What we know with our senses (or empirical knowledge), combined with a context is what is generally called perception. Nevertheless, there are numerous reasons why and how perceptions change from person to person and culture to culture. Our perceptions are highly influenced by factors such as past experience, spatial familiarity and biological limitations. Our past experiences can often condition us to expect things and we often see or hear what we expect to rather than what really happens. Similarly, due to spatial familiarity, our brain appears to make us see patterns or shapes with which we are already familiar. Unfamiliar things or patterns are often unnoticed. Likewise, our prejudices and assumptions often lead us to false conclusions. A good example would be the Allport & Postman experiment in 1940. In this research, all the participants were white Americans. They were divided into groups of seven. One participant from each group was shown a picture of a white man and a black man in a train, with the white man holding a razor in his hand. That participant had to then describe the picture to the second, the second to the third and so on. Over half the participants who received the final description reported that the black man, not the white man was holding the razor. Some even had the black man waving the razor in a threatening manner. The authors of this experiment concluded, ‘When an actual perpetual fact is in conflict with expectations, expectation may prove a stronger determinant of perception and memory than the memory itself’ (Allport & Postman, 1940) Moreover, our perception has biological limitations. Humans can only perceive what our senses and nervous systems allow us to perceive. Some of us can certainly see further and hear more clearly than others, but none of us can see as clearly at night as an owl or hear as keenly as an elephant. Had we relied only on perception, we would never believe that concepts like ultrasound could exist. Our senses are incapable of detecting them. We can reconcile the gap between scientific techniques and natural human perception by accepting the limitations of our senses.
Language is also a major component that anchors the conflicts in perception. In simpler terms, the labels used for ideas and objects (our language) immensely influence our thinking. Furthermore, changes in the meaning of words can be traced historically and as we often depend on language to provide us with knowledge, the time period that this language dates from is also an important parameter to consider. In time the meaning of the words change for many reasons and we can only be sure of the meaning of a word when we are provided with its historical context as well as its context within a sentence. Several hundred years ago, the word ‘lust’ meant innocent delight, while now it means something completely different. The entry for ‘gay’ in the New Oxford English Dictionary has thirteen definitions, the first dating as far back as Middle English. Only the last entry, from the mid-20th century, has anything to do with homosexuality. Thus, it is noteworthy that language and its multiple meanings can cause conflicts in our knowledge. We can reconcile this confusion of meanings by acknowledging the malleable nature of language and learning to place words within understandable and recognisable contexts. For example, we can learn that the word “gay” in a Shakespeare play will mean happy, and not homosexual, due to the time period it was written in.
There are other areas of knowledge too, which tell us things that appear to conflict with what we know in our daily lives. For example, according to statistics, the average number of children in a household in the UK is 2.4. Following the standard procedure of calculating a “mean” average has statistically created this value. However, to an ordinary person with no knowledge of statistics, the result would simply sound nonsensical and impossible.
Moreover, a major reason why knowledge from different sources can be conflicting is our social and cultural conditioning. The apostasy law is a good example. It is seen as perfectly acceptable and reasonable in some Islam-majority areas. Nevertheless, in other parts of the world, it is seen to curtail one’s right to freedom of thought or freedom of religion. Likewise, while sodomy laws exist in many parts of the world, some nations have more readily accepted the concept of homosexuals, treating them as equals. So, in a sense, the reliability of a source of knowledge also depends on factors like the social and time context, clarity of language and to some extent, ethics. In one country, a gay person is evil, while in another he has committed no crime. We have to understand that cultural and social factors over hundreds of years have formed these conflicting opinions, and understand both before we believe one opinion over the other.
In my opinion, there is no such thing as difference or conflict between two sources of knowledge. Instead of arguing that one type of knowledge is inherently wrong with respect to the other, reconciliation, to some extent, is possible by understanding why differences in our knowledge emerge. Particularly important is an analysis of the contradictions that emerge out of the social contexts in which perceptions at the local scale and beyond are embedded. If we understand how and why these differences occur, it is easier to reconcile conflicts, if there are any. It is however, easier in some cases than others. For instance, most of us grow up to think that the Earth is round and that the Earth revolves round the sun. In such cases, we are relying more on authority than our senses. We have learned to be pragmatic in believing this, even though we may not be completely satisfied with the explanations in its support.
Scientific definitions and explanations can be conflicting because of the purpose. Scientists approach a table in terms of matter and hence regard it as a solid, with mostly empty spaces. On the contrary, our idea of ‘solid’ is concerned with survival. So, we see objects like stone, balls etc as ‘solid’ because we know they can hurt us. Contrarily, we see objects like cotton as not solid because we think it won’t hurt us. In sciences, empirical evidence and experiment (or sometimes hypothesis) is the basis of knowing, while in general life, authority, memory, experience and intuition are important means of knowing. This difference in basis or context or purpose seems to generate conflicts. Nevertheless, there is basically no conflict if we see from a general perspective and recognise the reasons behind the conflict.
To conclude it’s like the story of nine people where each of them is asked to blind folded touch various body parts of an elephant and guess what the animal was. On being asked about which animal it was all of them answered differently. Though they touched the same elephant, just because they touched different parts of the elephant’s body, they gave different answers. The same happens when the means by which we ‘know’ and the context in which we ‘know’ are different. Knowing that the purpose, motive and way we approach different areas of knowledge can differ, and accommodating the idea that language can cause conflicts in messages or knowledge, can help reconcile such conflicts.
“It seems that the human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before it can find them in things. Knowledge cannot spring form experience alone, but only from the comparisons of the inventions of the intellect with the observed fact”.
-Albert Einstein
Bibliography/References:
Books:
- Benson, N., Introducing Psychology, 1998, Australia, McPherson’s Printing Group
-
Lagemaat, R., 2005, Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Websites:
-
ScienceDirect, 2002, Reconciling indigenous knowledge with scientific assessment of soil fertility changes in South Western Burkina Faso, [internet] ScienceDirect.com, Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V67-47GDPH98&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c896a116d5148f537a49bb0b3624b038 (Assessed at 4th February,2008)
-
Cambridge/Dictionary Online, 2008, Definition of knowledge, [internet], CambridgeDictionary.com, Available at: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=44130&dict=CAL (Assessed at 8th February, 2008)
-
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005, The Problems of Perception, [internet], Available at http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/perception-problem/ (Assessed at 8th February, 2008)
Word count- 1581 (excluding front page, quotes and bibliography)
