.
Princeton: Princeton UP, 1982. Print.
Hung, Edwin. Philosophy of Science
Complete: A Text on Traditional Problems and Schools of Thought. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Norris, Stephen P. "The Philosophical
Basis of Observation in Science and Science Education." Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 22.9 (1985): 817-33. Wiley Online Library. Web. 3
Feb. 2015.
Pfeifer, Jessica, and Sahotra Sarkar. The
Philosophy of Science: A - M. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Sparks, Matthew. "What Is Foucalts
Pendulum." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 2
Feb. 2015.
Spradley, James P. Participant Observation.
Orlando, Florida: Harcourt College, 1980. Print.
Weinstock, Michael. "The Everyday
Production of Knowledge: Individual Differences in Epistemological
Understanding and Juror-reasoning Skill." Applied Cognitive Psychology
17.2
[1] Weinstock and Cronin 2003, p. 163 [2] Norris 1985, p. 820 [3] Ibid., p. 818 [4] Conlin 1999, p. 182 [5] Sparks 2013 [6] Spradley 1980, p. 58 [7] Ibid., p. 60 [8] Hung 2013, p. 265 [9] Fine 2003, p. 5 [10] Hung 2013, p. 267 [11] Ibid., p. 270 [12] Ibid., p. 266 [13] Pfeifer 2006, p. 240 [14] Ibid., p. 242 [15] Holborn 1982, p. 607 [16] Ibid. [17] Hobsbawm 1998, p. 36 [18] Byers 2004, p. 25 [19] Carr 1991, p. 163 [20] Davis. 2001, p. 2 [21] Ibid., p. 135 [22] Ibid., p. 7 [23] Aristotle and Ross 2009, p. 4
[1] Weinstock and Cronin 2003, p. 163 [2] Norris 1985, p. 820 [3] Ibid., p. 818 [4] Conlin 1999, p. 182 [5] Sparks 2013 [6] Spradley 1980, p. 58 [7] Ibid., p. 60 [8] Hung 2013, p. 265 [9] Fine 2003, p. 5 [10] Hung 2013, p. 267 [11] Ibid., p. 270 [12] Ibid., p. 266 [13] Pfeifer 2006, p. 240 [14] Ibid., p. 242 [15] Holborn 1982, p. 607 [16] Ibid. [17] Hobsbawm 1998, p. 36 [18] Byers 2004, p. 25 [19] Carr 1991, p. 163 [20] Davis. 2001, p. 2 [21] Ibid., p. 135 [22] Ibid., p. 7 [23] Aristotle and Ross 2009, p. 4
“There are only two ways that humankind can
produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment” To
what extent do you agree with this statement? “
There are three main issues with this
statement: firstly, the idea that knowledge is produced. This may be due to my
upbringing in a largely science-oriented family, in which the value of
empirical data was repeatedly stressed, however, the implicit idea in the
prompt that knowledge is “produced”, seems to suggest that knowledge is not
acquired, but rather fabricated. Assuming that the question is referring to the
acquisition of knowledge in general leads to the second issue raised by the
question: the idea that all ways of knowing can be classified in only two
distinct categories. It’s an issue that is inherent in classification[1]: either the
parameters are so vague that the categories always apply or so specific that there
are a number of exceptions. I define passive observation as using ones’ senses without
analysis or influence from the observer, or observation that happens on a
subconscious level. This is different from sense perception, as perception
implies some form of analysis. This raises
the knowledge question: can any way of knowing passively lead to knowledge? Active
experiment is most closely linked to the scientific method; it is the idea of
changing the conditions of a system and observing their effect. Thirdly, the
statement is phrased to read either passive observation or active experiment,
suggesting that the two cannot be used in combination, but this leads to the
question whether any way of knowing is effective on its own. These issues will
be explored in the context of Mathematics and the Natural Sciences, with
respect to reason and intuition.
