Amanda Nelson, Fort Hays State University

Amanda Nelson is an Adjunct Instructor at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, Ohio.  Specializing in online education, she received her B. A. in Liberal Studies from Fort Hays State University in Kansas (via distance learning) and continued at Fort Hays to complete her Master of Liberal Studies in English.

download this essay: nelson_knowledge

Knowledge, to be called such, has to have two components: it has to be perceived as true (thus, it is true), and we have to be well-warranted in our belief that it is true. Knowledge, then, is justified true belief. Belief is described by Quine and Ullian in “The Web of Belief” as an assessment process of analysis by which we draw general conclusions. “It is this need to resolve conflicts that prompt us to assess the grounds of belief (Quine & Ullian 9).” The process can include, but is not limited to, observation, self-evidence, testimony, hypothesis, induction, analogy, intuition, confirmation and refutation, explanation, persuasion and evaluation. All these tools make up the conclusions we come to know as beliefs. In our search for knowledge, we are able to come closer and closer to the Truth, though some authorities, such as C.S. Pierce ascertain that though we can make progress toward Truth, we will never achieve it in its purest form, though “our beliefs guide our desires and shape our actions (Pierce 59).” Using critical thinking to compare various views will allow us to decide for ourselves what to believe through evidence and examples. Just as one main objective of [this course] has been to evaluate knowledge and its implications, so is the contention of this paper.

To find Truth, we have to know what we are searching for. What then, can be defined as “knowledge?” We’ve already supposed that knowledge is justified true belief. To further explore the definition, it is necessary to look at what knowledge does and what knowledge implies to paint a more accurate picture. The code of ethics for knowledge seekers says this: that managing the search for knowledge is “wisely and responsibly” applying a proiri knowledge (previously known knowledge) to new knowledge, and then drawing conclusions through critical thinking, or abductive reasoning. This process may involve several other factors, including data, information, understanding and wisdom.

Data is called information used for analysis or used as the basis for a decision. Data may be isolated givens, which are not yet sorted for use. An example of data would be the sheer volume of output a computer generates when running a query from a database. It is information that has not yet been manipulated for human use.

Information is defined as knowledge of a specific event or situation which has been organized and sorted. Using our above example, the data that comes from the query could then be sorted into useable charts, graphs, or lists, and then defined as information. Information comes in many forms: it can take the form of books, newspapers, fliers, media, journals, lectures, or written documents, to name a few. Thus, information is data that has been sorted.

Using all this sorted information requires some level of understanding, which is knowing that something is true, and also its nature, causes, significance, and connection to other things. Thus, understanding is not just regurgitating memorized information, but knowing the background of that information and how it relates to the real world. For example, knowing that the speed of light is the same in all directions does not imply true understanding. We can be said to understand the concept if we can, say, site the Michelson-Morley experiment that involved the invention of the intersperometer, which ultimately proved that there existed no “ether” and why it was such a big deal (that in 1887, ether’s existence was widely believed, and that if Galileo could have only proved that the earth moved, he would have won his case). Accordingly, understanding is more about knowing the content of information than merely the end result it implies.

All of these elements combined with knowledge put us on the path to wisdom, or the ability to apply or extend appropriately what one knows to shape and guide one’s values, attitudes, and conduct. Wisdom is a point on the continuum of knowledge closer to the top of Pierce’s asymptomic curve, which again says we get closer and closer to the truth, though we may never achieve pure truth. Wisdom requires us to draw conclusions based on inferential (reached by reasoning) and non-inferential (knowing directly) knowledge. As we look back at the content of this course, we will evaluate how wisdom propels us on the knowledge path.

The Scientific Method

Before we look at ways of knowing in the disciplines, we must first look at inferential knowledge and describe how it is reached. Inductive inference (or Case + Result = Rule) is known by gathering examples, look at the outcome, and extract a rule, or principle. Deductive inference (or Rule + Case = Result) is assessing a new case, applying the prior rule, and anticipating a specific outcome. Abductive reasoning (Result + Rule = Case) involves both inductive and deductive reasoning, and reasoning backwards. Scientific thinking employs all three types of inferences to find the theory that makes the most sense.

Most scientific thinking utilizes the “scientific method,” which is a structured sequence of inductive and deductive reasoning process, designed to form and then test explanatory hypotheses. The overall process is abductive as it attempts to make educated guesses. This six-step method involves: observing (beginning by collecting relevant data), analyzing (seeking to find a relation among the data), generalizing (formulating a general hypothesis beyond the given data), assuming (for the sake of testing it, that the data is true), deducing (predicting that certain results will occur in certain circumstances), and observing (testing whether the predicted results did occur). Steps one and six are empirical data, or based on sensory observation, while steps two through five are conceptual, or abstract (gained through thought process). Next, we will look at how the scientific method and other reasoning processes are applied to the disciplines.

