Truth Quote - John Reseck

"Begin by believing with all your heart that belief is true so that it will work for you, but then face the possibility that it is really false so that you can accept the consequences of the belief."

- John Reseck

The quotation by John Reseck encourages you to be open minded and at the same time have enough faith in your ideals. This quote works on the same concept that my belief could be truth for me but at the same time can not be truth for you. It goes one step further if it can be justified and that would be knowledge. However there comes a debate wherein knowledge can also be personal, in the sense you can justify it when someone else can not. For example, if I were to experience a miracle, for me miracles can occur would be knowledge because my experiencing it would be the justification and result in knowledge. Because someone else may have a contrasting belief and because it is not justified, the fact that miracles happen would not be knowledge to them.

Another aspect Reseck covers is the faith we have in ourself to believe what we say can be true. We should not assert our beliefs or impose them on anyone, however we do need to have opinions and at the same time be open to varying ideologies. Reseck then goes on to say that we must be ready to face the possibilities that the belief is false. I, in fact, do not agree with the fact that a belief can possibly be false as the verity of something varies from individual to individual and there is no universal law that tells us which beliefs are right and wrong. As belief is very subjective, we have to dismiss the possibility it can be wrong and hence this quote does not hold. If I do believe in something, I do have justifications for my belief and universally i may be told it is wrong. But it is wrong on the basis of the parameters set by others and as soon as that happens it seizes to be personal. Of course, We do need to be open to various beliefs and integrate it with our own if possible, but there is no such thing as a false belief. If we take Plato into consideration, there may be such a thing as a true belief which is empirically determined i.e. justified but this true belief holds because it appeals to a mass. Just because a belief doesn’t have a universal appeal, does not allow anyone to label it as false.

Truth Quotes

“Begin by believing with all your heart that your belief is true so that it will work for you. But then face the possibility that it is really false, so that you can accept the consequences of the belief.”- John Reseck

A belief is what you see as being true. Your entire body collaborates as a system to believe what you feel is true. Your soul, heart and mind look at the truth in such a way that you believe it to be true. At the end of the day, it becomes intuitively obvious to you that it is true.

Let me tell you a story about and aunt of mine who believed with all her heart that her belief is true. She was is my grandmothers sister.

Since she was very young she was told that she was to believe in Lord Krishna. With time, she learned more about him and became his ultimate devotee. She used to tell me tales of him as I grew up. She had his pictures all over her house. Once, while telling about his butter eating habits, she told me that she could feel his spiritual presence around her bedroom. According to her, he had come to bless her and thank her for her devotion. I could feel the hair on my arms rise. She suddenly leaped out of bed and started chanting a mysterious song. She was 84 years old back then and was physically impaired. She could not walk without a walker- and there, right in front of me- she jumped out of bed! I ran and hid in the bathroom, my 7 year old brain telling me that it was safe territory. She called out my name several times but I did not yield. I heard my mother’s reassuring voice and sprang into her arms not looking even once at my aunt.
Only last year I heard another incident.
When she was sleeping at night, she felt his presence again. This time she did not get up from her bed but claimed to see Lord Krishna. According to her, he went to a portrait of his near her bed and imprinted a red ‘Om’ on it. He went to her and touched her forehead and then vanished. She thought it was a dream. But when she woke up, she saw the symbol on the portrait and was stunned. The next day she told her neighbourhood and my grandparents about it.
When I heard, I told them that it was all a hoax to mentally harass an old lady. I was sure her servants had done this to her to play the fool. But she believed in it so strongly that she went everywhere saying that she was blessed. Today she is 94 and still living a healthy life. According to her, she was supposed to die early, but because she prayed to Lord Krishna, he blessed her a long life. She visited many doctors who could not help her situation. She called them ‘rakshas’, who did not believe in god and were jealous of her being blessed.

This is an example of a woman who believed with all her heart that her belief was true. But she could not accept the possibility of it being false. She was titled mentally retarded by even her close relatives. One could tell that it disturbed her greatly. She stopped talking to anyone in my family as we looked at the situation more rationally, obviously our point of view.
But her belief worked for her, and she always felt uplifted. She could not accept the consequences of the belief being false.