The distinction between producing and
developing knowledge is an important one to make in Mathematics, Einstein
famously questioning why “mathematics, being after all a product of human
thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the
objects of reality?"[2] Knowledge acquisition
in mathematics has been heavily debated[3], some claiming
that it is the innate language of the universe (developed), and others that it
has been made to fit natural laws (produced). Neither of the methods from the
prompt is effective in producing comprehensive knowledge in mathematics, though
they may be used to develop knowledge. Consider Zeno’s paradox[4] of the race
between the tortoise and Achilles. The tortoise is given a head start. Even
though Achilles is faster, each time he catches up the distance, the tortoise
will move slightly further away. In theory, Achilles should not be able to
bypass the tortoise. Paradoxically, if one tries this out by active experiment,
or even passively observes a faster object overtaking a slower one despite the
latter’s head start, it is clear that this theory does not hold true. But both
methods of knowledge acquisition do not explain the phenomenon. In order to
understand what is happening, Cantor’s theorem[5] of infinity must
be applied. This theorem was developed from certain premises using reason and imagination.
The premises state that superset of set A must be bigger than the set itself,
and that this rule also applies to infinite sets, effectively proving that some
infinities are larger than others. Cantor would not have been able to develop
this theorem purely using active experiment or passive observation. In order to
understand the phenomenon, those two methods are ineffective, though the
speculations may not have happened had the paradox not been physically
observable by one of the two methods. In short, comprehensive knowledge
acquisition and development relies on using several methods in conjunction,
from the inspiration for the investigation to the final explanation.
When considering producing knowledge, it
seems that active experiment might fit into the Natural Science methodology. However,
at this the point the “only” and “or” part of the prompt raises issues, as the
scientific method relies on more than just active experiment since it is more
of a test of a hypothesis than the production of knowledge itself. Isaac
Newton, for example, is said to have come up with the notion of gravity whilst
sitting under an apple tree.[6] Whether this is
a simplification of the actual events is unclear[7], but in any case
Newton had to not only observe, but also actively and consciously think about
what he had observed in order to come up with the theory that led to knowledge.
Interestingly, watching a falling object also inspired Einstein’s thoughts
about gravity[8], indicating that
the information acquisition was inspired by experience. This way of gathering
knowledge requires more than one way of knowing, suggesting that they are all
linked. Newton had to use his intuition as an incentive to investigate further,
his reason to analyze what he had observed, and eventually language to move the
recently acquired knowledge from personal to shared. Therefore, I cannot agree
with the statement in claiming that there are only these two ways in which to
produce knowledge and that they cannot be used in conjunction. Contrarily, in
order to produce and distribute quality knowledge, like Cantor’s Theorem or
Newton’s Laws several different ways of knowing must be used together.
If passivity is the antonym of activity,
then passivity signifies the opposite of a conscious effort: a subconscious,
effortless action. The contrast between the two can be compared to the contrast
between reason and intuition. Both are ways of knowing, but can they passively
lead to knowledge acquisition? We know that there are always at least two ways
of observing the world around us, because of the implication of having words for
hearing and listening, for seeing and perceiving, and for inhaling and
smelling. There is a whole area of psychology, called psychophysics[9], dedicated to
studying the connections between perception and sensation. Both passive and
active thinking must be possible as it would be extremely difficult to function
if we could not passively filter[10] what must be
thought about consciously against what can be discarded as irrelevant. Malcolm
Gladwell[11] describes an
experiment in Blink, which suggests that passively formed unconscious thoughts,
or intuitive thoughts, are formed more quickly than active ones, or ones
produced by conscious reasoning, and so could aid in knowledge acquisition. Participants
were told to play a simple gambling game in which they had to choose between
red and blue cards. Unbeknownst to the participants, the red cards were far more
unfavorable than the blue. Most participants suspected this by the 50th card,
and confirmed their theory by the 80th card. This knowledge was acquired
through active thinking and reasoning. However, participants had already begun
to sweat whenever they reached for a red card after the 10th card. So their
subconscious intuition told them that the red cards were unfavorable long
before their conscious mind made this connection.
On the contrary, passive intuition did not
solely lead to knowledge acquisition. It probably started the thinking process
that allowed the subconscious mind to formulate a hypothesis, but the
participants were not able to benefit from their passive feeling until they had
consciously thought about the problem. The implication of this is that passive
knowledge acquisition requires active thought to evaluate the knowledge
gathered and to develop the information. Daniel Kahneman describes these two
processes as System 1 and System 2[12].
