Knowledge
|
Knowledge is an elusive concept: more so even than truth. Although the classical (Platonic) definition of justified true belief has stood the test of time, it lacks rigor. Post-classical views of knowledge arguably offer potential for more precision by introducing additional dimensions to the definition. Classical View To be considered knowledge, the Platonic definition requires a proposition (e.g., the sun circles the earth) to pass three tests: (a) it’s believed; (b) there’s justification for believing it; and, (c) it’s true. To illustrate, ancient Greeks believed the sun circled the earth and, based on available evidence, were justified in so believing. But the proposition is false, so it’s not knowledge. Logically, the definition has held-up well although Gettier and others have pointed out subtle holes1 for which various remedies have been suggested. Objectively, the definition appears solid. Viewed subjectively (the relativist view), it’s less simple. Relativists find room for quibble in at least three areas: fact; justification-system; and, rational belief. Consider, for example, two views about the Earth’s shape. Eratosthenes, as did many ancient Greek philosophers, believed the Earth is spherical. In approximately 250 BC he calculated its circumference to 90% accuracy. Some 700 years later, Cosmas argued a minority view – that the earth is flat. Both men could base their conclusions on Eratosthenes’ observation that when the sun is directly overhead at one location on the earth’s surface, it casts a shadow at a distant location. 
Their opposing views hinged on assumptions about a fact: is the distance between the sun and earth large or small. Both men used an approximation of the scientific justification-system in use today – neither resorted to tea leaves. Both used logical reasoning. Eratosthenes: the sun is far away, its rays are approximately parallel, the circumference can therefore be computed. Cosmas: the sun is close, its rays strike the earth at angles which explains the different shadow lengths and suggests the earth is flat. (hover on adjacent picture) Eratosthenes’ view met the definition of knowledge. It was generally believed 2 by the scientific community (despite what American school children are taught); 3 there was justification for believing it (both the justification system and reasoning were sound); and, it was true. Facts: Objectivists and subjectivists have radically different views of facts. Objectivists' views are intuitively persuasive: there are physical realities independent of human minds. The universe existed before life on Earth. Humans discover what is and what has been. Relativists' views are less straigtforward. Some fact-relativists support an anthropocentric view that nothing “simply” exists: even mountains are mind-dependent creations. The concept as described by Latour and other proponents would result in something like touring Mr. Thompkin's worlds or residing in a fuzzy Second Life. Other fact-relativists, such as Rorty, are more circumspect. Facts, including things such as dinosaurs, are created by describing them. Sometimes Rorty, in particular, seems to concede that only some things are mind-dependent. In The Last Word, Nagle trivially disproves the relativist case... “ …the claim everything is subjective is nonsense. The claim itself is either subjective or objective. It can’t be objective without contradicting itself. It can’t be subjective because it could not rule out any objective claim, including the claim that it is objectively false.” 4 Planck cites universal constants as evidence of a physical reality independent of human minds. As Barrow says... “The constants of Nature are the ultimate bulwark against unbridled relativism. They define the fabric of the Universe in a way that can side-step the prejudices of a human-centered view of things.” 5 Planck also points out that the gap between physical and sensory world views is getting larger6 – which is opposite of what would be expected if our picture of the physical world were merely a mental construct. His question is not whether an independent reality exists: but rather our capacity to reveal it. 7 Anticipating Russell’s struggles with self reference and reflexivity, Planck wrote “…science cannot solve the ultimate mystery… because we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve.” In addition to the self-reference issue (his "Groucho Marx Effect") Barrow poses the following considerations: there may be no solution; if a unique theory exists, it may have infinite solutions; key features of our Universe may have simply resulted from random symmetry breakings; and, the difficulty of proving "truth"... “ ...even if such a super-theory [theory of everything] does exist and we are able to write it down, we can never know that it is correct. The scientific method does not enable us to demonstrate that our theories are true: only that they are false." 8 
