What I tell you three times is true. (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula or a more sophisticated version of it actually determine what we believe to be true?

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

TOK Essay

“What I tell you three times is true.” (Lewis Carroll) Might this formula – or a more sophisticated version of it – actually determine what we believe to be true?

The moment one reads Lewis’s quote, they may immediately reject it to the point that it is considered bizarre. They may argue that no matter how many times someone says something about a particular subject, it will not change the ‘real’ truth and that repetition is not adequate to change ones belief or perception of the ‘truth’. The reality of the matter is that a statement must not necessarily have to be true for a person to believe that it is true, rather a statement can be entirely untrue, and yet people can believe in the statement to be true. However in some cases it common to find that what people perceive to be true is simply as a result of them hearing the same thing over and over again. If people were asked whether Muslims eat pork, it may be that the person knows this simply because they have heard it numerous number of times. This brings light to the fact that mere repetition could be a significant way of knowing. Lewis’s quote is based on the ability of repetition to infiltrate and fortify an idea in ones mind hence influencing what that individual deems to be true and in doing so plays a substantial role in how that person gathers knowledge. Consequently, repetition as a way of knowing, often shape certain ideals and notions that societies regard as factual. In order to tackle this knowledge issue I hope to show the role of reason and emotion in different areas of knowledge, namely natural sciences and history and how they could influence what we believe to be true hence evaluating Carroll’s statement.

The natural sciences are predominantly concerned with the use of scientific methods, which includes reason, observation and experiment as a means to obtaining ‘truth’. Reasoning can be split into two has major branches, namely deductive and inductive reasoning, both of which could use repetition as a technique to establish what we believe to be true in the natural sciences. While conducting secondary research, it is common for us to just log onto the Internet and obtain information on that topic. In doing so, we tend to adopt popular or ‘trendy’ results as being the truth simply because they repeatedly appear as being the truth. Consequently, what we believe as being true is modeled by inductive reasoning. It is increasingly common for us to rely on inductive reasoning when experimentation on that particular subject is not viable. In the first trimester, as part of my assignment in physics, I was to make a brief presentation in class about the ‘chaos theory’ (butterfly effect). Since I had no knowledge about this topic, I was obliged to do research using the Internet and various textbooks. All the sources that I managed to check regarding the ‘chaos theory’ had similar descriptions. Therefore the repetition of the same description eventually led me to induce a conclusion of that particular description as being the ‘truth’. Given that the only source of information available to me was the secondary research and that self-experimentation in the lab would be impossible to determine the theory, my only option was to rely on induction as a way of arriving at the truth through repetition. Therefore, in such a situation, whereby inductive reasoning is the only way of knowing the ‘truth’, repetition could potentially determine what we believe to be true. However, Authority could play a major role in influencing our induced reasoning, which ultimately influences what we believe to be true. Our belief on a certain subject could highly depend on where and who that information is coming from. If I were to find information about the ‘chaos theory’ written by a young unknown scientist then I personally wouldn’t consider that information as true opposed to getting that same information from a qualified scientist. The repetition of information must be accompanied with a certain level of authority in order for us to induce the truth from constantly repeated information that is presented to us.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the natural sciences, the ‘truth’ can be deduced through experimentation and consequently deduction as opposed to simply inducing ‘true’ knowledge from repetitive secondary information. Deductive reasoning is whereby a ‘true’ conclusion is drawn as a result of previously given information being true. In physics, students have the opportunity to experiment and arrive at conclusions to determine certain laws and concepts. During these experiments, we usually attempt to acquire the most accurate results by repeating the same experiments through several trails by altering the independent variables. Through this repetition, we obtain the most accurate proof that is required to approve or disprove various theories, laws and concepts. At the same time, the repetition of similar conclusion often formulates what we believe to be true in the natural sciences. In the first trimester of my diploma program, in physics class, one of my projects was to explain Newton’s First Law of Motion, which states “The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force”. I was required to test this law by experimentation and present my findings to the whole class. In doing so, I was able to confirm Newton’s First Law of Motion using a marble and various surfaces of wooden planks. With each type of wood, I carried out three trials and averaged them to ensure accuracy, which eventually allowed me to accept Newton’s First Law of Motion as being ‘true’. Therefore through experimentation we are able to deduce repeated results, which could then determine what we believe to be ‘true’.

However, throughout the scientific process we must factor in the emotions involved, whereby scientists feel the need to approve rather than disprove their own hypothesis as a result of emotional attachment to their work. The strength of this attachment is to such an extent that they refute any falsification of their hypothesis, causing them to disbelieve such information. This phenomenon is referred to as confirmation bias. Consequently, this confirmation bias could prove repetition as an ineffective method of arriving at truth because a scientist could simply discount a conclusion or any experimentation results as long as they do not conform to what they believe.

History is concerned with knowledge obtained from the past. Historiography is the study of historians’ work whereby the result of historians’ research and conclusions concerning certain matters in the past are disputed and debated over. Historians reach their conclusions using sources that guide interpretation of available information such that there is evidence to back up the conclusions they make. Reason is present in this area of knowledge in the historians’ initial work of gathering and analyzing sources to reach a conclusion assumed to be just for all. Yet errors in reasoning are present in history, indicated by hasty generalization whereby a historian, after reading just one source, makes a general conclusion. For example, a historian reading upon on Joseph Stalin and his barbaric actions in the USSR may conclude that all Soviets are barbaric hence being a hasty generalization. Emotion comes to the fore when bias plays a role in a historian’s work whereby bias influences a historian to reach a conclusion that favors a certain side. Repetition comes into play in history in the gathering and analyzing stage of a historian’s work where they attempt to get closer to the truth. Through the analysis of a multitude of sources, historians are able to establish truths regarding a historical event. In my IGCSE history class, whilst trying to establish the dates of the start and end of the First World War I read through six sources and through triangulation, a method of cross-examining to reach a justified result concerning a topic of study, and thus confirmed it raged from 1914 to 1918. Here repetition has worked in my favour allowing to me to induce the dates of the First World War, yet there are cases when repetition doesn’t allow one to learn a truth. While I discovered the dates of the First World War, its effects on international relations from 1918 to 1939 are disputed. I read another six sources to try and reach a conclusion, but found that three sources were of the opinion that the war increased tensions in Europe, while the other three sources stated that the increased tensions were as a result of the rise of new ideologies, namely Fascism and Bolshevism. Thus repeated statements were counter productive as one set of repetitions stated one side while another set supported an alternate side. Thus Carroll’s statement lacks consistency in its reference to repetition because there is no given solution to when one comes across two contradicting repetitions. We can therefore conclude that Carroll’s statement can be applied in history as far as the basic facts are concerned but cannot venture beyond that and delve deeper into history.

In conclusion, Lewis’s statement has shown occurrences in the natural sciences through repetition resulting from deductive and inductive reasoning that could potentially determine what we believe to be true. However, emotional attachment to specific hypothesis often cause confirmation bias leading to flawed ‘truths’. Furthermore, despite our reliance on induced conclusions from repetitive results, induction is a logic that cannot achieve absolute truth. Additionally, in history, while repetition could be an effective method to arrive at induced conclusions of what we believe to be true, the repetition of contradictory views due to emotional bias leads to a lack of complexity and sophistication to determine what we believe to be true.

Word Count: 1580

Bibliography

Alchin, N. (2006). Theory of knowledge. London: Hodder Murray.