System 1 is intuitive and occurs automatically, without a conscious effort on
our part. However, System 1 relies on System 2 for more complex thoughts, and
here is the problem. In order for thoughts to be processed by System 1, they
must be practiced thought patterns, which occur quickly. The mathematics
problem 1+1 occurs subconsciously in most adults’ minds because this pathway is
so frequently used that the thought takes a fraction of the time a more
complicated problem like 19 x 17 does. This second problem must be addressed
with other ways of knowing, which is a limitation of intuition. Though it is
very quick, it may produce false information or assume that all problems fit a
certain, already established, pathway. Even the first example required active
thinking and the learning of the concept of numbers before the simple pathway
to solve it became ingrained. Therefore, even intuition, which may seem
subconscious, is a skill that must be built up using other ways of knowing, and
this way of knowing must be checked by others as well in order to avoid
mistakes when dealing with unforeseen problems.
Methods of acquisition of knowledge cannot
be categorized as either active experiment or passive observation. There is no
such thing as passive observation that leads to knowledge as anything observed
must be analyzed and applied. The two forms cannot be exclusive of each other,
nor can they be considered the only two methods, as there are many types of
ways of knowing. These must be used in an interconnected way in order to produce
or gather knowledge effectively. In mathematics, aside from the two methods
presented in the statement, prior knowledge is usually used to develop
knowledge, whereas in the natural sciences active experiment cannot be used
until observation or intuition or any number of ways of knowing have been used
to come up with a testable hypothesis. Knowledge cannot be acquired passively
or intuitively using only one way of knowing as knowledge acquisition can only
become passive through practice and even then must often be checked in order to
effectively produce knowledge. Therefore, the statement is limited in that it
suggests that there are only two ways of producing knowledge and that these cannot
be used together, and I cannot agree with it.
In order to produce or develop knowledge effectively ways of knowing
must be used in conjunction with each other, and this must be done actively
before it can become passive.
Works Cited:
"Classification Problem." Cunningham
and Cunningham. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
Abbott, Derek. "Is Mathematics
Invented or Discovered?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 11
Oct. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
Ames, J. S. "Einstein's Law of Gravitation."
Science 51.1315 (1920): 253-61. JSTOR. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
Enderton, H. B. "Cantor's
Theorem." (n.d.): n. pag. UCLA Mathematics. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
.
Gefter, Amanda. "Newton's Apple: The
Real Story." CultureLab. New Scientist, 18 Jan. 2010. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
Friedenberg, Jay, and Gordon Silverman. Cognitive
Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2006. Print.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: The Power of
Thinking without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown, 2005. Print.
Huggett, Nick. "Zeno's
Paradoxes." Stanford University. Stanford University, 30 Apr. 2002. Web.
09 Feb. 2015.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Print.
Koberlein, Brian. "Newton's
Apple." One Universe at a Time. N.p., 13 June 2014. Web. 09 Feb. 2015.
.
Pesic, Peter. Beyond Geometry: Classic
Papers from Riemann to Einstein. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2007. Print.
Stevens, S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction
to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: Wiley, 1975. Print.
There is no such thing as a neutral
question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
The title of this essay is not a question,
but one can infer a question from it: "Is there such a thing as a neutral
question?” I suspect that a majority of people who choose this subject will
come to the conclusion that there is no such thing. The question invites that
answer because that is the more interesting, heterodox opinion: it is a
deliberately provocative statement, challenging accepted wisdom. So the title
could be seen as a non-neutral question. The statement implies that all
questions are non-neutral; from this I deduce the implication that all
questions are weighted; that all questions are intended to lead to a desired
answer, and that it is the questioner who desires that answer. Therefore I
define a neutral question as one which is not a leading question, and is not
intended to produce a specific answer.
In the legal profession, non-neutral
questions are known as “leading questions”, and are disparaged. But in
practice, they are essential. In “To Kill a Mockingbird”, Scout, says: “Never,
never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don't already
know the answer to . . . Do it, and you'll often get an answer you don't want,
an answer that might wreck your case.”[1] If we applied
this principle to life in general, why would we ever want to ask a neutral
question, and risk “wrecking our case”? There is a strong motivation to ask
leading questions. Might it have become ingrained in our nature, so that we
cannot ask a neutral question even if we want to? Yet neutral questions are
considered desirable, as a way of finding the truth. I have been brought up in
Western Europe but my mother is Russian. Russian interference in Ukraine is a
sensitive issue in my family, as it is in the region. It is hard to know which
side is telling the truth.
