• 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 limit be established?


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 limit be established??Words - 1,578 ??The Oxford Dictionary states evidence as "Anything that gives people reason to believe in something" . This is however incorrect, as one can provide strong evidence and not change people's beliefs, if their belief is based on something else. Equally, one can believe in something without substantial evidence (for example God). In this essay however, we are focussing on strength of evidence. Concentrating on religion, mathematics, science and history, we will try to understand how we can measure strength of evidence in each case, and then conclude upon whether there is a universal measure of "strength" of evidence, or whether strength depends upon the area to which it is applicable.??Religion is by definition true belief in something. From an atheist's point of view, much of the evidence that "proves" the existence of higher beings has links that are tenuous at best. For example, the Bible speaks of the "ten plagues". These appear to be inexplicable except for the acceptance of some form of divine power. However, modern science is now showing that these events may have been caused by something other than the presence of a "god", and can be explained ...read more.

Middle

It is therefore unlike mathematics in that proven theories can later be disproved. It is also important to note that theories may be used which are known to be incorrect, but work for many examples. This is due to a lack of a better theory to explain behaviour. For example, the model of the atom with its orbiting electron's cannot work, as a moving charge would produce a magnetic field, taking away the electrons energy and eventually stopping it. This does not happen, however we stick to this model as evidence shows it works with most cases. Of course it is realistic to believe eventually someone will create a theory that better models observed behaviour, and finally disprove the current one. This is the process of induction - the creation of theories, their testing, and eventually their falsification. Strong evidence in physics is therefore evidence that shows a pattern across a wide range of examples. Strength is therefore defined by regularity of the evidence - the more consistent results are, the stronger the evidence for the pattern. The amount of evidence is also important - the more evidence you provide, the wider the range of the theory, although this does also include the recording of conditions, such as room temperature, humidity, pressure etc. ...read more.

Conclusion

Historians therefore became biased as they only had half the evidence to work from. Therefore evidence in history is strongest if there is a lot of it, it all corroborates, and it comes from more than one source.??In conclusion, there is only one universal measure of evidence - that is that evidence is strongest if it makes everyone confirm or change their beliefs. Beyond that, rating strength of evidence is applicable only to individual areas of knowledge. The only consistent measure seems to be amount - in every case looked at here, we have seen that the more evidence provided, the stronger the evidence is. In religion many would say the evidence is through the existence of believers, and the accepted religions are often the ones with the most members - Christianity is more credible than Jedi-ism for example. Though in maths we have seen that we can prove completely a theory, when we have no proof, evidence is a good indicator that a theory exists. In science there is no way of proving anything, therefore our only indicator comes through large amounts of evidence. History is similar, where we can never prove something happened unless we witnessed it ourselves; however large amounts of evidence are a good indicator of the existence of an event. ? ...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. If facts themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in the ...

    Their justifications, by modern standards, do not hold up to scrutiny, but to them their logic must have seemed impeccable. Was the world flat? Was it true, or a fact, to them? My contention would be no. Their beliefs and their justifications were false.

  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. Does Language Determine or Limit Thought?

    quote, 'The limits of my language mean the limits of my world', supports this theory in saying thoughts are determined in language so our thoughts are limited to the frame that language provides us.10 If the Sapir-Whorf theory states that language determines thought, then how come sometimes we have a

  2. The Law of the Universe: Entropy

    most pure as it is based upon a mathmatical description of our universe. Then comes chemistry which defines the individual interactions of every molecule. After that we have biology: the study of life and the sum total of all chemical interactions.

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

    Even so, having evidence that is not 'strong' enough to provide us with a valid explanation will again be futile. We need to also keep in mind that all human beings will acquire knowledge. However, which of these claims appear as more plausible will be based on their preciseness, coherency and facts.

  2. Does language determine or limit thought?

    This gives hint to the concept of Linguistic determinism which is the idea that language shapes thought. "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world,"11 Ludwig Wittgenstein said. For instance if I have an experience, I am restricted by the words I know not only when attempting

  1. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). ...

    science are very different kinds of attempt to understand the world.?[3] Religion teaches to believe implicitly while science urges a knower to become a doubter and enquirer. As a student of Physics I read of the gravitational pull and also perceive it everywhere, and therefore Newton?s theory is corroborated by evidence that I can personally evaluate.

  2. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.(Christopher Hitchens) Do ...

    While it is true both of these claims are supported by evidence, that is they both support their conclusions, the evidence presented by Messer-Kruse is much more direct and specific. Yet the circumstances surrounding the trial created the established viewpoint that the convictions were the result of a ?witch hunt?.

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