Types of Knowledge

We discussed the difference between two statements in class the other day – ‘I know Paris’ and ‘I know Paris is the capital of France’. How many different types of knowing exist? Is there a difference between the knowing expressed in the two statements given above?
‘I know Paris’ is a rather vague statement – this kind of knowing could refer to almost anything. I could be making this statement as a Parisian – in this case however, it would have some sentimental value attached to it. I know Paris, I am personally attached to the city, and know it as nobody else does – this is a very personal and individualistic type of knowing. I could be making the statement as a tourist, meaning that I know Paris as a tourist destination, and as a beautiful European city – it could also possibly have some emotional value attached (it could be the best holiday of my life etc.). Knowing the city personally would identify as knowledge by acquaintance – this knowledge is personal and almost entirely based on my opinion and experience. Nobody else can have the same knowledge as me in this sense, as everybody will have their own way of experiencing and interpreting things and situations.
Now, one could look at an entirely new dimension of the issue altogether – the statement does not specify which Paris I know, I could very well be referring to a person called Paris, another place called Paris, a word called ‘paris’ which means something else, even Paris Hilton! Again, I could be talking about the fact of their existence, or knowing them personally, or my personal attachment to them. Alternatively, I could merely be saying that I know Paris exists, that I know it is a city in the world. I could be saying that I know where Paris on the map, or where it is located in the world (latitude, longitude). I could make this statement if I knew all about the people, culture, cuisine, language etc. of Paris, even if I have never actually visited Paris. This is not my own knowledge, or not what I have experienced – it is what I have been told or taught in school, or read in newspapers, magazines, books, atlases etc., or I could have heard it on the radio or the television. This would identify as knowledge by description.

‘I know Paris is the capital of France’ is a very definite clear statement – when I make this statement, I am saying that I know Paris is the city where the central government of France is situated. This would identify as knowledge by description – I have heard, read or been told in/by a reliable source that Paris is the capital of France, and I therefore believe it. It was someone’s opinion to begin with, to make Paris the capital of France, and when it was agreed by a group of people in France, the central government of the country was set up in Paris. We view this as definite irrefutable knowledge because it is a ‘universally accepted fact’ and everyone believes that Paris is the capital of France. However, possibly if the rest of the world refused to accept Paris as the capital of France, this statement would not be identified as knowledge at all, because it wouldn’t be a universal fact!

Yes, knowledge by acquaintance most certainly is opinionated – it is based on opinion and experience, it is each person’s own point of view/perspective. It can therefore be said that knowledge by acquaintance is biased knowledge. In my opinion (note, this is an opinion, not knowledge), knowledge by description is rarely biased, unless it is interpreted or understood in a wrong sense. For example, if someone told me that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ and I thought some place (also called Paris) other than the main city of Paris is the capital of France, I would be misinterpreting the information given to me, and this could be called biased knowledge.

- Priyal Chitale.

Knowledge Claims

• I know how to speak French
French is the language that originated in France and is spoken in France and many other Francophone countries. Having studied French as a second language for a duration of three years for my IGCSE exam, I can communicate with people to a certain extent in French – I can speak in a language which is considered to be French by the world, I have successfully passed an IGCSE French oral examination, I can communicate with French-speaking people in their language, I can therefore say that I know how to speak French.

• I know stealing is wrong
This is purely a matter of belief and opinion – it is a moralistic belief, so to speak. Stealing is defined as ‘taking something that belongs to another person without permission or legal right, and usually secretly’ in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. I have been brought up to believe that stealing is against my moral principles, and against what society perceives as right – I therefore ‘know’ that stealing is wrong. However, there is a section of society (here again, it would be inaccurate to address them as a section of society, because this belief of theirs itself makes them social outcasts) that sees nothing morally wrong in stealing – in fact, many of them cannot afford to see it as morally wrong, as it is their livelihood. Some even regard stealing as an art to be mastered! Everyone is brought up with a set of beliefs, but sometimes, experience forces one to change one’s opinion and to alter one’s set of beliefs. It would be inaccurate to say that ‘I know that stealing is wrong’, because this cannot be classified as knowledge – it should be replaced by the statement ‘I believe that stealing is wrong’.

• I know God exists
This can be definitely identified as the most controversial statement on this list – this is an extremely personal belief. As I have mentioned in my previous post, each person’s definition and perception of God is likely to be different – the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines God as ‘a being or spirit that is believed to have power over nature and control over human affairs; the Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe’. My definition of God is completely different from these two definitions listed in the dictionary - as one of my co-students, Avichal said in class, I believe God is a driving force within us, that God exists within all of us. I don’t think of himself as an external being or some sort of formidable spirit. God and religion have always been inevitably connected – I am not a religious person, and do not believe in any one religion. People often tend to label me as an atheist for this reason, which is absolutely untrue – I just don’t agree with their perception of God, and their way of honouring God. For the people who think God exists, they ‘know’ that God as they define it exists, they might have some personal proof or experience whereby they ‘know’ this. Atheists opine that there is nothing like God (that nobody has managed to come up with concrete evidence to prove that God exists, they probably take as proof that God doesn’t exist) – they believe firmly in it and for that section of society, it is knowledge for them. Therefore, this is again something that cannot be classified as knowledge, and it would be more accurate to say ‘I believe that God exists’.