My initial reaction, having just written my
mock examinations in history, is that neutral questions are rare, if they exist
at all. IB exam questions seem to lead students to make conclusions
subconsciously: questions about Germany always seem to involve disaster: why
did the Weimar Republic fail? To what extent was Germany to blame for the First
World War? Living in Germany, where war-guilt is still exorcised every day in
television documentaries, one would be surprised by a neutral question on the
subject, since it is so emotive. For Russia, the effect is even more profound:
questions continually rake over Russia’s traumas: its dictators from the tsars
to Stalin; its culpability for the Cold War, and its final defeat. There are
never questions about Russia’s successes: its part in the defeat of Nazism; its
technological triumphs, such as its space programme.
Let us consider whether questions from two
areas of knowledge, Ethics, and Mathematics, can be neutral. I have chosen
these two for being, superficially at least, unrelated to one another, in order
to take as wide a sample as possible. A mathematical solution appears to have
no ethical dimension: it is neither good nor bad. Neutrality in ethical matters
is generally not admired. The hottest place in hell was reserved for the
fence-sitters (to paraphrase JFK).[2] And Ethics is
fertile ground for non-neutral questions. People feel strongly about ethical
issues, they find it hard to be objective. The questioner often wants a
particular answer, and a non-neutral question is a quicker route to it. "Should
murderers be judicially murdered?"
With other questions the motivation is less
obvious: "Should euthanasia be legal for people who are in constant
pain?" There seems to be a weighting there, but it doesn't necessarily
mean that the questioner agrees. What if the sentence ended at
"legal"? Is the weighting completely removed, because the persuasive
element is gone? One could argue that, by asking the question in any form, one
is trying to achieve an end. If the question were never asked, euthanasia would
probably never be made legal. An opponent of euthanasia would be better off not
asking the question. Starting the debate is an end in itself. The implication
of this is that even a neutral question can be used to advantage. The philosopher
Judith Jarvis Thomson asked a famous hypothetical question: does one have a
moral duty, having been unwittingly enlisted as life-support for a famous
violinist, to remain plugged into the violinist’s circulatory system for the
required nine months?[3] She presented
the moral and practical pros and cons. She must have believed that she was
asking a neutral question, otherwise there would have been no point in it: the
scenario was an allegory about the morality of abortions, and her argument
would have had no power if she had weighted the question in her favour. Are
neutral questions about ethics more likely to produce a truthful answer than
non-neutral ones? The philosopher’s thought-experiment goes like this: ask a
neutral hypothetical question, to which one of the possible answers logically
leads to a particular answer to a real-life question. If the hypothetical
question is non-neutral, the experiment is not valid.
In contrast, mathematics is supposed to be
scrupulously objective. Could a non-neutral question be truly mathematical? A
good scientist should surely be concerned only with establishing the truth, whatever
it may be. Mathematics is the purest science, because it does not depend on any
other discipline (whereas all other sciences depend on mathematics). Therefore
one might expect mathematical questions to be as neutral as it is possible to
be.
"What is two times three?" Is
there any weighting, any implication here at all? No, except that there is a
single, true answer to the question. The words are neutral but there is a
reason why the question is asked. Normally that reason would be, to establish
the truth, or to test someone's knowledge.
"Is there an infinite number of
perfect numbers?" Here it could be argued that there is weighting: the
question implies the possibility that the answer is yes. As with the ethical
questions, if the question were not asked, the answer would not be found. But
the answer could be yes or no and, unlike the ethical case, it is fixed. Therefore
asking the question does not have an obvious real-life result. However, the
questioner might have a vested interest in the answer: for example, he might
base his investments in the stock market on it. The question could be
considered neutral. It is the asking of the question, not the question itself,
which invites the answer "yes". If we change the question to, “Isn’t
there an infinite number of perfect numbers?” we make it clearly non-neutral.
"I'm tired. Can't we just assume that
there is an infinite number of perfect numbers?" At first sight the
question is very non-neutral in terms of mathematical objectivity, on the
grounds that the questioner wants to abandon rigorous mathematical discipline. However,
the question is not "There must be an infinite number of perfect numbers,
mustn't there?" (which implies the answer "yes"); the question
is only "can we assume (because I don't want to make the effort)?" It
could still be considered non-neutral, because of the weighting: firstly,
"I'm tired", appealing to the compassion of the questioned person;
then the construction: "Can't we?" (which expects the answer
"yes"), rather than the more neutral "Can we?"; and
followed by the word "just", which implies that it is the reasonable
thing to do. In fact, it is hardly a mathematical question at all, but perhaps
one of mathematical ethics.
