Just as beliefs may be more or less justified, so mechanisms which produce them may be more or less reliable. Consider, for example, the fact that the more evidence we gain for a belief, the greater our justification for believing it. This mirrors the fact that processes which produce beliefs on the basis of large amounts of evidence will be more reliable than those which use lesser amounts of evidence.
As humans, we validate knowledge in different ways so that it appears convincing. We may accept knowledge without any evidence to support the truth or we may accept knowledge only by evidence. We will continuously obtain knowledge, however, the validity of these claims can be proven through the various areas of knowledge such as; mathematics, science, language, etc.
The field of natural science has provided humans with a vast concept of truth and knowledge. A definition of natural science can be ‘such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.’ Therefore, in this definition we can see that science depends vastly on neutrality and provable sense experiences. Hence, you need to have some form of sense experience to accept or believe in something proven by science. In most scientific subjects firm evidence is available, and entitles us to view certain theories, like the theory that water is composed of H2O molecules. In other areas, however, the evidence is fragmentary and open to doubt.
Through the scientific method, which involves following a certain methodology, testing results in tangible outcomes. Theories can be proven or disproved according to the results of the experiment. For example, when completing chemistry practicals no one really questions the validity of this knowledge due to the fact that what is said sounds credible. The theories have been proven valid several times resulting in if not same similar results. Dalton’s atomic theory is just one example of a claim that is rarely questioned due to its validity. Hence, every time an experiment is conducted the validity of the theory increases.
Science is a study that consists of a methodology. A scientist will conduct an experiment to prove whether his hypothesis is correct or else. Falsification is another way in which science progresses. Falsificationists believe that the progresses involved in science are not just made by trying to prove scientific laws instead consists of making up hypotheses, however, trying to prove these hypotheses as being wrong. Therefore, scientists will continuously perform experiments in order to prove their claims are valid. The experiment then itself becomes the evidence that the hypothesis is accurate, repeating the experiment will only add to the extent to which it appears correct. Even though a number of trials would be seen as valid, we need to consider whether the evidence is ‘strong’ enough to prove a claim. If this evidence cannot appear as valid, then this limit cannot be established!
The scientific method has come to be known as the most plausible and valid approach in defining knowledge. Scientists view carrying out tests as consisting immensely of evidence, suggesting this because most of the scientific method relies on agreement within individuals. Therefore, it is not based on just one
individual’s findings and interpretation of data. Even though the scientific method appears as implying strong evidence there is still room for further construal.
In mathematics, a teacher can tell his student that 1+1 =2. How can he do this, well simply by showing the student. Mathematics is viewed as an area of knowledge that is certain in the claims that it proposes. Since an early age, people learn to accept math as the truth. Therefore, the concept of ‘strong evidence’ does not appear as immense as it does in other areas of knowledge. Mathematics is referred to as an area of knowledge that has set limits. People do not question the validity of the claims, because we come to accept their claims as correct.
The evidence we have hands, which is the evidence of our senses is strong evidence. There are three things that can ensure an individual that they ‘know’ something;
- You must believe it,
- It must be true, and
- You must have good evidence for that belief
According to this, I can know, for example, that I have two hands, because I have very good evidence from experience for my true belief that I have two hands. Therefore, our beliefs can be justified by experience. Such evidence comes from our senses: our sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch and so on. Let us take for example, 2+2 = 4, this is a very good example of something we know because reasoning can give us evidence that it is true. However, with a sentence such as ‘ It is cold in here,’ said by someone who is in a wintry environment would be a very good example of something someone knows. When referring to experience as justifying our beliefs this does not necessarily mean that all our knowledge is founded in experience therefore meaning that all of our knowledge is justified by experience. For example, we can also come to know things, such as mathematical truths, ‘2+2=4’ does not depend upon our senses. Even here, however, our knowledge is founded in experience for our ideas of the numbers 2 and 4 , or the addition of numbers are just as much derived from experience. Our idea of the number 2 can be derived from our experience of pairs of things. It follows then, reason and experience can both be a source of knowledge.
Strong evidence is obtained through consensus. It is through consensus that what has been proposed is proved to be true or accepted. Personal knowledge or belief also plays a significant role in defining what is truth. Hence, we can conclude strong evidence as being ‘strong’ when it has been proven without fault and is accepted as valid by others.
WORD COUNT: 1400
Bibliography:
- http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Knowledge
- The World Encyclopedia dictionary
-
Grayling, A.C, Philosophy- a guide through the subject, Oxford University Press United States of America, 1995.
-
Appiah, Kwame, Thinking it through- An introduction to contemporary Philosophy, Oxford University Press, United States of America, 2003
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Knowledge
World Encyclopedia dictionary
3 http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~zbzw/ph/sci/naupol.htm