• I know it is raining
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines rain as ‘water that falls from the clouds in separate drops’ – as I mentioned in my previous post, the origins of all knowledge lie in opinion. It was someone’s opinion that rain is water that falls from the clouds in separate drops, and when this opinion was accepted by the world as fact, it was established as knowledge. If I am walking on the road, and feel water falling on me, and look up and see water droplets falling on me, I presume that the water is falling from the clouds, and that it is rain. There is no way I can prove, while looking at the water droplets falling and feeling their wetness on my skin, that they have fallen from the clouds above. In fact, that rain is water that falls from the clouds above is an opinion that has been ‘proven’ to be fact and is accepted as knowledge now – a few centuries down the line, someone might prove that rain is actually some other type of substance that arises out of nothing.

• I know my mother is older than I am
My mother, as a human being in this lifetime, has lived for a longer period of time on this planet than I have – she did give birth to me after all. She is therefore older than I am. Now I address the question; what is age? In human society on planet earth, if person A existed for longer than person B in his body, person A is considered older than person B. Maybe on some other planet, life goes backwards – one is born old and one dies a baby, therefore, my mother having lived for longer than me, would still be considered younger than me! I also believe in the concept of cycle of lives and rebirth – I can vouch for my mother having lived longer than I on this planet only in this lifetime. Perhaps, in my last birth, I was older than she was, or maybe we were of the same age. I don’t even know whether we were human beings in our last life, or if we lived on the Earth at all! Therefore, I would therefore like to alter this statement a bit – ‘I know my mother is older than I am in this lifetime, according to human society on planet earth’.

• I know my tooth hurts

• I know she doesn’t like me

• I know 2 + 2 = 4

• I know I will pass the test

- Priyal Chitale.

-post under construction-

Is opinion knowledge?

I would like to begin by defining these two main terms; opinion and knowledge. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines opinion as ‘a belief or judgement about somebody or something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge’ and knowledge as ‘the facts, information, understanding and skills that a person has acquired through experience or education; an organised body of information shared by people in a particular field; the awareness of a fact or situation’. Take for example, a simple statement like ‘Everybody has an opinion on everything’ – now I might say that I KNOW everybody has an opinion on everything. However, that wouldn’t really be my knowledge, as I can never know for sure whether everyone in the world has an opinion on everything or not – it can be called my belief, or my opinion.

One word that resonated throughout the description of knowledge is ‘information’ – knowledge is based on ‘information’ and our understanding and interpretation of this ‘information’. However, all knowledge starts off as an opinion or theory of some kind – Galileo was of the opinion that the earth was spherical, however, four centuries ago, a majority of the population was of the opinion that the earth was flat, and this was regarded as knowledge (and gospel truth), thus Galileo’s opinion was initially shunned, till it was ‘proved’ to be right. Then, Galileo’s theory became knowledge! Who knows, a few centuries down the line, someone else might me able to prove that the earth is indeed flat in shape!

Take a debatable issue like that of God for example – many people might have an opinion that God does exist. However, each person’s definition and perception of God is most likely to be different – for the people who think God exists, they ‘know’ that God exists, they might have some personal proof or experience whereby they ‘know’ this. Atheists opine that there is nothing like God (that nobody has managed to come up with concrete evidence to prove that God exists, they probably take as proof that God doesn’t exist) – they believe firmly in it and for that section of society, it is knowledge about them. The existence (or lack of it) of God cannot be ‘proven’ at this point of time, and it will probably always remain a mystery to human beings.

Opinion and knowledge are intricately intertwined and interconnected with each other – knowledge is opinion that has been ‘proven’ and accepted by society at a certain point of time, thus, knowledge itself is constantly changing and evolving. Opinion is the perspective or point of view on a particular issue, person or thing of a person or group of people – opinion is not always knowledge, many times the person(s) voicing their opinion has absolutely no ‘knowledge’ about the issue. However, it is because people have opinions that theories evolve, and we have knowledge.

To conclude, knowledge is opinion that has been ‘proven’ to be ‘fact’ or ‘information’ at a certain point of time – however, as I have already mentioned, knowledge is constantly changing and evolving. Since there are so many opinions in the world, both conflicting and allied, it would be highly inaccurate to say that opinion is knowledge – however, it would be more precise to say that some opinion is knowledge, and that opinion is the base for all knowledge. If there was no opinion, then there would be no knowledge.

