In my Biology class last year, I learn about the theoretical scientific explanation behind the green color of spinach leaves. Absorption of light is the mechanism behind photosynthesis in plants and green light is reflected by chlorophyll, causing the leaves to appear green in color. To prove this scientific explanation, an experiment can be conducted to determine how different wavelengths of light affect the rate of photosynthesis. While sense perception allows us to observe and describe the results, experiment results are objective, as procedures have to be repeated to produce replicates. Subsequently, mathematical reasoning will have to be applied, as raw data has to be processed. I have to use the mathematical formula to calculate the mean: This formula uses the concepts of addition and division and these arithmetic operations have been tested and proven to be valid. The knower’s cultural background, personal experience and emotional bas will not be taken into account when using this formula to derive mathematical knowledge. Hence, Mathematics is a valid deductive argument and an objective area of knowledge. Mathematics is also used in calculating standard deviation values to check if readings are precise. Limitations and inconsistent readings in the experiment will have to be recorded and justified to ensure that results are weighed objectively. This gives a logical scientific conclusion that proves that green light is not used by chlorophyll during photosynthesis.
This example highlights how if I based my knowledge just on what my sense perception tells me; I would be limited in my subjective perspective. Sense perception can be used to make observations but we also need to rely on objective knowledge, such as established scientific explanations that have been proven through the scientific method and mathematical reason to help in forming logical conclusions and deepen our understanding.
Secondly, I will discuss how language affects the way we interpret reality. Language directly influences our thoughts as it gives us the words for expression, allowing us to label, make classifications by breaking reality up into different groups. This influences the kind of value judgments we make, and we understand the world according to who we are as an individual.
Language is important in study of human sciences such as sociology of cultures. When my friend lived in Canada, most Canadians felt uncomfortable when she addressed people older than her as ‘Uncle’ or ‘Aunt’, which is accepted as the societal norm in Singapore. Instead, she was asked to address them by first names as they feel that family members should only use these titles. From this experience, we know that addressing older people by their first names is not perceived as disrespectful in all cultures. In contrast, the Baba Malay language in her Peranakan culture gives emphasis to rank and reinforces hierarchal distinctions through the honorific title system that denotes familial relationships. This makes a clear distinction about their seniority and whether these relatives are from the paternal or maternal side of the family. Whereas ‘Uncle’ and ‘Aunt’ are terms in the English language that can be used to describe familial relationships and thus would be limited in describing familial relationships as these terms are not as sensitive to rank and birth order status, unlike Baba Malay. This will influence how we categorize our immediate relatives and affect our understanding of their position in our familial relationship. This example demonstrates how languages are subjective in nature. Different languages, having evolved to suit different purposes, do not have words to describe certain thing, which makes it difficult to express these things in detail. Therefore, language affects our ability to express what we know, placing a limit to our understanding of ‘reality’ and we can only see and understand ‘things’ what our language allows us to.
Furthermore, the language that historians use in their historical interpretations will affect our understanding of the past, even though the past cannot be changed. An example would be Japanese army’s campaign against ethnic Chinese perceived to be Anti-Japanese after the British surrendered in Singapore during World War II. This is termed as ‘Sook Ching Massacre’ in Singaporean textbooks, while some Japanese refer to it as ‘Daikensho’, meaning ‘Great Inspection’. Historians are influenced by their cultural backgrounds and time periods, which will affect their personal belief. I am upset that Japanese historians attach less importance to this event. The description ‘Great Inspection’ is a neutral term, which omits Japan’s wartime atrocities, making it incompetent in objectively presenting facts and Japanese aggression towards the Chinese people. However, I recognize that some Japanese feel that ‘Massacre’ is a strong word used to imply the nature and motives of the Japanese army in Singapore. Fervent nationalists may view this as a highly exaggerated politically motivated accusation by anti-Japanese movements. Also, older Japanese may feel that the actions of the Japanese army are justified, as they have been educated that Japan ‘liberated’ Singapore from Western imperialism. Historians are also swayed in their interpretations by political reasons, which include nationalistic sentiment and high degree of patriotic commitment towards their country. If Japanese historians used the word ‘massacre’, it would mean that Japan is accepts full responsibility for their actions. This will put their Emperor in an unfavorable position, and Japanese were obligated to protect the Emperor’s divine status. This illustrates how we interpret history ‘as we are’ as the language that historians use in their interpretations makes it difficult to differentiate between biased historical interpretations and factual reports describing the event in itself.
In conclusion, I believe that we experience the same reality but because we bring our already gathered knowledge into new evidence, we end up interpreting things according to who we are. This means that I, the ‘Observer’ will become part of what is observed. Although there are shortcomings in using language and perception as our ways of knowing in interpreting and understanding reality, we can rely on logic and reason through the use of mathematics as an objective area of knowledge to aid us in seeing things ‘as they are’ and understanding the world less subjectively. Using the cliché old saying of ‘Is the cup half empty or half full’, we know that we can also look at things from different angles and our interpretations may all be correct. Thus, it is important for us to keep an open mind on various viewpoints for a balanced interpretation. We should distinguish the factors that affect our ways of knowing and understand that we cannot only rely on our individual interpretations in viewing things due to its one-sided, subjective nature.