Knowledge.
Random House defines knowledge as: 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or knowing: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; clear and certain perception of fact or truth. (Random, 742) The two main branches of this definition being that knowledge is a general insight to the facts, as observed in definitions one through three, and the specific perception of fact or truth (such that what a person perceives to be the truth is their knowledge of that truth) as derived from definition four.
Charles Peirce, who transposes knowledge and belief rather freely, states that we at first seek to gain knowledge to soothe the “irritation of doubt” which is only placated “with the cessation of doubt… Hence, the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion (Quest, 71).” Peirce constantly infers throughout his piece “The Fixation of Belief” from the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. V, Pragmatism and Pragmaticism that knowledge is only one’s confidence in their beliefs, that because “as soon as a firm belief is reached we are entirely satisfied, whether the belief be true or false (Quest, 71)”.
In postulating that knowledge is only a belief that has yet to be disproved, Peirce might be implying that all knowledge, despite its origins from reason or method, common sense or specific study, is only valid insofar as it has yet to have been shown otherwise to such a degree that it ends all doubt to the contrary. This would seem to lend a sort of strained credence to events that are all but denied by Science such as miracles or divine intervention. Conversely, because miracles and interventions by a higher power are not given the same validity and replicable status as Science is, Science is therefore given a higher place in the realm of knowledge. Peirce then goes on to describe ways that humanity derives its knowledge through the method of Science or otherwise, like through cultural idioms and oral traditions.
There is Tenacity, which states that if man “only holds his belief without wavering, it will be entirely satisfactory” (Quest, 72) and that “a man may go through life systematically keeping out of view all that may cause a change in his opinions” (Quest, 7
. This is basically knowledge through blinders, only accepting that which one is comfortable with and does not dare to look beyond.
The method of Authority is “the will of the state” acting to “keep correct doctrines… reiterate them perpetually. And to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught” (Quest, 7
. Also, to control all pleasures and punishments of the people as to exclude with ‘legal’ force that which is outside the will and law of the state, “let all men who reject the established belief to be terrified into silence” (Quest, 7
. Authority appeals to the conformist traits of Man, but has much potential to harm or destroy the branching, oft’ progressive, leanings of society to protect the essence of the doctrine and the power it holds over the people.
Peirce’s third method of acquiring (note: acquiring as opposed to attaining) knowledge is the use of a priori, reasoning based upon established assumptions. Letting “the action of natural impulses be unimpeded… and under their influence let men, conversing together… gradually develop beliefs in harmony with natural causes” (Quest, 74). A priori, however, can make too many assumptions and, only relying on discussion as opposed to actual data, can lead to an unwarranted narrowing of beliefs such as is caused by groupthink, a sociological term meaning the loss of reason and the tendency of a group to conform their ideals to match each other (Macionis, 464).
Peirce’s final method, that of Science grasps onto perception of what is Real, and states that outside of Man’s perception that which is Real remains so despite the observer. “There are real things… entirely independent of our opinions… affect our senses according to regular laws” (Quest, 75). Pierce stops there, however, and does not go on to regard Science as disproving that which is establish, only doing so by proxy in saying “the feeling which gives rise to any method of fixing belief is a dissatisfaction of two repugnant propositions” (Quest, 76). He alludes to Science as a way of disproving convention, but does not state it outright.
Western civilization is, like all things, a combination of all. As a primary tendency though, the way in which the West ultimately gains its knowledge of Nature is through the Scientific method. Though most of the general public gains its knowledge through multiple uses of all methods, Man ascribes knowledge of the world through the act of disproving until such a time as a hypothesis cannot be destroyed by any means currently available.
One thing that must be noted about the Scientific method though is that its is thoroughly limited to the dimensions available to Man’s senses and tools that have been made to amplify them. That being said, complete knowledge of the universe cannot be attained until such a time as complete perception of the universe can be observed (I.E.- all dimensions accounted for by the senses; the gravitational constant is assumed, not proven, since its cause heretofore unobservable).
A counter argument against the Scientific method decries its impossible feat of objectivity and the fact that it discounts knowledge that is derived from subjective sources. Patricia Hill Collins argues with extreme vigor that certain knowledge, although cultural and in some cases not objective, is still valid despite “using different standards that are consistent with… criteria for substantiated knowledge” (Quest, 98). Collins argues that it is impossible to be completely objective and that to discount knowledge, because it is in a context that includes the observer’s point of view, is flawed (Quest. 96-98). Perhaps there is a point in what Collins says, but her antagonism (while quite possibly justified) does not help her cause seem amenable and progressive towards change.
While the Scientific method has been successful in interpreting Nature’s law from the standpoint of Man’s current level of perception, it is built upon entirely subjective cultural foundations and to deny it being so is hypocritical. However, instead of throwing the entire system out because its foundations are watery, the solution should be to shore up the weaknesses by including, in some capacity, cultural wisdom with that of the Natural since, by logic, culture at some point has been derived from Nature. This perhaps can be observed in the strides taken by sociologists to categorize and analyze human culture, wisdom, and beliefs through use of the Scientific method and acknowledging that the observer plays some part in the research (Macionis, 1-27).
As a footnote, an excerpt from a work of fiction by Neil Gaiman:
“Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes and forgot.”
~ “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”
Dream Country, p.21
Works Cited
Collins, Patricia Hill. “An Afrocentric Feminist Epistemology” The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader. 2 (2000): 98-98
Gaiman, Neil. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” Dream Country. New York: Vertigo, 2000: 21
Macionis, John J. Society: The Basics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000 : 1-27, 464
Peirce, Charles Sanders. “The Fixation of Belief” The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader. 2 (2000): 71-76
Stein, Jess, ed. Random House College Dictionary. New York (1980): 742
) so much that he was explaining that it is human tendency to use methods LIKE the razor in order to feel satisfied or justified...