- Priyal Chitale.

What is knowledge? Is knowledge what everyone tells you to be true?
If everyone says that 'this building is white', whereas you see it as blue are they lying or can you not diffrentiate between white and blue? Everyone is taught that 11 + 2 is 13, so then how come when one refers to the time 11 + 2 is considered as 1??
According to Plato, and what is widely accepted as one of the best definitions for knowledge, knowledge is defined as "justified true belief". But knowledge can be acquired in more than one way. The mode of acquisition of knowledge often affects one's 'belief'...hence altering what one 'knows'.

9 knowledge claims are listed below.
· I know it is raining
· I know 2 + 2 is 4
· I know my mother is older than I am
· I know to speak French
· I know I will pass the test
· I know stealing is wrong
· I know my tooth hurts
· I know she doesn't like me
· I know God exists

These are 9 claims most would have never thought to be arguable or questionable (other than the last claim, of course).
However, when one thinks about it, how can one say that one knows it is raining or that one knows his tooth hurts? These two claims are based on personal feeling and perception. One knows its raining because one has been told that when water falls from the sky it is called 'rain'. What about when one is standing under a building and water falls on the person…before he/she verifies that it is water from the building and not from the sky does he/she not “know” for that second that it is rain. In the same way, if someone comes up with substantial evidence to refute one’s claim that it is raining, would the person claim that he knows it is raining be considered wrong?? Similarly when one says that his tooth is hurting, how can he be sure of it? If he/ she has just been through an incident after which the tooth is ‘supposed’ to hurt, it is likely that he/ she can imagine the tooth hurting. This is something that one feels – it is based on the processes in one’s brain – and hence can very rarely be disproved, nor can it be proved very easily for that matter.
2 + 2 is 4. This is one form of knowledge by description. How can one know that 2 + 2 is 4. What is ‘2’…what is ‘4’? This however is something that has been defined and is used in math, world over. It can never really be justified, but it is something that has been defined and to refute it, one would be completely changing the laws of math which would disrupt the normal working of life. Hence, ‘knowledge’ such as these have to be taken to be true because they have been defined by man to be able to have something common at the basis of a concept and in order to go further in the subject on the basis of it – 4 + 2 = 6.
There are some claims that I feel are fairly irrefutable. By irrefutable, I don’t mean that there is no counterargument, I mean that there is no reasonably strong argument that can contradict the truth of the statement enough to convince me into believing that the statement cannot be classified as a knowledge claim. One of the claim in the list - I know my mother is older than me - is one of this. It is a scientific fact that a woman cannot give birth to a child before reaching maturity. So far from there being any argument on the mother being older than the child, the mother cannot be less than 13-14 years older than her child.
The only case in which there is any scope of argument is when you consider this statement to refer to the mother that you ‘call’ mother. You might say that “how do u know that your ‘mother’ is you biological mother?” In practicality this seems stupid too because it is absolutely unheard of for someone to be a ‘mother’ to someone older than she is, but in theory it is still arguable. But when some says “I know my mother is older than I am” and if he/ she refers to his/ her biological mother, then I see no argument against this knowledge claim.
Saying “I know stealing is wrong” is probably one of the most relative statements in the list of the 10 given. Any opinion on this is a moral one and is subjective to the upbringing of the person concerned. In most well-to-do families, like mine and everyone’s in the class, a child is always brought up with a very distinct belief that stealing is wrong. After all it is illegal in every country with a stable government, which automatically makes it something ‘wrong’. How often are unlawful actions considered ‘right’? On the other hand, for someone whose brought up in extreme poverty and has no other way of earning 2 square meals a day…stealing might be the only option he/ she has and it might not seem all that wrong to them even though they may be looked down upon by society. Therefore, “I know stealing is wrong” can be called knowledge statement because it is a JTB (Plato’s definition of knowledge) for some people even though it may not apply to everyone.

