Theory of Knowledge Essay Assignment

Does it matter that your personal circumstances influence how seriously your knowledge is taken? To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by “personal circumstances”. This refers to personal knowledge, that is based on one’s own experiences and assumptions of to build up their own conclusions, therefore, is subjective. The first question is asking us to examine “how seriously” - the circumstances affect the value of knowledge in peoples’ eyes. This, I will explore in relation to shared knowledge, that is assembled by a group and commonly accepted by everyone. Secondly, “does it matter” for us as knowers to determine the significance of this knowledge, taking account of the possible repercussions personal circumstances can have on the quality of knowledge – in particular how trustworthy and insightful it is. While I'd like to think one’s input should be respected regardless of their circumstances, especially in a modern society. But given the barriers created by racism, discrimination, or cultural ideals, can influence one’s perception of knowledge. Essentially, I believe personal circumstances can greatly influence the value of one’s knowledge in its credibility and relevance to those studying it, and this matters as it affects our reputation as knowers in our study of other areas of knowledge such as history and natural science. In history, I learned to compare between the strengths and limitations of different historiographies to arrive at my argument –the origin, purpose, content. From this, we look at the influence of personal circumstances on how seriously one’s knowledge is taken. Let’s look at the historiography of the Russian February Revolution in 1917. Early Soviet historiography championed by Trotsky1 saw revolution was a result of the union between ‘modernizing’ peasants, however, this was limited by his bias – Trotsky’s ideology and 1 Trotsky, L., 1930 affiliations with the Party. Contrary to later Liberal readings like Engel who sees the war as a major catalyst which exasperated economic discontent, the Soviet reading disregarded these immediate events due to their emphasis on the power of the people. I found Engel’s source more reliable since her reputation as an expert historian (specializing in Imperial Russia) have been consistently validated by many experts in her field; having published relevant works e.g Women in Russia, 1700-20002 makes her trustworthy. Thereby, supporting the idea of the identity of the knower influences how your knowledge is perceived. On the other hand, her gender presents a form of bias, being a woman who writes about women therefore, ironically neglecting the perspective of males. The nature of personal knowledge can strengthen or limit the value of the source, from a seasoned expert or a controversial historical figure, and by ignoring this, can harm our judgements as knowers. However, the worth of their historiographies may not necessarily lie in personal circumstances. For example, Caribbean historian Elsa Goveia who documented accounts of the social impacts of slaves and other social groups in the West Indies3 may have not received the same recognition due to her being a woman in a male dominated profession, studying a lesser known period. This shows her status influence how seriously her knowledge is taken by academics at the time. However, this does not diminish the value of their work since it was she who laid the foundation for history studies of the British West Indies. At a time when historians focus on the impacts of colonizers, Goveia challenged common interpretations for academics to question their historiography4. Most experts started out as beginners building up their experiences, then gained credibility and recognition overtime, therefore, using a person’s status and historical credibility isn’t always fair nor should it influence the value of the knowledge. Also, this brings us to the relationship between shared and personal 2 Engel, B., p.715, 1997 3 Chamberlain, 2004 4 Higman, B., p.337, 1999 knowledge. As we know, in history, knowledge is obtained from both primary and secondary sources. Through primary sources, we’re able to see culmination of isolated individual accounts interconnect to build a web of experiences surrounding the events thereby, going on to form a shared knowledge from the point of view that group. But can these primary sources be trusted? A quote by A. Whitney Brown perfectly summarizes the nature of history: “The past actually happened but history is only what someone wrote down.”5 This criticizes the use of personal knowledge has made history is flawed and one-sided, since it is only based on the emotional experiences and the personal conclusions of the person who wrote it down, but not the whole view of what happened. Moreover, we see the how one’s experience of emotions can be detrimental on their perception of knowledge – such as history above. Emotions of shame and fear of a past ridden with scars of slavery had prompted people of the West Indies to stay quiet about this part of history, which closed off new ways of thinking, until Goveia found a different approach. Here, knowledge was prevented by colonizers who enforced their superiority over the colonized, linking back to the personal circumstances which made their victims believe their knowledge is inferior. One’s emotional experiences may limit our frame of knowledge instead of stepping outside of our comfort zones, which may have serious implications on our ability as a society to develop and be innovative. Yet, I must argue is this use of personal knowledge isn’t entirely negative. As historian E.H.Carr once said: “Study the historian before you study the facts”6. This quote argues for the benefit of personal knowledge by each historian can give us an of unique outlooks. Every historian approaches knowledge differently, with a different area of knowledge they’re choosing to find evidence for. To understand them, readers often try to reenact the historian’s thought process within our minds, hence it’s important to study the 5 Dunn, M.,2013 6 Carr, E.H, 1961 historian to comprehend their way of reasoning first. For example, I realized Engel’s bias from her personal experience with the rise of third wave feminism also gave her the benefit of providing insightful perspectives on women, a group previously overlooked in history. As for natural sciences, personal circumstances aren’t so important as the scientific reasoning of their experimentation methods. Scientific facts and statistics can’t be changed no matter what since it is based on logical reasoning to add to its credibility. Nettie Stevens, a female scientist, discovered in 1861 that an organism’s sex is determined based on its X and Y chromosomes than environmental factors7. Her findings were not taken seriously by other scientists until after her death, and was credited to a renowned male scientist, Edmund Wilson8. This is an example of how personal circumstances such as sex discrimination has caused female scientists and their discoveries to be overlooked by the scientific community. Instead of being beneficial, we see how judging one’s knowledge based on historical credibility (Wilson was more popular) and gender is deeply unfair and detrimental to society. However, saying its logical reasoning alone neglects factors such as chance, intuition –for example, Fleming’s intuitive perceptiveness made him notice the effects of the mold on his accidently contaminated cultures, prompted the discovery of Penicillin9. Nonetheless, personal knowledge can be deeply flawed as scientists can tamper with data for corporate funding, or become influenced by personal grudges, thereby, elevating the importance of listening to countless peer reviews over the opinions of one. This demonstrates the values of shared knowledge over personal knowledge, especially for academic experts. Still, I firmly believe that personal circumstances should be considered in science as scientists with high statuses can have more resources to add credibility to their findings. This being the 7 Hoang, D., 2019 8 Hoang, D., 2019 9 ari.info, 2014 traits they possesses that make people believe them. For example, Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity of light bending around the sun and his prediction of a solar eclipse10. This was later proven correct in 1919, adding credibility to his theory and gained him notoriety overnight. As Einstein himself once said: “There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.”11 Scientific theories can’t always be tested inside a lab, and this is true for quantum physics, which relies on other elements - imagination and intuition to form implicit reasoning when there’s no data to prove. Intuition instinctively process these subliminal patterns while imagination visualize the outcomes when physical testing isn’t possible to form his reasoning. With that being said, intuition and imagination still needs to base on prior knowledge to remain realistic enough to be useful, this require emotional experiences to draw up this intuitive “feeling”. In this case, historical credibility plays into this as Einstein was well-known for his intelligence and passion for academia that makes his theories trustworthy to scholars in the West. In conclusion, personal circumstances play a very significant role in influencing the value of your knowledge academics. With the rise of false information nowadays, it is becoming increasingly important to gain reputation as a professional to establish trust with the public for them to get them to accept that knowledge, forming a universally shared assumption. When statistics are not available, people often rely on implicit reasoning to assess the validity of knowledge. It is an easy way to judge the value of knowledge as seen in how we analyze origins of a source in history. Yet, it is unfair and non-beneficial to disregard knowledge due to a person’s status, which can have serious implications on the development of society. 10 Overbye, D., 2017 11 Popova, M., 2012