The scientific area of knowledge carries significance in the process of understanding, where the experimental and hypothesis-based procedure can closely be related to that of mathematics, to assist us in the differentiation of reasoning and emotion, as well as the belief or knowledge gained. With regard to any science or experiment, a devised structure has been developed to allow for the end result gathered being both correct and reliable. This is achieved through the formation of an aim designed to either support or disprove a hypothesis by undertaking a variety of experiments bound by a number of variables. Through this thorough procedure of testing, the scientist is able to cover all variables and aspects within the experiment, where discrepancies or malfunctions are bound to occur. In this scientific manner, reasoning is once again the major factor within the experiment, taking shape through both the aim and the general testing. The aim provides us with a task or question, to answer by some form of experiment, to reach a conclusion. However we can elaborate on this further to match each scientific nomenclature with its appropriate role in understanding. The aim and the experiment can hereby be established as reasoning, and the end result can then be classified as a conclusion in science, or as knowledge in terms of understanding. As we draw light to this it is once again clear that emotion had played a very small role in the justification of knowledge. As in mathematics there is however ample room for emotion, which in this case takes form as the hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on an emotion derived off previous experiences to lead us in a heightened level of emotion. In effect this then leads the scientist to dare the testing of the hypothesis, with an aim to achieve knowledge and beliefs based on the results of the sound testing process. Charged with the emotion of fame and glory a number of scientific experiments with biased testing, in conjunction with a non-double blinded experiment, have led to the scientists into knowing which drugs they had been issued, to lead them into using emotion to achieve the result they want and the conclusions they hoped to present. It is by this nature that we are introduced to the flaws behind reasoning and gaining knowledge, as it being a human endeavour, a number of errors and falsehoods are likely to come forward, whether intentional or not, leading to the very question of whether ‘true knowledge’ is that different from belief after all?
As we continue with our exploration of understanding we are introduced to the area of art and music, where the systematical trend of reasoning seems to transition into that of emotion. When dealing with art, a majority of the ways of knowing seem to come forward. However since art is based around a subjective and personal medium, emotions tend to play a bigger role in determining knowledge, due to the ability to communicate one’s reactions into one’s perceptions and create within oneself, the own perspective on the artwork. As this concept is an entirely individual process based around ones imagination, it explores a problematic explanation into our beliefs, as one cannot imagine without believing in something. The best way to express this process would most likely be achieved through the area of music and the emotions it can strike within us. Through personal experience, I have found an explanation for this process with my strong enthusiasm for European music. Growing up in several countries around Europe and learning a spectrum of their languages, I have found the ability for my emotions to respond to music of languages that I had never heard of before. For instance, the band Sigur Ros, of Icelandic decent, has achieved this in a number of ways through a wide range of their songs. When listening to their music, although I cannot literally understand a word they’re saying, I am still able to communicate my reactions into my perceptions, and thus form my own perspective on what the song is about. Music is a medium that is incredibly personal, and as knowledge concerning music is subjective, my belief acted as knowledge for me. When I applied this to a particular song, called ‘Ágætis Byrjun’, in cohesion with my European decent I was able to form my emotions around the song, which always left me with a calm and relaxed nature with an underlying tone of sadness. This song had such a great impact on my personal being that I was forced to look into the translation of the lyrics. While listening to the song, I read its translation to find that the depth and meaning I found while listening to it was no longer present, to find it replaced with a theme of evolution and human nature. The very translation of the title went as ‘an alright start’, which now made no sense to me. The singers relaxing tone, the beat and the melody of the song had all helped provoke such a calm emotion within me. In contrast to this, my reasoning told me that this song was definitely not about sadness, however about human nature and evolution. As I pieced all this information together, with recognition to both reason and emotion, I decided that my emotional version carried significantly more meaning, and thus I decided to stick with it. Following this experience the differences between reason and emotion suddenly stuck me, where I realised that emotion was in fact a good indicator for knowledge, however dependent on the subject area. If this were not true, authors would not resort to figurative language that conveys emotion. Likewise, songwriters would not use emotive words that provoke emotion within the listener, and directors would not use visuals that provoke emotion within their movies.
When the feature of reason and emotion is placed in a historical subject area, we are able to elaborate on the claims suggested earlier, to finalise our consensus on belief and knowledge. Reasoning plays a major role in modern history, as through reasoning we are able to understand the causes and effects of previous events. Relating this to several different conflicts or problems in the past, we realise that reasoning determines how you know in history, while emotion determines what you know. When events are retold, they become so tainted with emotion that they manage to influence your thoughts and beliefs. Each person’s beliefs and experiences create a bias that taints the events being retold, and thus influences what the listener knows. History is essentially facts told with a bias dependent on the speaker, thus many consider the added emotion part of the knowledge claim. A problem with using emotion is that sometimes, we are unable to filter out the passion of the person who is telling the events and we mistakenly consider the bias and emotion as knowledge, and thus determine it as a fact. It is by this nature that we not only able to extend our thoughts on this matter, however by doing so we also draw light to the flaws within history itself, or more specifically, its dictators. Emotion has such an overwhelming power on man that it imposes the speaker’s beliefs on the listener. In effect this is how several dictators such as Hitler, were able to spread their views through such propaganda, with the use of emotion filled words such as ‘mutterland’ and such other nationalistic words.
In order to distinguish between emotion and reason, one must first place this within the area of knowledge one is observing. Referring back to the quote of “listening to your head, or your heart”, it is simple that our emotions convey to us the things our minds simply cannot understand, whereas reason conveys to us things that our hearts can not. When these indicators are placed into the context of today, several problematic issues arise, as both reason and emotion carry a number of internal flaws that influence the way that we distinguish between knowledge and beliefs. When we interpret reasoning at a closer level, we are forced to accept that it is a human endeavour, and as a result of this, it carries a great possibility of errors or falsehoods. Comparatively emotion is a mental state that is in fact fragile to our ways of knowing, which is the reason why many have capitalized on this, to convey their individualistic ideals on the world. For to act in the name of something, one must only believe in it, and not necessarily know the truth behind it. Although the faults in reasoning can be seen as accidental, as it is the nature of the human mind to make mistakes, however emotion can be specifically altered through our personal thoughts, to convey a belief that we believe to be true, however one which can be ultimately false. By looking at all these notions, we are forced to recognize that “the wide gap between knowledge and belief may not be as wide as it is often presented.”