"I know she likes me" - as teenageers i'm sure we all have had or are having this dilemma in our lives. how do u kno the answer to this vital question. the answer which can affect everything you do about the issue. as we've just studied...every piece of knowledge we have gained is becuase of all four ways of knowing (language, reason, perception and emotion) working together. and in such a case - this interconnection is very obvious. language - wat she tells you and the way you'll communicate. maybe you can even talk about this with a friend of her's and based on what you'll communicate your thoughts can be altered. reason - based on your communication, the way she behaves and a number of different observations you make you reason it out within your head. perception and emotion in this case are absolutely interwoven. your perceptions is greatly affected by your emotion and vice versa. if you really like a girl and really want her to like you too you perceive her actions to be such that she does indeed like you (if you're optimistic, i.e.), and depending on what you perceive (and reason out) your emotions might get more, or less, intense. but even if everything points to the idea that she does like you, you can NEVER be sure that this is absolutely true. in fact, even if she tells you that she likes you, you can still NEVER know for sure if this is true bcos she might be a an excellent liar.

--to be completed--

Knowledge Claims

Knowledge Claims-
· I know its raining-
This is can be termed knowledge by description. When I see outside the window and see raindrops falling onto the ground, I can conclude that its raining. I have seen it rain before so I can link it to what I remember of the rain. It is a fact, that when water droplets fall from the sky, it is called rain which is a form of precipitation.
· I know 2+2=4
I have learnt this although my childhood in each and every math class. I have experimented to prove this to myself. I took two boxes on one side, and two on the other. I pushed them to the centre and counted. One, two, three and four! This is how I knew that 2+2 was 4. Unless some radical change proves that four is not four- I would be sure that 2+2=4.
· My mother is older than I am
I know this because I was born after she was. She gave birth to me. She lived a number of years before I was born. The accepted meaning of older is- existing for longer, in relation to another. Hence since she lived for longer, she existed for longer. Thus she is older than I am.
· I know how to speak French
If I have spoken French and have conversed in French with someone else- know how to speak in French. This is knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Unless I was unaware than what I was speaking was Gujarati and not French, I would know how to speak French.
· I know I will pass the test
This is knowledge by acquaintance and also involves a degree of confidence. If I know the topic well I can make this claim. But if the test is a surprise and is a very subjective test with mainly application based questions, I would be a fool to make this claim as my ‘doing well’ would depend on the teacher.
· I know stealing is wrong
This is also knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Through my upbringing I have been told this. However someone else may believe that stealing is not wrong. It depends on ethics and upbringing.
· I know my tooth hurts
This is knowledge by acquaintance. I can feel this as my pain receptors in my gum tell my brain that it is hurting. My brain processes this and I can conclude that my tooth is hurting. It is internal and depends on my receptors. If the receptors in my gum are suppressed, maybe due to some analgesics or narcotics, I will not know that my tooth hurts.
· I know she doesn’t like me
This is personal and depends on the signs that she hints to me. However I would never know for sure. She may like me and unless she tells me she doesn’t I would never know that she doesn’t like me. And even if she does tell me she might be lying. So I can never know the truth.
· I know god exists
This also depends on knowledge by acquaintance and is very personal. I may believe that god may exist but this is different from the belief of an atheist. Some people do believe in a power but hate to distinguish it to a particular god. I have never seen god so I have no proof that he exists. However I have felt the power of this supernatural existence called god, thus I believe god exists.


(I submitted a hard copy of this on Monday the 17th of September)

Do we know...?

I know it is raining (?)
According to Wikipedia, “Rain is a form of precipitation, other forms of which include snow, sleet, hail, and dew. Rain forms when separate drops of water fall to the Earth's surface from clouds.” What we can infer from this definition is that rain is only one form of precipitation, it occurs in separate drops, and it comprises of only water. First of all, how do we notice rain? It appeals to our senses – sight, touch, hearing, smell and even taste for those who have tasted rain. We first are probably aroused by the aroma (or stench depending on opinion) of the wet mud, after which we see a foggy horizon or the small droplets on the glass window, then to make sure, we feel the wet droplets on our skin and hear the drops falling to the ground. Knowing its raining is not the knowledge of our brain, it is the knowledge of our senses. Of course to know that droplets form the sky are rain, descriptive knowledge is required but only with your senses are you able to further confirm. The descriptions mentioned of rain are definitely restricted to my experience with rain or my knowledge by acquaintance with rain and hence they are individualistic and depend on my environment. For example, a person in the Sahara desert would not associate rain with my descriptions, and when he describes rain to me I would probably not want to call his description rain because my rain is something I have grown up with. However, I am not stating that if rain droplets were to fall in Mumbai, a person in the Sahara wouldn’t call it rain. Rain can be academic but otherwise each person has a certain attachment to the meaning of rain. It is similar to the previous argument on “I know Paris.” I may know it but I don’t know it like you do.
According to the definition of rain, water falls to the ground. Technically speaking, the droplets falling to the ground are not water. They are water, with acids according to what science tells us. Therefore I could even state that it never rains because there is always acid in water from the sky. This would mean that the whole definition of rain has to change as it is too specific for anything. This would mean that if it started raining, according to the academic knowledge it wouldn’t rain but according to my knowledge with acquaintance, the feel and the smell would remind me of rain. There have been numerous examples of such cases where phenomenons do not stick to their definition. One example of can be related to the definition of a plant and the reason why the kingdom fungi was classified under it initially. Fungus sticks to all the descriptions of a plant except for the fact that it is a hetrotroph. Earlier this was just looked upon as an exception but because of the universal approval that a new kingdom should be created, fungi were no longer the exception. Because our world is so used to a certain connotation, changing a definition would be difficult and there are times we have to make few technical exceptions.

