Statements of Knowledge

Of the 9 statements provided, we cannot assume any of them to be “knowledge”, as they all rely on opinion, assumption, morals and/or beliefs.

“I know stealing is wrong” is a moralistic statement, in the sense; we consider it “morally” wrong to steal. For us, stealing may be seen as a devaluing action, however, for the Mafia, someone who steals is considered to be extremely capable. For a poor kid, who has been brought up in extreme conditions and been taught to steal, “stealing” may not be wrong. To him, it is a way of life; it is required for his existence. Here, relativism comes in. To quote from our TOK textbook “According to relativism, there is no such thing as absolute truth that exists in an objective way independent of what anyone happens to believe is true. Instead, truth is relative and may be different for different individuals.” What may be true for you may not be true for me. “I know stealing is wrong” is one such statement; it varies from person to person. It is a belief, not knowledge.

“I know it is raining”. In fact, you can never know if it is raining. First of all, due to a lack of skill, we cannot distinguish between rains, “a type of precipitation, and a product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that is deposited on the earth's surface”, and sleet, “a type of precipitation intermediate between rain and snow.” (Source: www.wikipedia.org). What someone may perceive to be rain may be sleet to someone else; though not a very convincing argument at first, if given thought it starts to makes sense. Secondly, my favorite argument; isn’t “rain” rain in the opinion of the person who decided to call it rain? What we take to be knowledge, undoubted knowledge of rain, is merely the opinion of people who decided to term it as “rain”. To me, rain maybe something else, and since rain is not something that can be “proven” (like the earth being round using satellite images that seem to be “foolproof”) but merely “defined” using a judgmental understanding of precipitation, there is no concrete evidence as to the “knowledge” of rain being based in anything other than purely opinion. Furthermore, how can you be certain it is “rain”? It may well be orange juice, or coca-cola or even whiskey. Just because it is colorless and tasteless (as someone might argue saying “I see it” or “I taste it”) does not mean it is water, unless it is actually tested using laboratory equipment. Again, laboratory tests may not be fool-proof; what if another liquid has a boiling point of 100 degrees Celsius? What if another liquid has the same density? What “proof” do you have that it is indeed rain and not anything else?

“I know how to speak French”. Okay, let’s suppose someone has been learning French for say 2 years, and then one day, he goes to France and is faced with a problem; the key to his rented apartment doesn’t open the door. He returns to the owner and forgets the word for door (la porte). Now, this person is unsuccessful in trying to convey to the owner of the house that the key does not open the door, due to a “memory lapse” the person cannot recollect this particular word. (Note: the person still recollects the vocabulary to have a perfectly normal conversation with a fruit-vendor) Now, does this person know French? Knowledge of language, according to me, is very subjective. During the conversation with the house-owner, we can very well say that the person did not know French, as he did not manage to convey what he meant to. However, he still knows how to speak French with a fruit-vendor if required, “Je voudrais deux kilos de pommes, s’il vous plait”. Knowledge of language is more of an opinion; an opinion about the extent to which we believe we can successfully communicate using that language (ignoring the minor memory lapses here and there). So the statement “I know how to speak French” may hold true for a person at one point of time, and may prove to be false just a few minutes on. It is more of an opinion than knowledge.

These, were three examples to show what I mean that knowledge cannot be known. It is more of something that needs to be understood. I could explain the rest of the knowledge statements in a similar way, to prove that they are indeed not knowledge, however it would involve similar repetition, and hence, I have not. All of the knowledge that we know, is based in belief, assumption and morals, and hence comes with an inherent bias. Hence, knowledge isn't knowledge, it's someone's knowledge which has been passed on. The definition and perception of knowledge vary, from situation to situation. Knowledge, to me, is something assumed to be concrete, which isn't actually so.

Note: I have picked three of the knowledge statements as examples to substantiate what I am trying to explain. If anyone wants, I could try and offer similar arguments for the rest of the knowledge statements.