Theory of knowledge

TOK essay “We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases” (adapted from JW von Goethe). Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Humans are different and unique because they have the ability to reason and question. As a knower I have realized that knowledge is gained not only from experience but also as a result of increasing doubt leading to an insatiable thirst for knowing; curiosity. It is this curiosity to satisfy the doubts, which results in unfathomable discoveries, falsifications and stronger acceptances. However, the ways of acquiring this knowledge has its own limitations, and the dynamic nature of knowledge keeps making us question whether or not we have reached the maximum possible extent of discovery and exploration. Throughout the essay I am going to explore this topic in terms of the areas of knowledge: human sciences and natural sciences.

Gaining knowledge through first hand experiences, dominated majorly by sensory perception, is the most accepted and valid method. This method is followed by someone as young as 1 year old to someone as old as 50 years old, however, the extent to believing that it is the only answer varies with age. The development of cognitive abilities begin as soon as we are exposed to the anomalies of the huge world. To a young child, who has hardly been exposed to the world beyond his/her house, experience is the only way to gain knowledge. For instance; when he/she touches a flame and realize that it is hot, they make a generalization that all objects with that kind of an appearance are dangerous. It is the way young children associate to objects. Their decisions are based on pure black and white opinions. There is no complexity of thought in their knowledge because their extent of exposure is limited. This is what brings us to a psychological theory, the Piaget’s theory which talks about how cognitive development is an advanced reformation of mental processes as a consequence of environmental experience and biological maturation. According to him, children adjust their ideas according to their primary experience, discovery and the knowledge that they already have.1 The previous knowledge is enhanced by their exposure to a different or broader environment and also as a result of their developing psychological prospect. An experiment done on the following theory demonstrates the way in which young children have total faith about their answer, without any imbalance of thought2.Children are dogmatic until they are exposed to broader perspectives, which aid in developing their reasoning skills, which further leads to a change in their pattern of acquiring knowledge; sensory perception is taken over by reason. Does this lead to more knowledge or more doubt?

Is ‘doubt’ the right term to use for a child who barely knows something? How can doubts arise before even knowing the complexity and the three dimensional, dynamic form of knowledge?

1

"Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 19 Nov. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_development. Accessed 15 Dec. 2017.

2 "Piaget's Stages of Development." YouTube, 26 Apr. 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRF27F2bn-A.

This makes one coin the term ‘curiosity’. Curiosity is the urge of knowing. It is that feeling in a child which makes them want to touch and play with every new object they find. It is curiosity which leads to strengthening of evidence and the application of logic, over illusions and fallacies. It is definitely not doubt, because doubts arise from knowledge; it arises when one realizes that knowledge is not just in black and white but it is multidimensional and has a lot of greys to be considered. Many of the universally claimed facts are not told but are traced back from the present, giving rise to fallacies. Also, the human science, economics, which is majorly based on assumptions and possibilities, uses imagination in order create logic to the vastly fallacy based subject. Without this logical connection, the subject would merely be a hypothetical imagination. This demonstrates the way in which faith is highly based on how logical and evidence based scenario it is. It requires strong sensory perception, along with the support of logical reasoning. Sciences could thus be based on the school of thought, empiricism, a school of thought that claims that all knowledge must ultimately be based on sensory evidence. Natural sciences are heavily dependent on this pillar which demands evidence for any claim which is made. This would reduce doubt of the knowledge which is generated, making one confident about that particular knowledge at that moment of time, until further discoveries are made.

Secondary sources of gaining knowledge become vaster as we learn more. We begin to realize that sensory perception has its limitations; that not everything can be seen, heard, tasted or touched and in fact, there can be illusions as well, which makes us believe the universally accepted claims. Taking the natural science chemistry for instance; it is an entire subject based on atoms, molecules and charges, something we can never see or touch. Yet, we tend to believe that it exists because some experiments somewhat prove their existence. Moreover, there are several other theories based on this existence. Would this hamper new discoveries, because it would mean changing all the theories based on it? This makes me take into consideration, the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift3, which demonstrates the way in which knowledge constantly keeps on evolving. It is how a universally accepted claim is challenged, and new claims are built up with a better support of evidence and research, which leads to the general faith in the original claim wavering and further results in the acceptance of the new theory and the falsification of the old one. Does the acquiring of knowledge make us more susceptible to change? Changes are very common in the field of natural sciences, for instance biology, wherein the cell membrane models were falsified and recreated several times, until the current fluid mosaic model of Singer and Nicolson was accepted. However, we cannot be confident about this model as well, owing to its limitation of study and apparatus. As new and more advanced technology is invented, it would lead to a totally new and a more detailed view of the very same cell membrane in the plants. All of this opens our mind to the possibilities of

3

"Paradigm Shift." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 27 Nov. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift. Accessed 19 Dec. 2017.

more and beyond, and with every new discovery we are made aware that there are infinitely more to go.

While the advancement in technology has increased our scope to gain information, it has also increased our extent of doubt. Taking example of the most used search engine, Google, we experience the way in which secondary information can be contradicting, leading to more confusion and thus doubt. Moreover, this excess to information has led to us losing faith in those who are experts in the particular field. Reason replaces dogmatic faith as well. We question the expertise; how are they aware of the knowledge which is not based on first hand sensory perception? Isn’t it the same as us looking out for secondary information on Google?

While I was working on my extended essay regarding organic food and whether or not their high prices actually yield health benefits to the consumers; I was very confident about my knowledge from what I had studied at first. They were assertions from our biology textbook which was my soul source of information. However, as I began surfing the net on this topic, my confidence began to diminish. I realised that my personal knowledge was just a part of the many perspectives available. It is here we realize that access to more knowledge, creates more doubt which is directly or indirectly related to confidence. Dogmatism is put to rest as logic takes over fallacies. However, it must be considered that on a search engine, we are exposed to all kinds of perspectives; it is the vast boundary of secondary knowledge which is explored. It depends on an individual whether or not to believe the source and choosing a source which is the most valid according to them. Trust plays an important role in this case. Moreover, confidence is inversely proportional to doubt; increasing doubt results in decreasing confidence.

It is rightly said that empty vessels make the most sound. It is those who know very little, and are therefore very confident about their knowledge which makes them stick to their point firmly, and pose arguments to prove themselves right. On the other hand, quoting Socrates, “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing� 4, it is understood that gaining the utmost knowledge leads a person to know that that knowledge is just a minute part of the ever extending boundaries of knowledge. Just like each way of knowing has its limitations, so does acquiring knowledge. Knowledge makes us aware about the limitations of knowledge. It is then that one is put into real doubt, as to whether or not one has attained the level of supremacy in knowledge after reaching the highest extent one has ever been. Is that the finish line of gaining knowledge?

4

"I Know That I Know Nothing." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 11 Nov. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing. Accessed 19 Dec. 2017.