Ethics and mathematics, often collide, and
the questions they ask are often in conflict: "What can we do?" and
"What should we do?" For example, questions such as the following
were probably asked by scientists and politicians before it was decided to drop
the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “How can we end the war with
the least loss of life?” This was one of the primary criteria for the decision
to use the bombs: it was predicted that about a million more Allied soldiers
would have to die to bring the war to an end by conventional means. Perhaps the
number of Japanese deaths was also a consideration. “Can we make these bombs
work, and how?”, “Should I, as a mathematician, allow my unworldly, neutral
calculations to be used for military purposes?”, “Should we drop these bombs,
knowing that they will be massively destructive?” The questions could be framed
differently to make them more or less neutral. From an ethical point of view,
that was particularly a time (as wartime is generally) for neutral questions,
for establishing the truth, rather than for deceiving oneself. The result of
the questions which were asked was the deaths of about 200,000 people.
Claude Lévi-Strauss had a relaxed attitude
to the rigours of scientific enquiry: "The scientist is not the man who
gives true answers, but the one who asks the true questions." In his
previous sentences he has said that science is not unduly concerned with
establishing the truth, "all or nothing": it is enough to "leave
a difficult problem in a less bad state than that in which it was found".[4] "Les vraies
questions" could be interpreted as an insistence on neutrality: loaded
questions not being true questions. But he is saying that the question is more
important than the answer; the pursuit more important than the end; and because
he doubts the existence of unequivocal truth, there are no rules about what
constitutes a "real question". A question can be neutral, but it
will not necessarily lead to a true answer.
[2] President JOHN F. KENNEDY [misquoting Dante], remarks in Bonn, West
Germany; Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy,
1963, p. 503
“There is no reason why we cannot link
facts and theories across disciplines and create a common groundwork of
explanation.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
The above title has two distinct implications.
The first requires us to investigate whether a common groundwork of knowledge
can exist, given that paradigms differ across societies. The second part
requires us to explore whether it is in fact possible for us to link facts and
theories across disciplines to create a common groundwork for knowledge.
Paradigms have shifted throughout societies
from era to era. For example, in the middle ages religion was the dominant
European paradigm. Nowadays, science, mostly empiricism and materialism
dominate the European worldview. However, in other areas around the world, such
as the Middle East, religion still dominates the groundwork of explanation.[1] This suggests
that different societies have different paradigms, which play a crucial role in
creating groundwork of explanation. This brings us on to the knowledge question
(KQ) how do societal paradigms influence the ability for a common groundwork of
explanation to exist? This will be examined through the areas of knowledge
(AOK) natural sciences and religious knowledge systems.
The differences of religious motifs across
societal groups have the potential to prevent a common groundwork of
explanation existing. For example, religion and the natural sciences often do
not agree and lead to differences in the groundwork for explanation across
societies. A research paper by Salman Hameed of Hampshire College in
Massachusetts, a Pakistani who studies Muslim attitudes to science, found that
fewer than 20% of people in Islamic nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia and
Pakistan, believed in Darwin’s theories of Evolution.[2]
Hameed suggests that the problem in many Muslim countries is that educational
institutions are religiously motivated and refuse to look at natural sciences
from a non-religious standpoint. These statistics suggests that there is a
conflict between the WOKs scientific reason and religious faith has prevented the
formation of a consensus between these two disciplines. Psychologists William Miller
and Carl Thoreson argue that these religious barriers have always existed and will
prevent a common acceptance of a scientific groundwork unlikely. [3] The limitations
of the compatibility of reason and faith have lead to disagreement between
natural sciences and religion, impairing the possibility for a common
groundwork to form.
Nonetheless, there is evidence of an
increasing number of religious people accepting the natural sciences. For example,
Rana Dajan, a Jordanian biologist says that “the Koran is not a science
textbook” and that “it provides people with guidelines as to how they should
live their lives.” [4] She argues that
interpretations of it can evolve with new scientific discoveries and that Koranic
verses about the creation of man can be read as providing support for
evolution. This suggests that we may be able to come to an agreement, without
significantly damaging the current strongly religious paradigm of Islam. This implies
that there may be a solution to the conflict between the WOKs faith and reason,
which would create the possibility of an agreement on a common groundwork of
knowledge. However, the paradigms between different religious groups will still
differ and this makes a complete consensus on the groundwork of knowledge seem unobtainable.
