TOK Compilation Series 1

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1

We PLANT OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE; LET THIS BE OUR SPEAKING TREE. Compiled by the JNS TOK TEAM

1


CONTENTS

Page no 1 2 3 4 5

Example of a Real Life Situation Rationalism vs Empiricism Basis of Knowledge The Concept of Knowledge Truth & Theories of truth- an overview

3 4 5 8 11

6

Knowledge issue

14

7

Bibliography

17

2


A Real Life Situation Consider the story below which is about a husband and wife as an example of two different kinds of ‘knowers’.

Once upon a time there was a woman who thought she heard a burglar downstairs. She woke up her husband…

Woman: Honey, I think someone is in the house. Please go and look. Man: There’s no one in the house. If someone were in the house the alarm would have gone off. Go back to sleep. Woman: Maybe someone cut the wires. Man: Don’t be silly. The dog would have barked. Woman: Maybe they chloroformed the dog. Please go look for me. So down he went, and looked around, then came back up… Man: There, I’ve looked. No one is in the house. Woman: Well, did you look everywhere? Man: Yes. Woman: Did you look in the kitchen? Man: Yes. Woman: Well, maybe when you were in the kitchen, he was in the living room. And so on…

Two approaches to belief that the couple used . The husband was rational towards his approach while the wife believed in the empirical approach. Given below are the terminologies to approach these beliefs

Rational

Empirical

Logic

Experience

Reasoning

Observation

Sitting and thinking

Going and looking

In philosophical terms, one is the empirical and empirical and the other is the rational; in rational; in simpler terms, one relies on observation and observation and experience while experience while the other relies on logic and logic and reasoning

3

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 RATIONALISM VS EMPIRICISM

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Rationalism: belief that the most „genuine‟ and informative knowledge is based upon reason and not

„raw experience‟ Empiricism: belief that the most „genuine‟ and informative knowledge is based upon experience

Rationalists believe that real knowledge about the world can be discovered with one‟s one ‟s ability to reason alone. Consequently, one can discover things about the world through one‟s capacity to reason. Empiricists believe that rational calculation can be based only upon sense experience. Consequently, sense perception precedes the ability to reason and all real knowledge is based upon sense perception of some form. (E.g., mathematics as a rationalist inquiry vs. natural science as an empirical investigation )

Realism: the belief that there is a knowable external world, which exists independently of us, of which

we can know through sense perception Idealism: the belief that our knowledge exists only in our minds and we cannot verify the external

world

Deduction is from general to the particular, induction vice versa. Value:

Deduction is more certain but less informative than induction. It is very useful in a search for reliable knowledge. the structure of the argument, not the content is important;

Induction goes beyond the immediate evidence of our senses, thus not always reliable;

Induction is more informative, less certain than deduction. 4

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 Induction goes beyond the immediate evidence of our senses, and is therefore unreliable. This tendency worsens the phenomenon of the confirmation bias.

All French people are rude; Women are unfit to fly planes; Indian children are deprived; European children are gluttons.

Basis Of Knowledge, Rationalism & Empiricisms BELIEFS &EVIDENCE

The main difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge requires proof but it is not fully clear how much proof or evidence is required. There are at least two types of evidence; there is direct evidence ·of the senses when we can see that such and such is the case. This is commonly referred to as empirical evidence and is what is generally used to prove whether something is true in everyday life. However we often go way beyond what we can directly see and make claims to "know" things that we cannot see. For instance we might claim to know what someone is thinking when we have no direct access to their minds or we know that something is still in its place when we cannot see it directly know that animals evolved through a process of the survival of the fittest (i.e.c;I theory). The other type of evidence is what might be called indirect evidence, or evidence that we already accept which fits in with what we claim to know. This is often called the coherence theory of truth; in a law court it would be circumstantial evidence and it makes the claim to know the truth stronger and more acceptable, without actually proving it. For example the claim to "know" that X did the murder could be supported by knowledge of a motive and an opportunity but these do not themselves prove the case.