Each academic discipline has unique ways of knowing as well as commonalities with one another. Each also has specific limitations in ways of knowing. The sciences, for example, are able to highly employ the scientific method as a way of knowing, as the six steps fit smoothly with the sciences’ normally empirical data. For instance, it is more conceptual for a geologist to evaluate the layers of the earth using the scientific method than for an artist to evaluate whether his latest painting is beautiful or not using the same process. The scientific method is used in many other sciences and fields that just the hard sciences, but the data may be much more difficult to evaluate. In the soft sciences, subjectivity may come into play, such as psychologists testing on humans (where issues arise such as ethical testing, the subjects’ commitment level or mood, etc.). While science is prone to serendipity (such as the discovery of penicillin), it deals in probabilities, not certainties. Science is a descriptive discipline (how the universe is), as opposed to prescriptive (how the universe should be). According to Karl Popper, it is important that “in science, we are always concerned with explanations, predictions, and tests, and that the method of testing hypotheses is always the same (Popper 34).”

A major limitation of science includes not being able to answer more conceptual questions, such as “is there a God?” These types of questions cannot be answered using the scientific method (there is no empirical data). Science is content to simply “let facts lie,” and do not make value judgments. Yet, many non-scientists want straight-forward answers. No law, theory, or hypothesis is ever proven 100% with certainty, though we can achieve greater probability with extensive testing. Because of this limitation, science is an important tool, but not the only way of knowing.

In the arts and humanities disciplines, the scientific method may not fare well as a tool for evaluation. The proper subjects for use of the scientific method exclude subjective topics such as morality, religion, the mind, and the arts. But, like the sciences, the humanities still have data to explain (accomplished through the abductive method), theories are still put forward as hypotheses, procedures are used for testing the theories, and testing is still done by peer review through transparency. The humanities are evaluated cognitively, or by understanding, thinking, and knowing facts. The process is still information-driven. In the arts, the emphasis of knowing is not only cognitive, but appreciative and evaluative as well. Evaluative methods use analyzing to reach value judgments about the arts, unlike the sciences. There is an element of appreciation, or liking/enjoying the work of art, which also does not apply to the sciences. For example, in evaluating whether Picasso’s “Guernica” is beautiful or not, we would evaluate its intrinsic value (being beautiful for its own sake) as well as its extrinsic value (beautiful for the sake of something else, like the theme), an element not included in the scientific process.

Speaking aesthetically or liking a piece for what it is rather than what it represents, Panofsky would say that we need a total aesthetic appreciation. Clive Bell asserts that to be really aesthetic, it has to be sheerly intrinsic, or an end, while Stolnitz would imply that the art is an end in itself, not a means. It is impossible, and sometimes not even desirable, to eliminate the personal, subjective perspective in the humanities, whereas in the sciences, nothing less than complete objectivity is acceptable. The data are more abstract in the humanities than the sciences as well. Knowledge in the humanities relies on the personal point of view, where even the subjects are qualitative (in the sciences, subjects are quantitative). The trouble with these ways of knowing in the arts is that it is subjective, and can have inherently different meanings from person to person, which makes communication about the pieces difficult. The humanities disciplines work in an open, dynamic system and are not able to control the phenomena being studied (the opposite of the sciences). Humans engaging in the humanities are cases of self-knowledge; science, on the other hand, is practiced by humans but excludes any human consideration (empathetic vs. objective).

Both the arts and the sciences embrace technological advancements, and both deal with more concrete subjects than the humanities. These two topics are similar in that we apprehend data through our senses (it is the same concept to observe the bending of light in a physics experiment as it is to observe a painting in the fine arts).

The arts and the humanities are similar to each other in that they both focus on directly experiencing something for oneself (like the texture of an art object and empathizing with a character in literature). Both can arranged on a continuum; many humanities have an arts aspect and many fields in art have a humanities aspect. Both are strongly subjective in that they have a human component. However, while the arts express appreciation, the humanities explain understanding.