I know stealing is wrong (?)
Stealing by definition is “larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully.” This definition has been coined by society which has based this definition on the justice and ethics that are involved with possession. Decisions on whether something is right or wrong are always accompanied with motives behind the act. For example, often when we watch a movie, we empathize so much with the hungry poor protagonist that his theft is pardoned and we may look upon it as an act of bravery. Did he do wrong when he stole? For himself he did “right” because the whole movie is centered around this hero. However, if we shift our perspective and saw a movie where the hero was the person the hungry poor boy stole from, we would definitely insist that stealing is wrong. Here the definition is relative. Another example of the relativity of stealing comes into play when we realize that there is still a fraction of society that has not been taught stealing is wrong. For them it is a business, and here they consider their benefit not the other’s loss. For us it is knowledge as it is our society’s opinion and we have concluded that opinion can become knowledge but that knowledge is not a fact as s is not universally accepted.

I know my tooth hurts (?)
This knowledge is in fact knowledge by acquaintance. You know your tooth hurts, but I don’t because I am not experiencing that same pain. Pain is “a somatic sensation of acute discomfort.” But is pain knowledge? There comes a universal question, is pain a reality? I perceive the pain to be there and so it is an opinion, as each of our thresholds of pain is different. However because we concluded perception/opinion is knowledge; we could state that the experience of your tooth hurting is knowledge.

I know I will pass the test (?)
This is an assumption but one with confidence. Nevertheless it is still an assumption. I cannot call this knowledge by acquaintance or knowledge by description so is knowledge restricted to these 2 categories? If it is then this statement is not knowledge. However, opinionated statements are usually those that are ready for contradiction. I cannot say you will not pass the test because I don’t have the knowledge to contradict you. If the definition of an opinion involves the capability of a contradiction then this statement would not be an opinion. It is not a fact because I cannot justify why I believe I will pass the test. So perhaps it is not knowledge if knowledge is either opinion or fact. If we can broaden the definition of knowledge to assumption, this statement could be termed as knowledge.

I know to speak French (?)
Knowing how to speak a language depends largely on what qualifies you to know a language. When I say I know to speak French, I am associating it with my academic background with French. Because it is a second language for me, my vocabulary and grammar is limited and on many occasions I would not know how to express myself. If I went to France, my speaking would be relatively poor to the locals, while here where there are not many fluent French speaking people, my speaking would be of a higher quality and fluency. When one refers to speaking French, one refers to speaking like the French. This would involve various intonations, pronunciations, idioms, and slang phrases. Our French is rather restricted in that sense. The statement I know to speak French is knowledge. However it is either knowledge by description or acquaintance. My knowledge of French is more of description even though I do have some attachments to the language, but only once I experience the language or am a local would I be able to gain the knowledge by acquaintance.

I know 2+2= 4 (?)

From all the facts I have learnt, I do know 2+2 =4. How do I know it? I was told so based on the most basic mathematical concept which has been created by our ancestors. This concept has been based o the concept of addition which was created to suit all our purposes. Based on this foundation we have come up with more complex mathematics. For all we know 2+2 = 4 may not be a true answer but according to our foundation it is, and it’s the most suitable answer that does not contradict anything else we have created and can be built up upon. If I were to change my foundation, chances are 2+2 would not be 4. Therefore this statement is definitely knowledge but we cannot say that it cannot be contradicted because all of what we know has been created and created some more on a foundation the first humans devised.

