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)
In “The principles of human knowledge” George Berkeley responds to the skeptics view about the external world. As we already talked about, skepticism is against the belief that you can know anything because even saying that you “know” something is a big contradiction itsel...
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.
Knowledge is an addictive drug. If administered in controlled dosages, it has the ability to cure a critical illness; however, if taken whimsically and in excess, it acts as a consumptive toxin that can result in powerful suffering or even death. If this is the case, then what makes knowledge so desirable? Throughout their texts, Aeschylus and Shelley depict numerous characters in mad pursuit of knowledge, like Victor’s creature from Frankenstein or Io from Prometheus Bound. Yet, one after another, characters are propelled into an existence of utter despair because of their unquenchable thirst for new enlightenment. Prometheus Bound and Frankenstein demonstrate that the pursuit of knowledge often results in grave suffering, physically and mentally; yet, Shelley and Aeschylus’ characters cannot abandon their chases, as knowledge provides the ultimate form of individual glory, power, and freedom.
The quest for knowledge, a topic often contemplated in philosophy, remains persistent with mankind seeking to understand the uncertainty in the world surrounding him. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that raises questions and provides answers about what constitutes knowledge and justifies belief. The main concerns of knowledge in epistemology are how it is defined, what the source is, how it’s acquired, what its limitations are, and what kind of knowledge is necessary. Three very well known philosophers of their time offer their different ideas on the subject of knowledge and epistemology.
Consider this: a random doctor comes up to you, professing to have a cure for any and all kinds of viruses. He presents a syringe of the “antidote”, he has not provided background nor the results of his experimentation. Would you take the antidote? Within a person's life time, there will be various moments of skepticism. Skepticism can be both beneficial and detrimental, it can also lead to the arising of various knowledge claims. One of the ways by, which a person can gain knowledge is through their level of skepticism. Some knowledge claims that can arise as a result of too much or too little skepticism include; does this approach allow for knowledge to be gained with some degree of certainty? Is this approach to gaining knowledge reliable? Within the various areas of knowledge, the manner in which we absorb the information and knowledge provided can vary. With some areas of knowledge, the information we gain we may take in without questioning. In other areas of knowledge, we might take in the information with a grain of salt; presenting our skepticism. My thesis is that while skepticism can be a beneficial approach to gaining knowledge in the AOKs of the natural sciences and history, it can also be detrimental, based on the impact the AOK has on the person observing it, as well as the perspective of the person. The subsequent knowledge issues that arise as a result, will need to be analyzed in order for me to be able to evaluate the “skeptics” approach in the AOKs of natural science and history.
Doubt is what allows us to be creative which in turn leads to innovation and ingenuity. It is ingenuity which has allowed inventors like the Wright brothers to be able to construct machines which were previously thought to be impossible.
René Descartes was the first philosopher to introduce the intellectual system known as “radical doubt.” According to Descartes, everything he had learned before could have possibly been tainted by society or the senses, therefore he began “…to tear down the edifice of knowledge and rebuild it from the foundations up” (Palmer 157). It was not that everything necessarily had to be false, but physical laws could not offer absolute certainty. Therefore Descartes used reason alone as his tool towards gaining absolute truth; truth being something that one could not possibly doubt. In his conclusion, Descartes found that the only thing that holds absolutely true is his existence. His famous quote, “Cogito ergo sum” can be translated into “I think, therefore I am.” By this Descartes implied th...
Here he introduces his Method of Doubt, a systematic process of doubting deniable truths in order to uncover the true knowledge of things. The metaphor of a bulldozer can be used to understand this concept, substituting doubt as the bulldozer. If the bulldozer digs at the ground and finds the ground soft, the foundation of truth is weak. However, when the ground is solid and resists the bulldozer, the truth is proven. Simply, the Cartesian notion of universal doubt is to apply doubt to all candidates of knowledge and truth. Its purpose is to always search for deeper truths, inspiring intellectual beings to pursue their utmost potential. For instance, if a person is worried about one rotten apple spreading the rot to the rest of the basket of apples, would that person pick that one apple out, or would they dump out the whole basket and individually inspect each
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.
To truly think about knowledge brings about some interesting thought. When asked to think about knowledge, most individuals concern themselves solely with what they know such as certain subjects, theories or facts. In the grand scheme of things, this way of thought is seemingly only minute or even superficial. As human beings, we do not always considered how we come to know what we know. We often place are acquisition of knowledge lower in a taxonomy of importance. All too often, individuals take knowledge and its power for granted. However, individuals like René Descartes and his work, The Meditations, provide a deep exploration of knowledge and all its facets. For every individual or scholar this work is very important in that it causes the reader to consider what we assume as truth and to envision a foundation for knowledge that is indubitable. The aim of this paper is to consider the role of knowledge in epistemology, to expose the concept of an indubitable foundation for all knowledge and the overall influence of Descartes on the imminent enquiries.
to accept as false and only then start to rebuild is foundation of knowledge. To insure the
Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method (1637) and Meditations (1641) contain his important philosophical theories. Intending to extend mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge, Descartes discarded the authoritarian systems of the scholastic philosophers and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. This is the kernel of his famous assertion Cogito, ergo sum (I am thinking, therefore I am existing). From this certainty Descartes expanded knowledge, step by step, to admit the existence of God (as the first cause) and the reality of the physical world, which he held to be mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind; the only connection between the two is the intervention of God.
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.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
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