Mathematics, though not considered an art or humanity, is neither a science at all, though it is heavily used in most of the sciences. Most mathematicians would agree that math is conceptual vs. empirical, as it explores the implications of ideas through deductive logic (proof). The key ingredients of mathematical thinking include deductive proof (logic), empirical ideas (laws of nature), operations (functions and unique output), and dynamics (unchanging laws). Sandstrom theorized that math has little to do with numbers, but with relation. Mathematical knowledge appears to be “a priori” according to empiricists, or known in advance (conceptual). Discovery in math is typically about either proving new implications from older ideas, creating new frameworks for ideas, or adding new deductive techniques. The limits of math are just that: limited to math. Although math is used in many other disciplines, its theories are mostly relevant only to themselves; they don’t describe other areas of life.

Morality, on the other hand, applies to all kinds of morals; its only requirement is that it must pertain to people. Moral judgment covers human character or conduct and implies human responsibility. Moral knowledge is true or false because it is believed to be true or false. Morality can be culturally relative, temporally relative, or personally relative. What is considered an abomination in one culture may be standard practice in another (such as the Eskimo culture leaving their young or elderly out in the elements to die in an effort to preserve the family). A belief system which is highly controversial is often merely morally relative (the Greeks normally burned the bodies of their forefather, which was appalling to the Callatians, who ate their dead). Different cultures have different moral codes. “Cultural relativism…challenges our ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. It says…there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes, and nothing more (Dewey & Hulbutt 14).”

Our three speakers, Salien, Trout, and Vaz, agree on four commonalities of morality: there are human similarities in the ways of knowing about morality, general relativism prevails, the main difficulties are in religion and moral knowledge, and the methods of evaluation are the same for everyone.

There are many difficulties in knowing about moral knowledge. Dr. Vaz says knowledge is dynamic and changing, which makes study in the field difficult. Dr. Trout asserts that values are different from culture to culture, thus what is considered immoral in some countries are quite the contrary in others. Dr. Salien claims that though there is immense common ground through cultures on shared attitudes, beliefs, and values, different cultures value different kinds of knowledge, and morality may not be one of them. Hume’s principle says one cannot derive and “ought” from an “is,” and since moral questions are about what one “should” do, there are no moral laws that would apply to everyone universally.

Religion is another discipline which is highly subjective in ways of knowing. Commonly, most religions address four main issues: the nature of God, the relationship to nature, divine will, and revelation (how God reveals Himself). Two main categories of knowing religiously prevail: knowing God as impersonal (God as a force of nature) and knowing God as personal (God having qualities like a human). Like many other disciplines, there are three ways of applying knowledge to know whether or not God exists: the deductive method (reasoning backwards, like the Cosmological argument), the inductive method (the Design argument), and the abductive method (the best-explanation approach). Religions are typically categorized by theist (God as in the world and above the world), pantheistic (God as imminent only), or deistic (God as transcendent only).

Faith, or believing something without conclusive proof, is a major component of most religions. According to William James, faith is unavoidable (we have faith in something, whether we know it or not), and faith can be rationally justified in certain cases (as in actions justified by faith). James also asserts that disagreements in religion typically arise: in regards to how to interpret within the same religion, between religions, and whether to be religious at all. Disagreements, then, are based on alternative hypotheses. Some common problems in ways of knowing in religion are that people are not objective and hold many varying views, God is not a literal case (He cannot be studied empirically), and personal faith is just that – personal. Considering all these challenges, it seems amazing that we have any organized religion at all.

Although truth and knowledge are relative to one’s culture (called cultural relativism), there are also some common themes that prevail. An absolute, or a universal truth, is a moral view that is regarded as always true in all cultures. Dr. Trout cites that though values are different from culture to culture, logic is the key to belief in every culture using ordinary reasoning. “Reasoning is good,” Pierce maintains, “if it be such as to give a true conclusion from true premises, and not otherwise (Pierce 57).”

Humans also make myths, Trout says, which are imaginary presentations of deeper truths. Dr. Vaz concurs that humans are similar in many areas, including biologically and psychologically. She says that knowledge is dynamic and changing in all cultures, and that knowledge is on a continuum between absolute and relativistic. A belief is relative when, whether it is true or false, it is thought to be true or false by a group or persons. Most people hold an absolutism view on morality, due to their own ethnocentrism (one’s own culture as the center of the universe). A common argument in morality argues that all moral beliefs are learned from one’s culture, but the important point to remember is to be tolerant of others’ values without putting them down. This is because shared norms are necessary to maintaining happy and sustainable life in human communities.