I know God exists (?)
First of all, I personally don’t know if God exists, and I don’t think anyone does. But they definitely have faith in the existence of God. I don’t believe it is knowledge because it is not a justified true belief. No one has been able to justify whether or not God exists and this can only be done until and unless we know everything about this universe. Only when we can KNOW everything will we be able to KNOW of the existence of God. However I do believe that certain people can consider God’s existence as knowledge. For example, a person who has experienced a miracle would use the miracle as a justification for his/her belief, so for him/her it is knowledge (by acquaintance) but for people who don’t have any proof cannot pass this statement as knowledge. Another view to this would involve the definition of God. Is God the answer to the unexplainable? Is God Science? Is God a force? Those people that have a varying interpretation of God and can justify it would call this statement knowledge but it depends on your interpretation and justification.

*Post not complete*

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.

Is Opinion Knowledge

Is Opinion Knowledge?
After witnessing a heated discussion on this question, led by a determined co- student, I have come to a personal conclusion.

Yes.

Opinion is knowledge. Knowledge is opinionated. An opinion is knowledgeable (most of the time- like mine is)

I must start off with defining the two terms before I get threatening remarks and extortion threats from anyone who reads this. An opinion is defined as ‘belief’, ‘view held probable’ (Taken from the Little Oxford Dictionary).
Knowledge is defined as ‘information’, ‘facts’ (Taken from the Little Oxford Dictionary).
What The Oxford Dictionary means by ‘facts’ is- ‘known/believed to be true universally’.

Let’s go back to the 1st century when elements were broadly defined as- earth, fire, water...
During this time, common knowledge told you that there was nothing as atoms. Everything was either earth, or water or fire. This common knowledge was an opinion.

After six centuries, The Hindu philosophers at that time enforced ideologies amongst many- saying that an atom was the ‘will of God’. They were small pieces of earth, water and fire that were invisible to the eye and functioned under Bramha’s will.

This little story survived only for a century before the Greeks set out to change it. They gave the world an apparently comprehensive view of what they called ‘matter’, as being particles of substances. A liquid had these so called ‘atoms’ and these would slide over each other and would be smooth, unlike ‘atoms’ in a solid that would not display any kind of movement.

During the Islamic Golden Age, a young scientist al-Ghazali set out by saying that there was something smaller than an atom. Inside it were secrets which only Allah knew.

Different cultures kept what they thought was ‘knowledge’ and omitted anything else. The Hindus thought that Bramha was the controlled of the world and thus the atom, so the Islamic view was made redundant.

After centuries of haziness and confusion about the smallest existing unit we call an atom, John Dalton stepped up to propose his idea of an atom. He defined it as an infinitely small, indestructible part of a substance. How Dalton came up with this theory is not recorded in the ‘Handbook of Scientific Achievements’, however it is known that his theory was accepted as it proved useful to solve many Chemistry puzzles at that point of time. Scientists regarded this as knowledge and hailed the genius in Dalton. Taking his word to be true- great scientist like Avogadro, Lavoisier, Proust expanded on his work. The world was finally aware of what the smallest unit in nature was!

This opinion was thought to be knowledge for a very long time indeed. Then, in the late 1800’s the world saw a brave (or mad) scientist who had the audacity to challenge their knowledge. All the scientists were appalled by John Thomson and his discovery of this strange particle known as an electron?!However, his logical solution was enough to make the orthodox views redundant. He proposed a ‘plum pudding’ model of an atom, where positive charges and electrons(!) were clustered together.

Dalton’s idea was disregarded suddenly when Ernst Rutherford, his very own student conducted an experiment with a gold coil and alpha particles. Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden shot alpha particles at a gold foil in vacuum and observed that most particles passed right through, however some got deflected and a fraction bounced back. The professor was taken aback, and his student presented an atom with a rigid centre of positive charge and negative charges circling it in vacuum.

On further investigation Rutherford found out that the rigid centre had particles called ‘protons’. He proposed that the basic constituents of an atom were a rigid mass of protons in the centre encircles by electrons surrounding it.

After thirty years of silence, James Chadwick discovered neutrons as uncharged particles in the centre of an atom- known to be called as a nucleus.

With the new image of Quantum Physics striding beside him, Neils Bohr showed the world another view of an atom- the Bohr Model. He described the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus in ‘quantum leaps’ and categorized these as electron shells. Further studies led to the conclusion that each shell barring the first one was not allowed to have more than 8 electrons. Scientists like Erwin Schrodinger and Louis de Broglie perfected this model and gave us- (after a lot of editing)- AN ATOM.

Now we know what an atom is!

Wait- ‘quarks?’...’up-quarks?’...’leptons?’...no- stop- please!

Today, young scientists at laboratories like CERN are drawing themselves into the miniscule nuclei to find an answer. Now they say that even a nucleus is mainly vacuum with a combination of up and down quarks and smaller undecipherable sub atomic particles.