Justification Systems: Often billed as a fact-dispute, Galileo vs. Bellarmine can be argued as an issue about how to justify belief in facts. Galileo relied on new, emergent scientific methodology – Bellarmine on prevailing religious and Aristotelian methodology. Galileo’s system ultimately prevailed, but few new systems do. Relativists are on stronger ground in asserting that justification-systems, as opposed to facts, are relative. Here too, however, the relativity of epistemic systems can be trivially disproved logically using a variation of Nagel's fact-argument.9 As a practical matter, despite claims by strong-relativists, not all systems are equal. Most are clearly inconsistent (yield contradictory results.)10 Despite its limitations, only the scientific system (which can be roughly characterized as: observation; conjecture; prediction; and, test) has produced theories built upon billions of correct predictions. Rational Beliefs: Return to Galileo vs. Bellarmine. Are different justification, or epistemic, systems truly the issue? Does Bellarmine really march to a different epistemic system? Rather than rely on his senses by observing the heavens through a telescope, he consults his Bible. But, he depends on his senses (his eyes) to observe what the Bible says. He uses induction to predict the text in his Bible doesn’t change from day to day. He uses deduction to appreciate the equant, deferent, epicycles, and other physical implications of geocentrism. Bellarmine also relies on his senses and reasoning to put on a coat when it’s cold. Can he then claim observation, induction, and deduction are irrelevant? Perhaps Bellarmine’s system is, “rely on observation unless the subject is a heavenly matter, in which case consult a Bible.” But, he relies on the sun, a heavenly matter, to tell him when to rise and retire. In the end, it can be argued, the issue is not one of dueling epistemic systems. The issue is one of rational belief concerning literal interpretation of the Bible. Galileo and Bellarmine use the same system. They have different rational beliefs about whether each and every word in a book written, translated, retranslated, copied, and recopied by numerous humans over thousands of years is a literal word of God. Nietzsche wrote, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Others hold that somewhere absolute truth exists: reason and objectivity will help us find it. Protagonists in the two camps go by numerous names: objectivists vs. subjectivists; absolutists vs. relativists; rationalists vs. constructivists. Distinctions denoted by the labels are often fuzzy.
It’s an old debate. Plato; Descartes; G. E. Moore; and, Nagel span the absolutist continuum: Protagoras; Hobbes; Rorty; and, Latour the relativist continuum. It’s an important debate – about: sources of reason; method of inquiry; how to validate claims of truth; and, control of belief by fact. Contests within the broadly defined ‘rationalist’ camp have historically garnered the most press. In addition to Galileo vs. Bellarmine, Scopes v. Tenn and Kitzmiller v. Dover come to mind.11 In each case the parties agreed something was true. At issue was what is true: not whether truth is. During the later half of the twentieth century, the action has arguably shifted from intramural rationalist battles to intermural rationalist vs. relativist conflicts. And, the scope and stakes of contention have increased as interconnections are discovered between disparate disciplines such as cosmology, biology, linguistics, cognition, and physics. Post-Classical View “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ...Voltaire Rationalists and relativists can probably both agree that beliefs, justification-systems, and logos have consequences whether or not they affect or reflect something called “truth.” They may also, perhaps, be able to agree that continual reference to the “other side” in the name of "fairness" (or ratings) propagates the belief that everything has another side – and spreads doubt about whether there are any facts at all. In Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt describes how Montel Williams, after devoting the largest portion of a program’s airtime to deniers, invited viewers to return after a commercial break to learn whether the Holocaust “is a myth or is it true.”12 Robert Mitchum is quoted as saying in an Esquire interview, “I don’t know. People dispute that.” when asked about the slaughter of six million Jews. In The Argument Culture, Tannen addresses the issue as a linguistic rather than epistemic phenomenon. Examples assembled from disparate cultures – including academia, media, political, scientific, and legal – anecdotally support several conjectures.13 She makes the argument that, when "my opinion is as good as yours," decibels often count for more than logos. War metaphors pervade speech and thought. Winning debates, instead of revealing truth, becomes the mission – since there may be no truth to reveal. The resulting argument culture compromises information used in decision making, corrodes our spirits, and weakens society with excessive contention. 