Another counterclaim is that although the
world has always lacked a common groundwork of explanation in the past, it is a
hasty generalization, a logical fallacy, to reason that it would not be
possible for us to do so in the future. Rapid globalization in recent years
should make it increasingly plausible to create a common groundwork. The
Internet, which I think is a WOK the TOK syllabus has not yet acknowledged, is creates
a globally connected network. Social networks provide a method of communication
that would perhaps assist the spreading of common shared knowledge. There is a limitation
to this, as countries are already taking a stand against the power of the
Internet. For example, if an Internet user in China searches for the word
"persecution," they are likely to come up with a link to a blank
screen that says, "page cannot be displayed."[5]
For political reasons, these sites are purposefully censored and consequently,
it is evident that governments will restrict the flow of information through
the web. This implies that currently and in the past political motifs prevent
us from creating a common groundwork. Nonetheless, there seems to be a
progression towards a common groundwork of explanation and there is possibility
of a common groundwork existing in the future. Whilst conflicting paradigms
prevent the existence of a universal groundwork, it seems to be expanding.
Perhaps he IB diploma is the best example
of the increasing globalization of ideas. The core attempts to create a common
ground through TOK for students around the world.[6]
However, the subjects are clearly split into their individual areas, including
science, math, the languages and humanities. Most AOKs rely on different
principles, which means that the explanation for reality will depend on the
nature of subjects. For example, the social world differs from the natural
world. Consequently, it is questionable whether it is then possible for us to
link facts and theories across fields and the second KQ that will be explored
is to what extent is it possible for us to construct a groundwork for
explanation in one AOK using principles from another AOK? I am going to explore
this in the AOK of mathematics and how it is used in other AOKs.
The AOK mathematics is based on a set of
more or less globally accepted definitions and basic assumptions. It is based
on mathematical truths, which were derived from a system of axioms and the WOK deductive
reasoning. There is a high sense of certainty in mathematics because statement
in mathematics is only said to be true if it is proved. [7]
Mathematic crosses over into a variety of other AOKs, as we use it to create
models in the natural and human sciences. However, sometimes the reliability of
these mathematical models is limited.
We can see an example when economists
failed to predict the 2009 financial crisis. Economists relied on mathematical
models to figure out how forces in the economy would interact and denied that
it was possible for the crisis to occur. According to Sidney Winter, a Wharton
professor, these mathematical models failed to predict the crises because they
ignore variables that prevent clear solutions.[8] One of the major
flaws is the assumption that market participants behave rationally at all
times. The WOK emotion often plays a central role in human decision-making and
Winter argues that it prevents us from making rational decisions. Mathematical
models of the economy run on rational choice theory, which suggests that most
consumers will make a decision based on rational reasoning.[9]
However, people will make irrational decisions like taking out mortgages they
cannot afford, which was a key factor in the financial crises. This would
suggest that mathematical models would have been successful if they included
more behavioral based theories. However, Andrea Tosin, a researcher in applied mathematics,
suggests that mathematical models have difficulty quantifying irrational
behavior because it diverges from the reasoning and assumptions mathematics is
based on.[10], [11] He suggests
that mathematics cannot model human behavior. This shows the limitations of
mathematics and that boundaries exist between disciplines. If this argument
holds, mathematical models should not be used in economics, as they appear
unreliable. This would imply that facts and theories in certain AOKs cannot
always be used linked to other AOKs, as they fail in constructing a reliable
common groundwork of explanation.