In everyday life we usually require KNOWLEDGE of particular facts to help us "get on"; invariably we look to empirical evidence to support our claims to know things (e.g. we saw it, we heard someone say so, it's written there etc.) However in the area of more general explanatory knowledge about the world both kinds of evidence are very important and sometimes they are interlinked.

5

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 An example from earlier times; the claim to "know" that the world was both still and the centre of the universe. This was supported by empirical evidence, notably that it does not feel as though it is moving and it certainly looks as though everything goes around it (the sun, moon and stars all rise in the East, go across the sky, set in the West and look as though they continue their routes on the far side of the Earth once a day). The Earth also looks a lot bigger than the sun, moon and stars (Which were thought to be only a few miles above the Earth's surface); this is direct observation but it helps support the claim to know the Earth is in the centre because of the related idea that in general smaller objects go round larger ones so it is an aspect of coherence. Similarly the empirical observation that objects appear to fall straight down; this is indirect evidence as it is based on a related idea that if the world was moving then things would fall down at an angle, but, as they don't, the world cannot be moving. Other related observations would include the lack of consistently strong winds, which it was argued, would have occurred if the world spun on its axis.

A more clear cut example of coherence in this case would be religious ideas which put the Earth in the centre because it was supposedly created first, or because the Earth is where Jesus or Mohammed were; generally because it is where Gods most important creation is, i.e. man.

So the "knowledge" that the world was in the centre of the universe and did not move was supported by a strong body of evidence, both direct empirical evidence and indirect evidence (other accepted ideas) that cohered with the notion that the Earth is in the centre. In this way we could call it knowledge; it fitted in with a "world view" and with observations. The latter requirement of empirical evidence is what differentiates it from belief; this is not so much because empirical evidence can prove things true but more because empirical evidence can prove things false. Another example will show what this means. The "knowledge" that an imbalance of the Four Humors (blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm) causes illness was accepted for over 2,000 years. It fitted empirical evidence such as the presence of these humors in abundance at times of illness which corresponded with the Seasons, blood diseases being most prevalent in Spring, yellow bile diseases in summer and so on; and it fitted other theories such as the idea of the Four Elements (Earth, Air, Fire and Water), the idea of tides Oust as the moon was known to effect the tides of the Sea so it was thought it effected the tides of the liquids in the body), and the idea of balance and harmony being connected to well-being (which idea originally came from Pythagoras). As in the above case of the Earth being the 6

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 centre, so here we have a strong claim to knowledge both as regards empirical evidence and also coherence. This theory was disproved by empirical observations under controlled conditions (what we call experiments). The idea of the Four Humors was disproved by the work of, among others, Lavoisier who showed that the Air, supposedly one element, actually consisted of two, one of these being oxygen. So one of the pillars of the “Four Humors theory” - the four elements was taken away. Pasteur later showed that germs cause disease but belief in the Four Humors had already died out. Similarly discoveries of the size of the Solar System and the Sun, not to mention the distance of the stars all helped to disprove the Earth -centered system. In both the above cases then the old "Knowledge" was disproved by empirical observation, which either undermined the idea or undermined related ideas which could no longer support the "knowledge". Why not call these ideas "beliefs" then since they are no longer justified or true? Of course many people would call these old ideas "beliefs" but it is worth considering that they are different to other kinds of beliefs such as religious ones. For whereas the two ideas discussed of the Earth being in the centre and the Four Humors theory were believed for many years they were expressed in such a way that it was possible to disprove them provided the relevant observations were made (which of course happened in the end). However religious beliefs do not depend on empirical observation; there is no observation that could disprove the existence of God. So you could say that there are two types of belief; those that it is possible to disprove with empirical evidence and those that it is not. Knowledge comes under the first category; unlike belief, knowledge can be wrong. It is our attitude to certainty that is the main difference. With beliefs we can be certain in the conviction that nothing can make us change our minds; with knowledge we can be certain only to the extent that the evidence makes us sure but always with the proviso that fresh evidence could make us change our minds. Some philosophers such as Karl Popper have suggested that this is the key feature that differentiates proper science from other beliefs; it consists of statements that can be checked against the evidence. Usually in science this means that we have a theory that we can make predictions from and then we can perform experiments to check whether these predictions work; if they do not work then we have to get rid of the theory and come up with a better one. In science then, all knowledge ( in the theoretical sense) is provisional. Belief, however, is more like a commitment.

