• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence "strong" enough and how can this be established especially through perception?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence "strong" enough and how can this be established especially through perception? Knowledge is created when one follows the method of reinforcing the reliability of pragmatic evidence. Regardless of what is deemed true and untrue in the world, people's opinions differ when distinguishing fact from fiction, and there have been endless debates when it comes to deciphering one from the other. Evidence is a vital element required to justify truth, as solid evidence cannot be argued against as it gives us facts through our empirical perceptions. The amount of evidence required to prove something is true also differs from topic to topic, with major topics requiring solid evidence include scientific investigations, historical assessments and judicial examinations. As human civilization has developed, so has the significance of evidence as our view of the world has acquired a more scientific view rather than an empirical view of judging something on how it appears to be. Using evidence as a strong basis of eliminating fallacious perceptions is also affected when taking into account the type of evidence which is at hand. People have debated where to mark the line between valuable and unreliable truth since the truth seekers of the earliest times to the present day. ...read more.

Middle

Expert and authority testimony can both be viewed as dubious evidence under the support of trust. Candidly, trust may strengthen controversial evidence, but I believe there are still large gaps of reasonable doubts that this kind of evidence does not cover. Forced to bend the line that I have already begun to draw, I rotate the direction of my thoughts towards the field of science. Distinguished by their consistent approach to knowledge, the science sociality always seem to strive for the most solid and authentic evidence to justify their theories. Trying to uncover the origin of its popularity, I found myself examining science's fundamental scheme of acquiring evidence � the scientific method. The overwhelming success that scientific evidence has obtained in the justification of truth is, in my belief, the result of rational reasoning and empirical testing. The linkage of evidence and hypothesis in a scientific experiment are always restricted by rigorous rules, so that all facts, or evidence, must be logically relevant to the experimentation. A good example of this would be: the controlled experiment, where a monitored environment prevents the incorporation of unrelated article that could jeopardize the precision of the outcome. However, with all the technical jargon and concepts that is sometimes grasped by so few, why do the public still trust the intricate scientific proofs that almost seem mystical? ...read more.

Conclusion

Like I have stated before, at the time of the trail, scientific evidence was overwhelmingly popular, because it is more compelling. However, the prosecutors were unaware that forensic science can be a double-edged sword. While most convincing evidence are strong evidence, we cannot neglect the fact that, not all of them can cover up every area of doubt. "Every addition [of evidence] opens up one more potential defense loophole." Evans' view, to me is very rational. Because we cannot re-act every part of history, and human technology can not find every exact point in the universe, finding the perfect and indubitable evidence is just too infrequent. This imperfection of evidence can only be minimized, but cannot be eliminate, this eventually will result in few controversies. As we find better ways of finding stronger knowledge, the frequency of the controversies will also decrease. Subsequently, I believe, relevance, authenticity, objectivity and creditability are all strong factors in the acquirement of strong evidence, which ultimately affects the validation of knowledge. With different situation and within different fields of study, the degree of these four factors that determines strong evidence may vary, because of the difference in how truth is viewed. In this essay, I have presented my own view and draw my own line which may incorporate my own personal predisposition, but I believe, parts of my mark will still remain on that spectrum as genuine knowledge. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge essays

  1. Tok History. My thesis is that although history and our ethics will always ...

    However, I must admit that all these "myths" that my Catholic religion has nurtured to me trust in, and even more so because of the fact that I committed to my religion after First Communion, confirmed myself to being a Catholic only a few years ago and still go to church every Sunday, I believe in them.

  2. There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and false. Discuss.

    largely with fact (objectivity); however, there are valid claims that a historian actually combines the 'rigour of a scientist with the imagination of an artist'. While both are legitimate forms of knowledge (science and arts), they contain certain aspects which weaken each other when they are cross bred as seen in history.

  1. One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence ...

    All mathematicians would agree on mathematical knowledge and mathematics is quickly finding its way into other Areas of Knowledge due to its reliability. In natural sciences however, things are different. The laws in natural sciences are not as certain as mathematics, where proof is concrete, rationalized, unchangeable and are based are on axioms-obvious and definite truths.

  2. TOK. How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something ...

    But there exists a group of people forming the Flat Earth Society (1547), who believe that the Earth is flat. They too have evidence for this belief: the difficulty of binding the atmosphere and the ocean to the Earth, the behavior of an accelerating sphere moving in a circular path,

  1. If progress is to be achieved, we cannot insist on knowledge that is founded ...

    The greatest challenge of rationalists is that they seem incapable to allow us gain contingent truths, truths which pertain to the world. Critics of rationalists argue that while reason allows us to have knowledge which is indubitable, they are limiting in nature and do not tell us anything of interest about the world.

  2. Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is Bhagavad Gita,

    Because they even don't believe in God, their brain cannot make up a vision of God's son. Neither people can see things which don't fit their value system; when they are not ready to open their minds to something new.

  1. Tok vocabularies - defining terms like "Truth" and "Belief"

    people and most people have the same because we are born with it. It is ?sense? what many people are born with. There are different types of common sense. There is one, which you have from the moment you are born, and one that you learn as you live.

  2. How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that ...

    certain or they predestining something which is believed to be true they will say it has been ?alleged that?. However language can be misunderstood or when being translated some words may be left out and these words may have been crucial in understanding the truth.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work