If a solid is 99.9% vacuum- why is it a SOLID!?

No one knows...

Thus the moral of this painful and time taxing research summary is- knowledge is opinion!
One can see how the opinion of few was taken to be knowledge- it was universally accepted to be true. Over the years, opinion was the crust of knowledge. These kept changing so the knowledge kept changing. The transition is palpable. From earth, water and fire this much debated atom has become a ‘ball of vacuum’. What next?

How much of knowledge is opinion?

Knowledge can be found in two types, knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Knowledge by acquaintance involves knowledge which we acquire through experience while knowledge by description is that knowledge we obtain by the media, including newspapers and television or other sources of information like other people. Knowledge we experience is individualistic and independent as it is associated with our perception of things. For example if I were at a city, besides the knowledge by description I obtain, I would have to some extent a knowledge by acquaintance if I ever bothered to experience it or appreciate it (positively or negatively). This perspective of mine is mine alone and another person would not experience the same emotional attachment I have experienced and this is why this knowledge can also be termed as private and a knowledge only you can understand. Nevertheless it is still knowledge and this is the knowledge that is based on opinion. Also there is a possibility of biased knowledge where we have a biased opinion based on our knowledge by description.

Knowledge by description is largely based on facts that we are provided with but is less individualistic than knowledge by acquaintance. However it is also ignorant to dismiss this knowledge as not opinionated. Even though it is not restricted to one person, it is still the opinion of everyone. This could be debatable as one can term an opinion as something that can be rebuked by someone with a different perspective. But how many different perspectives are on a fact? We could always argue that what I believe is true you may not believe but would I contradict the fact that Paris is the capital of France? If I cannot contradict it, it cannot be opinion. Then again we could say fact is a universally accepted opinion and that someone had to come up with that opinion to make it a fact and all facts are opinions. Yet when I think of an opinion I think of something that can be contradicted and is based on perspective. If I think Paris is the capital of France, chances are unlikely that you will believe it is the capital of Germany. We could say that opinion does undergo a transition when it is universally accepted after which it becomes a fact. We could also argue that all facts are also based on opinions that have been created over the course of time. This too is possible but then leads us to conclude that all knowledge Is opinion. If that’s so then where does fact even begin? If there is no beginning to opinion then we are confronted with a phenomenon similar to the chicken and egg phenomenon.

All knowledge is biased (?)

From last class, we saw that there were two types of knowledge. The first one is Knowledge by Acquaintance, which is a sort of knowledge we know by experiencing something (i.e. by being "acquainted" with it). With the given example "I Know Paris", we saw how the definition of knowledge varied depending on who you are, a tourist or a local resident for a period of time. For a tourist it could mean the monuments, the roads or even the culture. However, for the local resident, it could imply the Parisian life, what Paris means to that person, or experiences which the person may have had in/around Paris. It could also mean the personal attachment the person shares with the city. This sort of knowledge is something that is felt, perceived, and in a sense, it can be termed as "private knowledge" as rarely would you expect many people to know what you know about a city (by "know" here, I mean your experiences or your attachment).
The second one is Knowledge by Description, the sort of knowledge which we obtain from a secondary source, and not by personally experiencing a thing. The given example stated that "I Know Paris is the capital of France.", and people said they knew that Paris was the capital of France in various ways:

1. Somebody told them
2. From an atlas/newspaper/magazine (written source)
3. School/internet
4. Live(d) in Paris

This is the sort of knowledge that is published and printed in various places and which people are sure "exists". This can be termed as "public knowledge" as it is taken to be a fact, something that is "universally accepted".
Also, it was seen that all opinion is knowledge, as having an opinion means that you know such an opinion exists. That gave rise to the concept of "biased knowledge" and about how much we know is actually true and how much is biased. According to me, all knowledge is biased, and all knowledge is based COMPLETELY on opinion and what people perceive to be true. It is what people find best-fitting to the current understanding of the current aspects which they know about. Every "fact" and piece of "knowledge" is based on the most concurrent opinion between the people deciding on that fact. What seems to fit current understanding may be far from the actual truth, but is still taken to be "knowledge" as it seems to fit understanding. As a result, in my opinion, all opinion is based on more opinion, and all knowledge is biased.

E-mail Ids

Hello everyone,

I've created the blog for Mrs. Balan's TOK batch, and I need to add everyone as authors (contributors) on this blog, so just send me a mail on parthpd@gmail.com (send it from your gmail ids if possible, it'll be easier for you to sign into blogger) and I'll add your e-mail id as an author on this blog, or just leave your e-mail address as a comment on this post.