7

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE

What is knowledge? And how does it differ from belief? To answer these questions it is important to consider how we use the word "know" - to analyze the criteria or requirements for the correct use of any statement where a state of knowledge is asserted.

First Requirement: the statement of knowledge must be true - the objective component of knowledge. The point is that what isn't true cannot be knowledge. If a person claims to know something (say, that Paris is the capital of Spain) and then finds out that it is not true that person will have to admit that he didn't know; he isn‟t. only thought he knew. He will have to withdraw his claim to knowledge. You can't know what so isn‟t. In this respect "knowing" something is different from "believing" something. In the above example the person would have to admit that he did not in fact know about Paris when he discovers the truth, but if he had only claimed that he believed that Paris was the capital of Spain then, when he discovered the truth he could still maintain that he had believed that error. Using the word "belief" refers to ones state of mind, not to an objective state of affairs in the world. You can perfectly well believe a statement is true although it is not, but you cannot know a statement is true when it is not. Unlike the word "belief' the word "know" is a success-word - it does not merely describe your state of mind, it also puts the stamp of truth on it. Where

P stands

for any

proposition or statement, "She knew that p, but p was not true" is a contradiction in terms, but the statement, "She believed that P, but p was not true" is all right people often have false beliefs. The requirement of truth, however, is not enough. Second Requirement: you must believe that the statement is true - the subjective component

of

knowledge. When you say "I know that p" you are, if you are honest, also claiming that you believe it. It would not make sense to say "I know that the Earth is round, but I don't believe it". Sometimes people find it difficult to accept the truth and may say something contradictory like that; for instance an ardent member of the flat. Earth Society might say that. But what would he mean? Either he would mean that he does know but is too shocked to come to terms with this knowledge and can't accept it, or he may mean that he feels that he ought to know it because it has been proved to him, but he doesn't accept the proof. And this gives rise to the third requirement of Knowledge.

8

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 Third Requirement: there must be good evidence for believing the statement. In other words there must be a good reason or proof that P is true to claim to know it. If you claimed to know something for which you had no proof or reason, say, that a horse would win a race, then you are not entitled to claim this as knowledge even if your prediction comes true; it was just a lucky guess. You could not claim that you knew before the race (unless you had arranged for all the other horses to be doped - in which case you 'would be justified in claiming you knew as this would constitute good proof or reason). To claim to know something one must have adequate or good evidence; the belief in P must be justified. The problem immediately arises as to how much proof is adequate or "good"? Is it so much proof or evidence that you are absolutely certain that there is no possibility of being wrong. Some people argue that this is impossible; that, although silly to imagine, it is possible that we could be mistaken about the most obvious things. Can you be certain that there are chairs in the room next door, or that a pregnant woman won't give birth to a kiwi fruit, or that the next time you throw something up in the air it won't just disappear. A philosopher, Bertrand Russell, argued that the Earth could have been created, full with memories and "old things" just five minutes ago. Descartes argued that you could doubt everything except your own existence ("I think therefore I am"); a modern version of this is known as "brain in a vat" -which is a bit like the premise of the film "The Matrix" where everyone's experiences are just electronically stimulated in the neural pathways of the brain and so everything is an illusion .... but it is not possible that you thinking it is an illusion. People who argue in this way, saying that we cannot know things for sure are called skeptics.

