To a large extent in several cases, doubt can be considered heavily influential in the pursuit of obtaining knowledge. In order to construct a balanced answer to this question, a stringent assessment of several key terms should be undertaken. The term ‘Doubt’ can be defined as a feeling of hesitation in regards to the legitimacy of something which is alleged. A ‘key’ can be considered a tool that enables access to a further advanced place of meaning, in this instance, knowledge. The profound figure, Rene Descartes, who is often credited as being the ‘Father of Modern Philosophy’ branded the ‘mind’s existence’ as being the only absolute certainty in the universe. Descartes arrived at this conclusion through rational doubt. When an element of doubt is inherited a motive is thereby created as means to determine whether or not the proposed piece of information is actually truthful or not. Nevertheless, whether ‘doubt’ is representative of ‘the key’ by authenticating or assisting our prevalent pursuit of knowledge or whether it is in fact a constraining deterrent on our thirst for knowledge is dependent on the specific aspect of knowledge under examination. For the proverb in question, I will be assessing History and the natural sciences. Within these areas of knowledge there are numerous examples in which ‘accurate’ information has been divulged through scepticism, namely; theoretical developments within the natural sciences as well as revision historical revelations. The Persian proverb takes a definitive stance as ‘the’ sole ‘key’ to knowledge, however this claim should be challenged as in many cases, doubt is merely a tool in the acquisition of knowledge.
An immediate contradiction to the Persian proverb is the idea that certai...
... middle of paper ...
...on in the Earth Sciences: From Continental Drift to Plate Tectonics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- James P. Levy, Appeasement and rearmament: Britain, 1936-1939, Rowman and Littlefield, 2006
- Miller, R. 1983. Continents in Collision. Time-Life Books, Alexandria , Virginia.
Electronic Sources:
- http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0162b.shtml(viewed on 26th January 2011)
- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/(viewed on 26th January 2011)
- http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html (viewed on 26th January 2011)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer (viewed on 26th January 2011)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Grobman (viewed on 26th January 2011)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt(viewed on 19th January 2011)
- http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-continental-drift-theory.htm(viewed on 26th January 2011)
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
In the first Meditation, Descartes states that our experience of the world cannot provide an assured foundation on which all knowledge can be based. Throughout life we often learn that what we have been taught are usually prejudices and a product of our environment or culture. This should make an individual question whether all things we think are obvious, might in fact be completely incorrect. This is the foundation for Descartes doubt, and the creation of his method of doubt. Descartes suggests that we use a method that will limit errors by tracing what we know back to a solid foundation of indubitable beliefs.
In the book "Meditations on First Philosophy", author talks about knowledge and doubt. He considers doubt and knowledge a very strong tool and thus, states a philosophical method which is actually an extraordinarily powerful investigation of mind, body and rationalism. He formulates six meditations in this book, where he first discards all of his previous beliefs where things are not completely certain and then he tries to build things that can be surely known. He believed that people should do their own discerning and by using the process of simple mathematics, they could proceed on a path to an unquestioned knowledge. He wrote these meditations in a way supposing that he has meditated for six days, referring each last meditation as ‘yesterday’.
Throughout Frankenstein it is evident that Victor and Robert express their thirst for knowledge, which often leads to destruction. Through analyzing Frankenstein it is possible to find many examples that illustrate the fact that wanting to have more knowledge can be extremely dangerous. Firstly, as Victor is creating life he is able to create a humanoid monster, unfortunately he is appalled by his creation and becomes very ill. Afterwards, when Victor is completing the female companion for his original creation, Victor realizes that this will only create more destruction. Finally, as Walton is on a journey to the North Pole he encounters difficulties that nearly kill him and his crew. This shows that Victor and Walton are repeatedly searching for more knowledge even though it is dangerous.
Throughout human existence, scholars have earnestly pursued knowledge and the attainment of truth. Historical figures such as Plato, Descartes, and Emerson sought answers to daunting questions of: ‘What is truth?’; ‘What is reality?’; ‘How is wisdom acquired?’ Many scholars believe these philosophers presented conflicting viewpoints: Plato encouraging skepticism among all previous historical, cultural, and personal perspectives; Descartes questioning definitions of reality and his very existence; Emerson encouraging self-trust and confidence in one’s ideals, opinions, and convictions. Surprisingly, reconciliation can be reached from these three differing hypotheses. Emerson’s thesis merely expounds from Descartes and Plato’s philosophies. He builds from Descartes’ search for self-identity and reconciles Plato’s skepticism with his views of self-trust and unconformity among scholars.
Truth and beliefs contribute in building the knowledge of a person. Cogent reasons for the beliefs convert the beliefs into knowledge. However, sometimes the beliefs are actually assumption, so they may be wrong. Truth is the facts known from different sources. Something can be considered as knowledge, only if it is true. The word epistemology refers to studying the source of knowledge. The epistemology helps in understanding the process of development of knowledge, sources of knowledge and makes distinctions between belief and actual truth. I critically examined and analyzed the origin and the process of acquiring the knowledge for the two essays I wrote earlier. One essay, an analytical one, was written on the subject of increasing prison population and improper justice system. The second essay was written on the subject of human resource management. To develop the knowledge and understanding I demonstrated in the essays, I had to search for resources, rationalize the information gained and evaluate it in conjunction with my personal beliefs.
The reader, like modern man, must not give into “the arrogant presumption of certitude or the debilitating despair of skepticism,” but instead must “live in uncertainty, poised, by the conditions of our humanity and of the world in which we live, between certitude and skepticism, between presumption and despair “(Collins 36).
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
Production of knowledge is generally seen in a positive light. However, when ethics and morality become involved in the process of production, judgements will undoubtedly be made that may seem to limit the availability of that knowledge. Ethical judgements are made by the combination of a knower, his or her standard of value, and the situation itself. In the field of the arts and natural sciences, ethics plays a crucial role in the extent one may possibly be allowed to go to when discovering new knowledge. Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing that help guide knowers in making certain moral decisions. Both ways of knowing can be associated with teleological or deontological arguments; the ethics are based on either an objectives-focused or obligations-focused mindset. In this essay, I will be discussing the limitations set on both the arts and the natural sciences as areas of knowledge. To what extent do ethical implications hinder the way art can be produced or the methods involved in expanding society’s knowledge of science?
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
Research philosophy, refers to the development of knowledge adopted by the researchers in their research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). In other words, it is the theory that used to direct the researcher for conducting the procedure of research design, research strategy, questionnaire design and sampling (Malhotra, 2009). It is very important to have a clear understanding of the research philosophy so that we could examine the assumptions about the way we view the world, which are contained in the research philosophy we choose, knowing that whether they are appropriate or not (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), three major ways of thinking about research philosophy are examined: ontology, epistemology and axiology. Each of them carries significant differences which will have an impact on the way we consider the research procedures. Ontology, “is concerned with nature of reality”, while epistemology “concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study and axiology “studies judgements about value” (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p110, p112, p116). This study is intent on creating some “facts” from objective evaluations which are made by the subjects. Therefore, epistemology will be chosen for this study as the way of thinking about the research philosophy.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.
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 argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the
When I think about knowledge the first thing that comes to my mind is education. I believe that knowledge comes to people by their experiences in life. In other words, life is an instrument that leads me to gain knowledge. Many people consider that old people are wise because they have learned from good and bad experiences throughout their lives. Education requires work, dedication and faith to gain knowledge. We acquired knowledge through the guidance of from parents, role models, college/University teachers and life experiences.