I have interpreted the key aspect of this essay question as evaluating the extent to which knowledge can be obtained, despite possible problems of bias and selection. First of all I would like to give my own personal definition of bias and selection to make clear my interpretation of what these two words mean. Bias is a tendency to give an opinion that disregards any other possible alternatives. Selection is the process by which one decides what information should be included and what should not. Already by reading these two definitions one can see that they can pose a possible threat in obstructing our acquisition of knowledge. However, we must not discard a source that contains aspects of bias or selection as useless, as is this not a form …show more content…
A possible argument here is that compared to history, in this case bias and selection can have a greater, more significant effect on our acquisition of knowledge. When looking at what goes into the planning of a scientific method, I started to see some possible problems. A key aspect here is that “Science is based on observation” . However, observation is not as unequivocal as it may seem. For example, when carrying out an experiment we always form some sort of idea of what variables will be relevant to the investigation. But is this not already a way in which our biased opinions have had an effect on the experiment? Some variables that have been overlooked previously may be found to be relevant later on. I have realized that there are a lot of preconceived ideas involved in a scientific method. Many times I found myself having to adjust my method as variables that I had ignored previously turned out to have a greater significance on the experiment than I thought. Similarly to observation, the testing of hypotheses, which lies at the centre of any scientific investigation, is more ambiguous than may seem. The main issue here is that of something called confirmation bias. This is when people concentrate on looking for evidence that confirms their ideas and tend to overlook any possible opposing evidence. I was guilty of this when testing for Vitamin C content in oranges when during one of the repeats my results did not …show more content…
The most obvious thing to say is that the result of any scientific experiment is data. This data itself is a piece of knowledge and this is obtained regardless of the presence of bias and selection. Moving on to a more general idea, it can be seen that throughout the ages, science has been responsible for the majority of the expansion of our knowledge as a human race. As outlined previously, there will certainly have been aspects of bias and selection in many investigations carried out in the past but these have not prevented us gaining huge amounts of knowledge from them. A famous example of this is that of Gregor Mendel in his work on the hereditary traits of peas . He faced accusations according to which he only announced the findings that were in line with his hypothesis as his results were thought to be “just too good to be believable” . This is a perfect example of how even in one of the most important experiments of all time that established the basis of modern genetics, there could have been aspects of bias and selection, which however did not obstruct our acquisition of knowledge but in fact aided it. Scientists use their selective methods to arrive at conclusions on their subjects in a quicker way because if all possible variables or observations were to be considered for an experiment, it would
It is both subject to the biases of the one who presents it as it is subject to
Kitchener, R. F. (1986) Piaget's Theory of Knowledge. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
The word “bias” has always had a negative connotation. Although it is used synonymously with bigotry and prejudice, its meaning is actually more akin to “point of view,” “personal tendency,” or “preference.” Just as every individual has her own worldview, so she has a set of biases. These biases are often observable in a person’s habits, speech, and, perhaps most explicitly, writings. Daniel Boorstin, renowned University of Chicago professor, historian, author, and librarian of Congress, is undeniably biased towards certain cultures in The Discoverers. A book chronicling mankind’s scientific history, its first words are “My hero is Man the Discoverer.” In his telling of “man’s search to know his world and himself,” Boorstin declares that
This essay starts with definition of traditional epistemology, followed by an explanation of how class, gender, and race can affect what one can know. Traditional epistemology can be defined as all knowers, regardless of who you are or what your social situation is, are bound by the same cognitive norms. (lecture) Charles Mills however, in the article “Alternative Epistemologies”, argues that who you are and your social situation change your access to knowledge. He criticizes that traditional epistemology fails to consider how an individual’s social situation can affect what he can know. Those in non-dominant social groups have epistemic access especially for knowing about oppression. In this essay I will attempt to explain Mills argument
The Zundel vs. Citron case explains bias as, “a state of mind that is in some way predisposed to a particular result or that is closed with regard to particular issues,” (Zundel vs. Citron). Due to the importance that bias can play in a decision, the courts have created a legal test to determine if it exists in any given situation. The test is, “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through –
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
Sampling bias (pg. 112) – a sampling method can be called biased if the results of the research found favors the outcome the researcher is looking for. The researcher ultimately controls/influences whether the results are biased and potentially misleading. If a researcher thinks that football players are more susceptible to concussions, the researcher may only look at specific positions where the players take more hits to the head for their research which could affect the results looking at football players as a whole.
Rationality and good judgement are typically affected by certain ways of thinking which are often studied within the psychological community. Within the community, these different ways of effected thinking are called cognitive biases. Breaking down the overall umbrella of the term cognitive bias yields subcategories of decision-making, social and memory biases, among others. Biases such as these affect all humans in one way or another. My personal experience with cognitive biases include confirmation bias, authority bias and egocentric bias. This list is definitely not complete, as I am sure there are many more biases I experience without even realizing what is happening. That being said, the first experience I would like to present is
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
In Carr’s article, The Historian and His Facts, and Causation in History, he states that the study and interpretation of history reflects our own position in time and what we can take out of it as a society. It’s all about the viewpoint of the individual researching or telling the event. Carr supports this idea by stating that, everyone draws their own conclusions. This idea of having your own conclusions is the case for writing and recording history as a historian from the beginning of human history. Every historian has a bias or a viewpoint on a historical topic and event. Some historians focus only on one side of the event while, others focus on multiple sides, but pick which one they believe is a bit better. Some historians only focus on the human aspects of an event and reach the conclusion that only humans drive history. On the other end of the spectrum a historian could only focus on the environmental factors of an event and reach the conclusion it was only that, that shaped history. Carr refers to this idea as “Necessarily selective” in which they pick what they want to write...
The claim is true but it has its exceptions,since both areas of knowledge contribute to understand the past in order to create the future ; evidence is the essence of both fields. History has clearly developed into an area of monumental importance. History is merely a compilation of evidence left. Historians beat history into something acceptable from mainstream values. This degradation of knowledge is also apparent in both human and natural sciences. This quote is examined and it is evident that both history and science change, first distorting the facts in order to shape it into the conventional opinion, and slowly change as society is changing. It is important to keep in mind that there are at the very least grains of truth in almost every historical account or scientific breakthrough.
Knowledge is but understanding. How we indulge and interpret an issue is knowledge. In the pursuit of knowledge, we, as materialistic learners and knowers, repeatedly ignore crucial procedures, pro...
...feasibility' and 'Causal' theories, and knowledge as 'warranted true belief' require us to take a certain 'leap of faith' when considering the question of knowledge at times. In order to avoid scepticism, I hold that knowledge does not necessarily need to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition does not need to be true, it means that something we hold as knowledge is not one which is beyond reasonable doubt, but one which it wouldn't make sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
The opinions of experts are handy in the search of knowledge; however their opinions are a double edge sword – The knowledge of experts act as building blocks to our own thoughts, but sometimes the experts may be incorrect, and their beliefs lead seekers down the wrong path. Experts often do this when new ideas are purposed. They may disprove newer ideas in order to stay relevant, like when evolution was purposed. The benefits that experts can provide in the search for knowledge can be important but often times are more a hindrance. Experts act in some ways as a neighbor shouting to you as you walk around the block but are not as fundamental emotion, sense, perception, and language in the search for knowledge. The opinions are useful when reasoning especially in regards to the History, Human Science and Natural Science Areas of Knowledge.