Often all the proof we need to be certain we know does not stand up to scrutiny; after all people used to be pretty certain that the Earth was still and in the centre of the universe; there was plenty of "proof' - the senses afforded no direct experience of movement, things behaved as though the Earth were still, everything appeared to move around it and religion appeared to support the idea. To question it appeared to go against common sense; people claimed that they knew the Earth was in the centre - how much more proof could there be? How stupid was it to doubt it? Yet clearly they didn't know. They didn't have enough proof. Some things we can claim to know because not only are they true but they must be true; these are things that are logically certain. A mathematical ,statement such as "Two add two equals four" is, it could be argued, true by the very definitions of the words involved; it could not be false in any conceivable circumstances. So we can be entitled to claim to know it. Knowledge that is true by virtue of pure reason is certain; and it is often described as an analytic truth. Much mathematical knowledge is like this. People who believe that our knowledge derives principally from reason are known as rationalists. 9

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 However when we use the word "knowledge" we usually mean it to refer to things that are not necessarily true but just happen to be true, i.e. they could be false. These things we need evidence for and it is often from the senses. Statements that we claim to know through the evidence of our senses we call empirical statements and a person who claims that our knowledge derives from the senses is an empiricist. Much of what we claim to know in fact comes from what other people have told us either in spoken or written form. We accept their views or statements because we regard them as authorities and this goes for parents, teachers, specialists in fields of knowledge and so on. Most of the time the proof of the things we claim to know is a mixture of all three types; we claim to know something if we observe evidence, if it is supported by "authorities" and if it fits in with other ideas we have. In fact if one of these contradicts what we claim to know we would change our minds about whether in fact we did know. The condition that our claim to knowledge should not be inconsistent with other things we know is called the coherence theory of truth. For example, believing that the Earth is the centre of the universe coheres with (and so is supported by) the belief that God's most important creation, man, is on Earth - for where else would he put his main achievement, if not the centre? So we could claim to know that, say, a book will drop to the floor when you let go of it because you have observed similar things happen before (empirical observation), you assume (expect) that this kind of thing will continue to happen (mixture of empiricism and rationalism, assuming there is some kind of order in the world) and you have studied about gravity in Science lessons (authority). This all fits together (coherence) so we can claim to know this will happen.

10

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 The investigation of the nature and limits of knowledge is not possible without reference to the truth.

What, then, is truth? Three different theories of truth are given below, none of them satisfactory, yet each suggests some fragment of the truth. With their help, we can negotiate through the extremes of dogmatism (the belief that you possess absolute truth) and relativism (the belief that there is no truth to possess).

Truth Truth is a tricky word. What is truth? On the everyday level we seem to have no problem dealing with the concept. (It is ten o‟clock. No, that‟s not true. Yes, it is.) However, some confusion may lie in the overuse of the word as an intensive, so consider the following:

• A true friend • True to his wife • A true likeness • The true meaning of democracy • The door hangs true • True to life • True diamonds • The whole truth • Nothing but the truth • Truth tables in maths • I love you truly • The truth hurts

Try to translate the „truth‟ terms above into something synonymous with loyal, straight, accurate, real da ily conversation, when we come to apply it to and so on. Yet no matter how the word „truth‟ is used in daily knowledge claims there are some definite parameters. One thing we can say right away is that truth is a judgement we make about a proposition. The cat is on the mat. It is raining. Every event has a cause.

11

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 Someone says P is true, someone else says that it is not. That‟s not all there is to it but it‟s a good beginning.

As a minimum, you should be able to bring an understanding of three basic truth tests to the treatment of an essay topic such as: Discuss the characteristics and the merits of the three different truth tests: the correspondence, coherence and the pragmatic and how they might intertwine in some way.

Each truth test with its elaborate theories deserves pages and pages that we cannot go into here but for our purposes you need to have some introductory understanding. So as you read these preliminary explanations, you should see where each connects with the rational and the empirical basis of knowledge. The coherence truth test links to rationalism, while the correspondence truth test links to empiricism. You can decide for yourself about the pragmatic truth test.

Theories of Truth: The Correspondence Theory of Truth

knowledge valid on the basis of its correspondence with the outside world or experience .Knowledge can be considered true because it corresponds to reality. Example – Example – The The statement “The sky is blue” is true only if the sky is blue.

Coherence theory of truth

Knowledge valid on the basis of the coherence of some set of beliefs or propositions. Knowledge is considered true because it is in agreement with other propositions and facts. Truth is referential. Some problems and objections:

Where do the first propositions come from? How are they verified? (On correspondence with reality?) What if there are multiple systems of truths and propositions which cohere but contradict each other.

