“The importance of establishing incontrovertible facts is overestimated. Most knowledge deals in ambiguity.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge. It is often easy to conclude that ambiguity exists in most of what we know. This reinforces the common idea that as we gain more knowledge, the less we truly know. We tend to ask more questions than receive answers following a large discovery for knowledge and because of this, we can never be certain about our current understanding of the world. As an IB knower, reading this statement conveys the incompressible vastness of our world and what surrounds us, further emphasising this idea that what we know now maybe misperceived. Many moments in history have replicated this, …show more content…
The purpose of history is to educate us on our previous civilisations and societies in order to help us better understand the nature of our kind. However, this aim is not effectively exercised due to how difficult it is to ensure that the history we preach is, indeed, accurate. The version of history that we have accepted is ever-changing with continuous discoveries, particularly in the realm of Ancient History. From the mystery surrounding the collapse of the Bronze age to the purpose of Stonehenge, there is still a large amount of mystery that lurks within our history. In my experiences as a history student, I tend to find when studying ancient history there’s a lack of certainty. Since we lack incontrovertible facts in this instance, it makes learning about ancient history difficult in the respect it leaves us with more questions than answers. Furthermore, as history is based mainly off of human accounts, it could lead to an inconclusiveness in some cases. An example of this is the continuous speculation surrounding the assassination of JFK. In referring back to the knowledge question I posed earlier, this example is a perfect indication of how something can be remembered for the ambiguity surrounding its occurrence. While, unlike in ancient history, there is more known about the situation, it may
it is seen that knowledge can hurt. It is also shown that sometimes one can know
Knowledge is defined as information and skills one acquires through experience or education. There is; however, a certain knowledge than cannot be certain and is unjustifiable from the scientific perspective. Karen Armstrong, Robert Thurman, and Azar Nafisi wrote about this type of knowledge in their essays: “Homo Religiosus,” “Wisdom,” and “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” respectively. Each of these authors has a different view of what knowledge is exactly, how it can be achieved, and what it means to have achieved it, but each author takes on the view that the concept of knowledge should be viewed from a social stance. Armstrong refers to this uncertain knowledge as “myth,” Thurman refers to it as “wisdom,” and Nafisi refers to it as “upsilamba";
. . . the truths whose discovery has cost the most effort, which at first could be grasped only by men capable of profound thought, are soon carried further and proved by methods that are no longer beyond the reach of ordinary intelligence. (Condorcet)
In “How to Tell a True War Story” by Tim O’Brien, Orwell’s ideas are questioned and the competition between the truth and the underlying meaning of a story is discussed. O’Brien’s story depicts that the truth isn’t always a simple concept; and that not every piece of literature or story told can follow Orwell’s list of rules (Orwell 285). The story is told through an unnamed narrator as he re-encounters memories from his past as a soldier in the Vietnam War. With his recollection of past encounters, the narrator also offers us segments of didactic explanation about what a “true war story” is and the power it has on the human body (O’Brien 65). O’Brien uses fictional literature and the narration of past experiences to raise a question; to what extent should the lack of precision, under all circumstances, be allowed? In reality, no story is ever really truthful, and even if it is, we have no proof of it. The reader never feels secure in what they are being told. The reliability of the source, the author, and the narrator are always being questioned, but the importance of a story isn’t about the truth or the accuracy in which it is told, but about the “sunlight” it carries (O’Brien 81).
...t find anything new. This description points out the hindrances on humans’ acquisition of knowledge because of our finite biological capacities.
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...
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
A story that uses a decent amount of ambiguity is like reading half of a story, in the sense that the reader can "fill in the blanks". The author leaves several details out in order for the reader to make his or her own interpretations. Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad, expresses ambiguity in a variety of ways. These include several details throughout the story, themes such as dark and light, and in characters including both Marlow and Kurtz. Conrad was one of the first writers to use this technique and by doing so, inspired many other 20th century writers to do the same. The story takes place when strong countries in Europe were taking over parts of Africa and imperializing every place they found. This novel is seen as a bridge between the 19th and 20 century writing styles because of the modern techniques and approach. The use of ambiguity in the themes and archetypal images in Heart of Darkness is how Conrad allows his readers to connect with the story on a personal level.
...or that matter. And that is exactly what archeologist do. They go looking for ways to perfect our knowledge about history and alter if the need is there. Studying history help me understand current events because like people say history repeats over and over. They had kings, pharaohs, and emperors back then and now we have presidents, kings, queens, and the pope. Besides technology and people nothing really seamed to change. Writing this essay and learning about events that happened in Rome proved to be interesting. If a part of history is learning about almost everything there is to know about a person and their lifestyle, then this would be something that I speculated on, on a regular basis because Marcus Aurelius had a very interesting life. Basically feel almost as though I watched him grow up, become emperor and pass away as if I was next to him the whole time.
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.
History is a story told over time. It is a way of recreating the past so it can be studied in the present and re-interpreted for future generations. Since humans are the sole beneficiaries of history, it is important for us to know what the purpose of history is and how historians include their own perspective concerning historical events. The purpose and perspective of history is vital in order for individuals to realise how it would be almost impossible for us to live out our lives effectively if we had no knowledge of the past. Also, in order to gain a sound knowledge of the past, we have to understand the political, social and cultural aspects of the times we are studying.
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
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.
There are therefore absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false in such fields where a distinction matters and is significant, but circumstances also arise when truth must be relative to a certainty continuum where one may find a middle ground.
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.