Dr. Salien agrees that though cultures value different kinds of knowledge, that there is no real difference (all cultures value knowledge by their own definition). There is, all agree, immense common ground in shared attitudes, beliefs, and values within cultures. “Truth is everywhere,” as Pierce reminds us, and we are always seeking to get closer to the Truth.

Humility is essential in the quest for knowledge, as Plato illustrates in “Meno.” Humility is described as caution and modesty about the infallibility and extent of our prior knowledge. Open-mindedness is important in two aspects: not thinking one knows it all (being open to correction about prior beliefs), and not thinking one knows it all (there are many things about which one is still ignorant). The danger in not maintaining humility in the search for knowledge, called Provincialism, is that it restricts anything that doesn’t fit into one’s framework. Thus, new knowledge isn’t really possible, as we grow by branching out. Five lessons from “Meno” urge us to avoid seeing the pursuit as a debater’s game, to not be hostile to questioning the grounds of our authority, to avoid thinking we already know all the answers, being willing to admit our errors, and opening ourselves to cooperative inquiry to make real progress in getting closer to the Truth. The moral of the story of “Meno” is that only by being open-minded and humble will we ever stay on the path to ultimate Truth.

Knowledge seekers should also maintain intellectual honesty and truthfulness whenever possible. This implies a duty to remain transparent for peer review. One should remain impartial, not go to extremes (or follow new fads in the quest for knowledge), avoid the cynicism of misology (haters of reason), dare to think for themselves, take criticism seriously, avoid the know-it-all attitude, have a genuine respect for other ways of thinking (or alternative hypotheses), and be aware of one’s own objectivity and limited perspective. These practices will allow one to stay in good graces with the code of ethics for knowledge seekers.

What, then, is all this knowledge for? What is the meaning of life? This has been the age-old golden question since written records began. Some (nihilists) say life has no meaning; we are all the result of a cosmic accident. Other hold that life has meaning if and only if there exists some purpose, goal, or rationale that makes possible better vs. worse answers to the question: “How should I live my life?” Others (Existentialists) theorize somewhere in between; that life has no meaning, but try to find better answers anyway. If life does have meaning, then it has to come from somewhere. Naturalists would say that there is no God; all there is is the world that exists around you. Supernaturalists say that in addition to nature, there is another dimension, possibly where God exists. I agree with C. S. Lewis’s aquarium theory: the life that exists inside the tank (though it is all we can prove empirically), there is a whole dimension of life outside the tank where God exists (and can see us and interact with us).

While Humanists think that life is all about being satisfied and leading a comfortable existence, Supernaturalists think life has a higher purpose than to serve ourselves. Humanists/Naturalists view knowledge as a tool; Supernaturalists view knowledge as a goal. I personally fall into both categories. I believe knowledge is good in and of itself (as the Organic theory ascertains), but also think that knowledge as a whole is desirable (like the Atomistics). Life is what you make of it, and I think that what is important, significant, and worthwhile in life is a matter of personal preference. Some people gain knowledge for material gain. Others gain knowledge for the sake of bettering themselves mentally. Still others reject the knowledge path and live for fleshly desires. I happen to agree with Plato and Francis Bacon; “knowledge as virtue” and “knowledge as power,” respectively. We cannot know empirically what knowledge is for, but we can use other methods of testability. The reason I believe in both theories is that I have seen the good that comes from both. I have grown personally in leaps and bounds while on the quest for knowledge, and I have achieved a better end as a result (though people describe this in different ways, I may describe it as being more humble or as gaining material wealth).

Though the two main questions of life (What is life for? What is knowledge for?) may not be answered universally, I think each person must give an account for his own life. My life has definition and meaning by what I determine its definition and meaning to be. Today I happen to measure my life’s meaning by how successful I am in my career and academics. Tomorrow this may change. Knowledge, then, is the most powerful tool I have on this path to give my life meaning. It is the culmination of all my experiences, all my beliefs, all my idiosyncrasies, into one concept. That is what makes me, me. As Socrates put it, “for my own sake as well as for yours, I will do my very best (Plato).”

WORKS CITED

Dewey, R. and R. Hulbutt, “Cultural Relativism: Is Ethics Mere Conformity?” In Introduction to Ethics, New York: Prentice Hall, 1977.

Peirce, C., “The Fixation of Belief.” Classic American Philosophers, New York: Prentice Hall, 1951.

Popper, Karl R., “Unity of Method in Natural and Social Sciences.” In Poverty of Historicism, London: Routledge, 1960.

Plato, Meno. translated by Benjamin Jowett.

Quine, W. V. and Ullian, J. S., The Web of Belief. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.