In the debate and discussion of embryonic stem cells, a large portion of the enquiry relates back to its very discovery and the scientists involved in its unearthing. The scientific area of knowledge carries significance in the process of understanding where the experimental and hypothesis-based procedure can closely be related to how we should be perceiving the overflowing information presented at us, and how we can filter out the unreliability and irregularities taking shape through both opinion and propaganda. With regard to any science or any experiment a devised structure has been developed to allow for the end result gathered to be both correct and reliable. This is done 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 bases in the experiment, where discrepancies or malfunctions are bound to occur. It is by this nature that a scientific approach to distinguishing between knowledge, propaganda and opinion is fundamental due to the detailed accuracy that a scientific report requires and which the interpretation of knowledge demands. This can however be broken down further, where we are able to classify the three groups under scientific nomenclature. The original data from the experiment can be seen as the raw information or even as propaganda, which is being tested to either support or disprove the hypothesis, or opinion. By doing so the scientist is in fact attempting to prove the hypothesis to be wrong rather than right, to establish a theory and then later a law. By applying this process to knowledge, opinion and propaganda, we are able to formulate a criterion to distinguish between the three. Following the scientific method, we are given propaganda in the form of statistics or numbers, which we analyse in terms of the variables in science, and sources in knowledge. While analysing any source, whether propaganda, opinion or even knowledge, it is crucial to understand the motivation, experience, research, and citations behind each of the references given. By doing this, and assuming that the source did in fact have reliable information, we are then required to test this out against the opinions present. However when looking at the opinions, this is not just limited to the outsiders perspective but also to the message behind the propaganda. This process makes a large portion of the procedure, where opinions in conjunction with facts are combined to create a final consensus, which we believe to be completely accurate in both a theoretical and practical sense, with no necessary relation to either the opinion or the propaganda presented. This end result can then be classified as a conclusion in science, or knowledge in terms of understanding.
On the opposite scale of this equation lies the propaganda of knowledge interpretation. In this example this takes shape as religion, acting as the evident force fighting against stem cell research, while using any lengths to defame it. Having received the information from science, which is ultimately accurate and truthful, this party acts out against this, attempting to steer away the impression that the knowledge of stem cell research is spreading on its public. To a certain extent, propaganda plays a very similar role as knowledge, where the ideas are expressed, whether in a scientific report or a sermon, to try and persuade the opinion in favour of that particular side. The information given by propaganda is not necessarily incorrect; in fact it might even coincide with that of knowledge. However the underlying difference between the two is propagandas misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a cause of a point of view. This is where the example of religion plays on the subject of stem cell research. Although the knowledge given to religion might in fact have no moral or humanitarian implications, through the faith of religion, they are able to create an implication rather than find one damaging the human population in the first place. By relating their personal view on the situation to religion, they are automatically affecting a large portion of the population, into believing their unsupported claims of ‘religious issues’. This can relate back to the very foundations of religions in general, where the knowledge expressed is likely to be classified as propaganda, designed to mislead the population in the first place, and then leading them to promote the political cause behind that faith. It is by this manner that the perspective behind religion plays the role of propaganda in this equation, being easily distinguishable from that of opinion and knowledge.
The party on the consumer side of embryonic stem cell research can be regarded as the patient or benefactor in the equation, taking form as the opinion in this equation. The basis of opinion is a form of knowledge based off either knowledge or propaganda to determine the persons view on the matter. What this view encompasses then elaborates to the person forming their opinion, and by so determining their actions on the matter. In this case the person can be seen to think as a scientific person, and have no religious constraints on the issue, and as a result of which, as undergone stem cell treatment. This action coincides with the scientific belief in stem cell research, where the person’s main interest is to treat or prevent the disease or condition relevant to them. By taking this action the person is applying their opinion in support for the knowledge give, resulting in ridicule or hostility from the opposing religious side. In comparison to this, the opinion based off religious propaganda would result in the person publically protesting the treatment, with the preservation of human evolution and moral issues at heart.
By using this example of embryonic stem cell research, we are able to distinguish between knowledge, propaganda and opinion in comparison to the three groups presented. With each one displaying the similar characteristics of the three forms of understanding, we are able to draw a conclusion on the way in which knowledge is derived and how it can be doctored, to form the desired opinion. The search for understanding does in fact stem off information, opinion and propaganda, where critical thinkers undergo the procedure that they have grown used to. For me this criterion has been narrowed down to the knowledge area of science, where the differentiation between knowledge, opinion and propaganda takes place through a scientific experiment write up. This can however relate back to limitless areas of knowledge, however the choice is largely based on the individual and their way of knowing. For example, another criteria could be shown in a mathematical manner, where the original data, in either a graph of numbers can be interpreted as propaganda. Which is then put into an equation (acting as opinion), to create a constant or a formula (knowledge) applying to the entire data. There is no single criterion to distinguish between knowledge, opinion and propaganda as the information we are receiving is constantly changing. However as critical thinkers we can adapt to this by applying information to different areas of knowledge, where variables or ‘double checking’ are evident to ensure that the information we are receiving is in fact reliable, aiding us to form our opinion on it, and if this opinion is largely shared by the people involved and cannot be disproved, it can finally be seen as knowledge.
