Websites and in general the internet is a gathering of information from all over the world, which can be accessed by everybody who has an internet connection in a matter of seconds. The most evident advantage of this is that due to the masses of information comparisons of information can be made very swiftly. However, the main flaw of the Internet is that it can be strong subject to corruption. Today almost everybody who intends to, has the opportunity to create their own website, giving unqualified people access to the worlds largest information database. For the user, the origin of such small websites usually remains unknown. Therefore the content of the page can be strongly biased or even completely irrelevant to the subject matter. On the other hand mainstream websites www.bbc.co.uk can be considered extremely reliable since they are updated continuously and published by professionals. In addition such websites are accessed by millions of people everyday, as a result if there is indeed false information or a mistake it is bound to be reported to the website administrator.
There are many different forms of media available to the public and each has its own advantages and limitations. The main problem with the mainstream media e.g. TV and newspapers, is that they are in many cases controlled by the government or subject to bribes. Generally the information broadcasted/printed by the media is reliable, however due to governmental influence/control, bribes or profit hunger, in certain situations only selected information is broadcasted/printed. An example would be “Bowling for Columbine”, a documentary by Michael Moore about the violent American society. He discovers that Americans are pumped with fear everyday from the media, which leads to their violent behavior. This demonstrates how the media often carefully selects what to broadcast/print in order to secure high viewer ratings. Therefore watching/reading the media can often lead to a wrong impression. In order to enhance this impression the media frequently exaggerates the news, which is a distortion of the truth. These slight alterations can lead to vast misinterpretations. What I believe is a more reliable source of media is, high standard magazines e.g. “the economist”. Highly qualified professionals write such magazines for educated people. The purpose of these magazines is not to entertain, but to educate. Therefore there is no reason for the editors to alter the facts.
The development of our human civilization is based on personal experience. Consequently personal experience is of great importance to the human race. It is perhaps the most frequently used source of knowledge of humans and is used everyday, by everybody, mostly remaining unnoticed. Our personal experience is full of bias and prejudice, due to our emotions, which play an inherent role in the experiences we gather, as we grow old. I believe that when humans consider themselves sure of a fact based on a personal experience; they will not consult another source of information. Yet, this doesn’t indicate that personal experience is a perfectly reliable source of knowledge. Contradictions surface especially when two people experience the same situation, e.g. when two people find themselves in a situation where they are forced to jump of a diving board and the first person is afraid of heights while the second isn’t, the first person while experience the situation as unexciting, while the second person will remember it as terrifying. In this case you would have to different sets of information from the same situation. As a result the question arises, “which one is more reliable”? Another example would be optical illusions, and example of an optical illusion is shown below.
While on person might see four planks in the above drawing, somebody else might see three. The obvious truth is that the drawing is and illusion and therefore cannot be applied in the real world. Both people were misguided by their personal experience. These examples demonstrate the impact that bias and prejudice and have on personal experiences.
Authority is usually given from people to people or a person. Consequently one would draw the conclusion that the elected authority is a reflection of the voters, due to the fact that the voters elect the authority, which they believe have the same interests, and believes as they do. Therefore to the voters the authority should be a highly reliable source of knowledge. However this is not necessarily the case. It is especially lucrative for authorities such as governments to abuse their influence in order to misguide people under their authority. The manipulation of facts, in order to cover up for unlawful governmental activity was and still is used frequently. All these factors question the credibility of authorities as a source of knowledge. However in an ideal country with an ideal government, the local authority can be considered trustworthy, as long as personal benefit is not a factor.
An additional source of knowledge I find present in humans is common sense. Many people consider common sense very reliable, since everybody is expected to have it. It is primarily used when testing or supporting theories. However personal experience consistently interferes with common sense, influencing it in many aspects. An example of common sense in human history is that up to the 15th century the majority of people regarded the theory that the world was flat as the truth. It was only when Galileo proved that the world was round that the old theory was considered false. This exhibits the strength of faith people have in their common sense, but as the example above shows, it is not flawless.
In retrospect one can conclude that the best solution in the search for the truth is a combination and comparison of various sources of knowledge. Nevertheless this can lead to contradiction and as result, confusion on many levels. Therefore I am left with the assumption that there is no “ultimate” source of knowledge. As a result I’m led to believe every individual situation has a different ideal source, which would be most credible for it. Hence, a systematic approach towards each source of knowledge would be the best method in the attempt to find the truth!
(1366 words)