Pragmatic theory of truth Pragmatism is a belief that the practical results determine the value of ideas and practices. The pragmatic theory of truth, then, is the belief that truth is determined by practical results.

In short, what works in practice is true; or something is true insofar as it works. 12

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 These things are true, in part, on the basis of background practices and culture.

Justified true belief

One of the first and most accepted definitions of knowledge is Plato’s way-of-knowing which is often called knowledge-by-description, or propositional knowledge. A proposition is a formal statement of convincing knowledge. For Plato, the only real knowledge was knowledge you could be certain about. Therefore, for you to be sure you know something, you have to subject a statement of what you know to three tests: The first test is: you must believe the statement; The second test is: your belief has to be true; The third test is: your true belief must be justified. So, you have a neat little formula to test the different kinds of knowledge you meet in the various disciplines you study:

Justified True Belief

Or propositional Knowledge or knowledge that… Must be justified by empirical evidence or logic or memory or authority Must be true Must be believed.

13


What are Knowledge Issues? Knowledge Issues

According to the Subject Guide, "Knowledge issues are questions that directly refer to our understanding of the world, ourselves and others, in connection with the acquisition, search for, production, shaping and acceptance of knowledge."

Further, we are told, “"Knowledge issues can reveal how knowledge can be a benefit, a gift, a pleasure

and a basis for further thought and action; just as they can uncover the possible uncertainties, biases in approach, or limitations relating to knowledge, ways of knowing, and the methods of verification and justification appropriate in different areas of knowledge."

Questions beginning with with 'Can...?', 'Do/Does...?', 'Have/Has...?', 'Will...?', 'Will...?', ”Is…?” lead to closed questions with a yes/no answer. „How...?', 'Why...?', 'What...?', 'Where...?', 'When...?' Questions beginning with „How...?', are also restrictive. Phrases like 'How far...?', far...? ', 'In what way....?', way.... ?', 'To what extent...?' extent...? ' can provide more scope for your topic to be explored, leading to more exploration of knowledge claims.

14


1) „Knowledge Issues‟ often start with the question “ How do we know…” How do we know if a source or claim can be trusted? How do we know what is morally right or wrong? How do we know what our conclusions rest on? How do we know if results are accurate?

2)„Knowledge Issues‟ can be related to the four „Ways of Knowing‟ Reason (logic / inductive reasoning / deduction / syllogism) Emotion (intuition / feelings / moods) Sense Perception (the 5 senses / Kinaesthetic awareness etc.) Language (all forms of structured communication) Questions could relate to: definition / use / importance / limitations lim itations / negative effects etc. in relation to your subject area

3)„Knowledge Issues‟ can be questions about subject areas Is Mathematics present in Nature? How reliable is „proof‟ in the Natural Sciences? Are the human „Sciences‟ really Science?

How useful is knowledge gained in History?

4)„Knowledge Issues‟ can be related to Distinctions & Connections between subject areas What makes one subject area different from other subjects? What is Scientific about Science? How is a subject defined – are there disagreements?

15

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 Where are the boundaries of your subject?

What is the relationship between one subject area and other subject areas? What does your subject have in common with other subject areas? Why is your subject area clustered in a specific Area of Knowledge? (See diagram above) How should the various Areas of Knowledge be structured in a diagram, d iagram, and why?

16

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDP TOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1 7. Bibliography Books: Brian King- “The theory of Knowledge ”

Lagemaat, Richard van de. – de. – “Theory “Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma” – “An introduction to the theory of knowledge” Michael Woolman- “Ways of Knowing” – “An Nicholas & Alchin- “Theory of Knowledge”

Weblinks: http://ibtokspot.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-knowledge-issues.html www.realmsofknowledge.com www.thetheoryofknowledgeway.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ontology – the study of the nature of being Epistemology – the study of the nature of knowledge; the theory of knowledge

17

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE HANDOUT-1

18

TOK Compilation Series 1

Recommend Documents