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

What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?

Extracts from this document...


Candidate name: Tam Wai Kit, Jonathan Candidate code: 001225-020 School: Yew Chung International School International Baccalaureate Diploma - Theory of Knowledge (ToK) What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge? The difference between "I am certain" and "It is certain" deals with the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, in terms of expressing and justifying knowledge. "I am certain" involves personal interpretation in a particular event (subjective), whereas "It is certain" tries to avoid such a problem. To the observer, subjective observations are equally as real as objective observations, with the fact that objective observations are common to all subjects where subjective ones vary among different observers. Subjectivity often involves personal emotion, and therefore it is likely to be affected and misled by the subject thus it differs from the reality. In Economics, we have a similar concept: positive and normative statements. Positive economics are objective, and therefore can be tested by available evidence. Normative statements are subjective and express an opinion1. Normative statements are subjective. For example, an economist might say, "I am certain that the cyclical employment is due to the low efficiency of the government in terms of its fiscal policies". ...read more.


It seems that passionate conviction, in some ways, hinders our path of acquiring knowledge, and moreover, such emotional attachment is related to the use of "I am certain". However, in other areas of knowledge this is not always the case. Sometimes we need conviction in order to justify knowledge. Cyberneticians agreed that in the nervous system there is no fundamental distinction between perception and a hallucination: both are merely patterns of neural activation. However, subjectively most people have no difficulty distinguishing dreams or fantasies from perceptions.8 Then, the areas where objectivity is unable to classify will then be dependent on conviction. However, how do we distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity? How can science, being classified as the means of justifying knowledge objectively, be demarcated from other knowledge-producing systems, such as religion? Science is a way of people explicitly promotes the following: invariance, distinctiveness and controllability. However, is science always reliable, even in areas that are not bounded by science itself? How can science investigate the existence of God, if God himself is above such a system? Therefore we come to one conclusion: science might be able to prove some phenomena in the world, but it is not necessarily the only way for us, as knowers, to acquire knowledge. ...read more.


But what if this passionate conviction originates from a psychopath? His conviction might be even more consistent than any scientist on the planet, and his belief will not alter. In this case the reason suggested above will not stand but is this strong evidence we could base on when we are trying to justify his words? If he says, "I am certain that I am GOD." and he believes he has the power of controlling the world, then undoubtedly this is not knowledge Since it cannot be justified by the other three ways of knowing. For example, how can it be logical that GOD lives on this planet and unable to free himself from a psychiatric hospital? That certainly does not make sense, and in these examples passionate conviction will lead us to nowhere. Although this is an extreme case, it is also applicable to people who ignores all objective evidence on certain "facts" and struggle to keep their opinions in place. I am certain that there is sufficient evidence to prove that being engaged in subjectivity will not necessarily lead to knowledge and to have a better description of reality, objectivity is a more approachable way of knowing. However, it is also certain that being conviction-driven, although some occasions emotion being a hinder to knowing, can also be a tool to justifying 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. Should a knower's personal point of view be considered an asset in the pursuit ...

    Even history, which is supposedly made up of "facts" from the past, is not entirely reliable. History is written down by people, who have always been and always will be biased towards almost everything.

  2. Are reason and emotion equally necessary in justifying moral decisions?

    When I finally left the hospital I was of normal weight for a baby. I think that the doctors need to look over this and decide again. That's just my opinion." 7- Tammy, New Mexico USA The most common ways of knowing that can be used in the debate to

  1. TOK notes. The problem of knowledge There are three ...

    the general Is based on experience and observation which allows to draw conclusions Deduction and induction compared Deduction Reasoning from general to particular All metals expand when heated A is a metal ->A expands when heated More certain, less information than Induction How reliable is inductive reasoning?

  2. The Law of the Universe: Entropy

    that it was simple before realising that it was in fact an incredibly difficult question to answer. This suggests that it is somthing that is so fundamental that we hardly realise its existence and find it extremely difficult to quantify.

  1. How important are the opinions of experts in the search for knowledge?

    This brings me to my final point, people who seek guidance; do they always look up to experts? My answer to this would be yes, for example, students seek guidance from teachers in order to learn, football players seek help from their coaches to learn from their mistakes, religious people

  2. Doubt is the Key to Knowledge

    The Arts should be approached with a fairly proportionate amount of doubt in order to reach personal knowledge through emotion. An Area of Knowledge that uses doubt as its main source for knowledge is the Sciences. Discoveries in Science are constantly occurring, but by natural human behaviour we tend to question many of these findings.

  1. Free Will and Determinism

    nature or nurture because it isn?t decided by them in the first place. 1. In one of the articles the scenario regarding men as being more violent that women arose. It was said that a chemical imbalance in the brain with the lack of serotonin caused aggression.

  2. We want to investigate on whether the development of computer technology brings more positive ...

    Instead, parents should educate kids the right attitude when using the Internet, and communicate with their children more often in order to understand them, not just by reading what they type in emails, Facebook posts, or chat conversations. Moreover, the use of Internet banking and online shopping is becoming more and more commonplace.

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