In addition to granting equal status to opinions held by different individuals, strong relativity may extend equal status to each new opinion formulated by an individual – even when the opinions are only twelve pages apart. Postman cites examples of students supporting contradictory propositions within the same thesis.14 Their explanation is that “proposition A was on page 6 and the contradictory proposition ~A was on page 18.” American institutions of higher learning experienced significant grade inflation during the past fifty years. In 1950, 15% of Harvard undergraduates earned B+ or higher. Now, 70% do and 91% graduate with honors. Whether relativism is a causal agent remains unresolved: equality of opinion and reason does not necessarily entail all children are above average. Inflation did, however, largely bypass some isolated pockets where classical truth is unapologetically pursued. While social sciences were especially affected, hard science and “traditional” schools – including certain Jesuit institutions – escaped contagion.15 More than a mere epistemological contest between rationalism and relativism is at issue Postman argues. Particular mediums can only sustain particular classes of ideas. Each medium is appropriate for a different kind of knowledge. Lincoln-Douglas debates and Brian Greene string theory expositions are incompatible with today’s ubiquitous medium, TV. As Fred Friendly put it, "commercial television makes so much money doing its worst, it can't afford to do its best." Postman would find fault with Friendly, arguing that television viewing – even viewing television’s best – weakens certain cognitive faculties needed for rational inquiry. He explains by examining three mediums: oral, written, and video.
This page is being revised. noise: linguistic obfuscation, infelicities, legal system, intentionality
Notes: 1. Gettier, Edmund L. "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" Analysis Vol. 23, 1963 pp. 121-23 2. The term believed lacks rigor. Is a proposition strongly believed? Is it truly believed? Who believe? How many believe? Is it a private belief: does it exist in public space? Is there any duty to believe carefully? A 1999 Gallop poll revealed that 18% of American adults believe the sun circles the earth. For an example of infelicity’s role in shaping belief see... Russell, Jeffrey Burton Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians Santa Barbara: Praeger 1997 3. Columbus did not need to argue the earth is spherical during his venture funding pitch in Ferdinand’s court. There, the question was, “How large is the earth's circumference?” Like entrepreneurs before and since, Columbus optimistically underestimated the earth’s size and length of voyage. Ferdinand’s venture capital committee members may have been unaware of Eratosthenes’s computations: they bought Columbus’ estimate. Had an accurate estimate been used, additional provisioning costs would likely have killed the project. 4. Nagel, Thomas. The Last Word Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 p 15 (Here, Nagel may be using the term nonsense in the Kantian non-statement sense rather than the everyday pejorative sense. More rigorous proofs have been put forth by other writers: none have fully carried the day.) 5. Barrow, John D. The Constants of Nature New York: Random House. 2003 p. 291 6. Physics is becoming increasingly depersonalized. What does a fourth or fifth spatial dimension "look like?" Can the presence of a string be experimentally confirmed? Universal constants transcend humanity: they are not reflections of human dimensions or experience. Together with the Principal of Covariance, they support laws equally valid for any intelligences, terrestrial or extraterrestrial, irrespective of their location, motion, or socialization. 7. Planck, Max Scientific Autobiography and other papers (translated by Frank Gaynor) New York: Philosophical Library 1968 and Planck, Max Where Is Science Going? (translated by James Murphy) Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press 1981 8. Barrow, John D. The World Within the World Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1988 pp. 342-345 9. Nagel’s “proof” is a bit cute. He defines the relativist system in such a way that when it is applied to itself it comes-up false. In Theaetetus, Socrates uses the technique to box Protagoras’ doctrine (loosely, “man is the measure of all things.”) Careful relativists frame doctrine to avoid this particular trap (for example, the self reference paradox can be ducked by not claiming their doctrine is superior to any other doctrine.) 10. Plastromancy, the Shang Dynasty practice of divining answers from turtle shell cracks, is an example of epistemic systems that yield inconsistent results for propositions (i.e., produce conflicting answers to the same question.) So are tasseography and trial by combat. 11. Dover marked a transitional trend in epistemological debate in that, although it was at heart a classical dispute about fact and justification-system, the defendant used post-classical relativist arguments. For a comprehensive account written from the prevailing party's viewpoint, see Miller, Kenneth R. Only a Theory New York: Viking 2008 12. Lipstadt, Deborah Denying the Holocaust New York: Free Press. 1993 13. Tannen, Deborah The Argument Culture New York: Random House. 1998 14. Postman, Neil Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business New York: Penguin. 1986
15.
Miller-Coe, Danielle and others Mining Academic Records For “Unfair” Advantage Cheyenne: Teton Sands 2008
Participants in the Syber Group multilingual cognition project now include linguists, philologists,
physicists, educators, students, entrepreneurs, mathematicians, and computer scientists.
|