Robert Lucas, professor of economics at the
University of Chicago, counters this view by arguing that mathematical models
are very reliable and superior to any other method that may be used to predict
upcoming events in the economy. [12] He suggests that
an attempt to create other models, where sociological theories play a role,
will not be as successful as mathematical models. Furthermore, mathematic
models are essential in many disciplines, such as engineering. The implication
of this is that we should readily link facts and theories across AOKs, even if
it may not be possible to do so perfectly. It also implies that principles
should not be considered unique to one AOK, as often facts and theories of one
AOK are essential to another. Therefore, just like a WOK cannot be purely
considered in isolation, an isolated perspective in one AOK is not enough. Although
it is not possible for us to quantify irrational behavior now, Tosin agrees
that we are gradually working towards this in the future.[13]
For example, mathematics is crucial in artificial intelligence. The progress in
this field suggests that mathematics may eventually be capable of modeling
irrational behavior.[14] Thus, we can
see that mathematics is a powerful AOK when used and applied to other AOKs. This
shows that a lot of the time we are able to apply principles from one AOK to
another. Although there may be boundaries between AOKs, such as mathematics may
have difficulty modeling irrational behavior, there is often a way to avoid
this boundary. While it was previously discussed that facts and theories in AOKs
such as science and religion can coexist, we can see that links across AOKs may
supplement our knowledge to construct a more complete groundwork of
explanation.
By analyzing the two implications of the
title through two KQs, I have arrived at a final conclusion. I agree with the
statement that linking principles is essential in creating groundwork for explanation,
however creating groundwork that is “common” is something that seems very
difficult due to political and religious paradigms. My final stance is that
although we are able to link facts and theories across AOKs, we face high, if
not insurmountable hurdles that hinder us from gaining acceptance of a “common”
groundwork of explanation.
Word Count: 1599
Works Cited
Chopra, Deepak. "Rationality and
Irrationality in Believers and Atheists." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/irrational-atheists-on-th_b_844454.html
Hausman, Daniel M. "Philosophy of
Economics." Stanford University. Stanford University, 12 Sept. 2003. Web.
14 Feb. 2015.
Hutchings, Michael. "Introduction to
Mathematical Logic." Revue De Métaphysique Et De Morale ée (1958): n. pag.
University of California, Berkeley. Web.
Matheson, Carl. "Historicist Theories
of Scientific Rationality." Stanford University. Stanford University, 12
Aug. 1996. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/
Miller, William R., and Carl E. Thoreson.
"Spirituality, Religion and Health." American Psychologist 24-25 58.1
(2003): n. pag. Web.
Nickles, Thomas. "Scientific
Revolutions." Stanford University. Stanford University, 05 Mar. 2009. Web.
24 Feb. 2015.
Rota, Gian-Carlo, and David Sharp. Mathematics,
Philosophy, and Artificial Intelligence (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Wiseman, Paul, and Usa Today.
"Cracking the 'Great Firewall' of China's Web Censorship." ABC News.
ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"DP Curriculum | International
Baccalaureate®." International Baccalaureate®. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb.
2015.
"In Defence of the Dismal
Science." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 08 Aug. 2009. Web. 13
Feb. 2015.
"Mathematics of Planet Earth." Mathematics
of Planet Earth. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
Science Magazine. S.l.: Book On Demand,
2013. Web.
"The Road to Renewal." The
Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 26 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 201
"Why Economists Failed to Predict the
Financial Crisis” The Economist N.p., 13 May 2009. Web. 04 Feb. 2015.
[1] Nickles, Thomas. "Scientific
Revolutions." Stanford University. Stanford University, 05 Mar.
2009. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
[3] Miller, William R., and Carl E.
Thoreson. "Spirituality, Religion and Health." American
Psychologist 24-25 58.1 (2003): n. pag. Web.
[5] Wiseman, Paul, and Usa Today.
"Cracking the 'Great Firewall' of China's Web Censorship." ABC
News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
[6]
"DP Curriculum | International Baccalaureate®." International
Baccalaureate®. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
[7] Hutchings, Michael. "Introduction
to Mathematical Logic." Revue De Métaphysique Et De Morale ée (1958): n.
pag. University
of California, Berkeley. Web.
[8] "Why Economists Failed to Predict
the Financial Crisis” The Economist N.p., 13 May 2009. Web. 04 Feb.
2015.
[9]Hausman, Daniel M.
"Philosophy of Economics." Stanford University. Stanford
University, 12 Sept. 2003. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.
[10] Hausman, Daniel M. "Philosophy of
Economics." Stanford University. Stanford University, 12 Sept.
2003. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.
[12]
"In Defence of the Dismal Science." The
Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 08 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
[14] Rota, Gian-Carlo, and David Sharp. Mathematics,
Philosophy, and Artificial Intelligence (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
