When Should We Trust Our Senses To give us Truth
The world is a big place, filled with people full of curiosity and with their own individual quests. People are constantly talking, looking, hearing, smelling, and gaining knowledge from things and people from their environment. The scope of knowledge gained on a day to day basis is therefore vast. To what extent though, is this knowledge we acquire true? People are constantly seeking for answers to their questions or solutions to their problems; in a way, they seek a pathway to truth. The quote: "rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth" (Thoreau) justifies that truth is a necessity of life and every man seeks it to distinguish between reality and fantasy. To understand truth, we need to know its three basic theories. The correspondence theory states that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact. The Coherence theory says that a proposition is true if it fits in with our overall sets of belief. Finally, the pragmatic theory states that a proposition is true if it is useful or works in practice. We will use these three theories to understand when our senses can be trusted to give us the truth. The human species are said to have the weakest of all senses in terms of potency because they can be easily deceived. Perception is a very sophisticated issue because not everything we perceive is real. Optical illusion for sight, not
When should we trust our senses to give us truth?
Sense perception is one of the four ways of knowing. It is our senses that give us the ability to smell, hear, touch, see and taste. As we use these abilities to perceive the world around us, how much can we rely on them to give us the truth? This also begs the question, when should we trust our senses to give us truth? Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy1 which attempts to answer these questions. We identify an epistemological problem; our knowledge of the external world that may be misguided by our senses. When we speak of 'trusting' our senses, it is referred to whether we may 'rely' on our senses, and use our senses as valid measures of our existing world. Our senses are used so often since they are the most immediate forms of the ways of knowing. But our senses can be fallible. To explore these issues, we will look into the arts and the natural sciences. G. E. Moore (1941) asserts that "a thing can't be certain unless it is known". He believes that this differentiates the word 'certain' from the word 'true'. Something can be true that is not known by anybody, but it can't be certain2. Thus truth lies in reality, independent of whether it is known or not or how it is perceived. Truth is defined by several substantive theories, which all commonly agree on knowledge that represents reality. Able to distinguish truth helps to answer; how much can we trust
when should we trust our senses to give us truth?
When should we trust our senses to give us truth? Does truth exist? This is one of the most pressing questions that keep revolve around the human mind. What is truth? According to The Oxford American Dictionary; truth is the quality of being true, true as in 'in accordance with fact. In accordance with correct principles or accepted standard, genuine, loyal faithful.' However we must be aware of the fact that truth is a subjective word. What is true for one man may not be for another, what is considered a 'true story' may not be considered so according to which country or culture a person lives in. Our sensory perception is one of the ways of knowing. It is an extremely important part of our psychological and physical make-up. I believe we cannot live without it. I will be exploring several examples in this essay to ascertain whether we should trust in our senses to discover the truth or not. Humans can judge an idea or a fact whether it is true or false by using reason as well as their senses. I would like to argue that reason is not really accurate since I've always had a problem in determining whether the facts and ideas that I learn are true even if they seem reasonable sometimes. The knowledge that we are obtaining is not always reliable. We need to question it. Most of mathematical or scientific knowledge is based on tried and tested methods. However when
Which sources of knowledgebooks, web sites, the media, personal experience, authorities or some other - do you consider most trustworthy, and why?
Which sources of knowledge-books, web sites, the media, personal experience, authorities or some other - do you consider most trustworthy, and why? The human hunger for knowledge will never be satisfied. This is why people utilize various sources such as books, web sites, the media, and personal experiences to gain a greater understanding of the world. From the afore mentioned sources of knowledge, all of them are secondary except for one's personal experiences, meaning that the knowledge we obtain is from other people's research and observations. There are many limitations to both these types of knowledge (primary and secondary) when assessing which source is the most trustworthy. Although, before assessing which source is the most trustworthy, we must first define what trustworthy knowledge is and how we can recognize it. One normally equates trust with the truth, as defined by a source's credibility and reliability. If a source is seemingly reliable, we may say that it is true and thus we can trust it. Another basis to take into consideration is whether the knowledge gained is supported by positive evidence and whether the knowledge is coherent (fits in with our current understanding of things). If both these criteria are present, we can deem the source of knowledge to be trustworthy. Thus, one can determine and recognize which source is the most trustworthy by basing them
When mathematicians, historians and scientists say that they have explained something are they using the word explain in the same way?
TOK Essay When mathematicians, historians and scientists say that they have explained something are they using the word explain in the same way? Word count: 1367 In everyday language the term "explain" can mean many things, and is generally applied to prove something or make it more comprehensible. However on a more complex level it could mean many things, depending on the subject it denotes. It is therefore clear that it is very significant in the Theory of Knowledge. However, one must clearly establish the difference between making an idea easier to understand, and actually proving it. As we have seen in our class discussions, the "truths" acquired by different areas of knowledge are naturally different, it is therefore interesting to see what information is used, and what is meant by the word "explain" in different contexts. What could a mathematician imply by the word explain? Maths is a conceptual science which deals with abstract elements that are strategically arranged, so as to form a mathematical explanation or formula. However maths may also be considered as empirical, for children for example, using arithmetical building blocks to understand basic maths. We know maths is true, an independent of subjective experience, which is called priori. The theorem of Pythagoras works, and is positively "true", in Siberia and Tunisia, it was true in 1957 and will be true
The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.
7. ‘The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know’. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge. There are a number of knowledge issues implicit within this question. Firstly, it implies that it is what we can know that is shaped by language, not how we do know. The connotations are that, for example, if you don’t know computer-related vocabulary, you will not be able to know about computer-technology. An alternative example would be that the vocabulary we use limits our knowledge, so that, for example if your language had only the word ‘stubborn’ for the concept of determination, you would not understand that determination could also be viewed more positively. This view can be criticised as, if it were true, we would not be able to learn anything new. The idea that vocabulary shapes what we can know, then, may be seen as an erroneous idea. It is more likely to shape how we know, but not even how we can know as, by learning a different language for instance, I could easily change my vocabulary and thus expand the way I think and know. The word ‘shape’ is also involved with this specific knowledge issue as it connotes the idea of moulding and limiting knowledge to a specific form. Hence, this idea may also be fallacious since it implies that vocabulary influences what we can know, not how we
The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.
Alex Antezana 5/4/12 IB Theory of Knowledge Essay Word Count: 1598 ‘The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know’. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge. This statement pursues to make a claim that could buttress the epistemology of the modern world and depict the limits upon us as beings. Knowledge acquisition is an intricate process, constantly being changed, limited and influenced by many factors, and the ‘truth’ behind the knowledge we attain is often problematic depending on the different depictions of the ways of knowing being used. In this sense, though vocabulary communicates knowledge, it can also shape what we know because vocabulary does not encompass all aspects of the knowledge, missing the totality of reality. If there were no exhaustive knowledge of the underlying concepts and meanings of vocabulary, the knowledge that we can gain from the vocabulary would be inadequate. Although vocabulary can be exclusive and restricted, the absence of vocabulary does not imply the absence of knowledge. As we consider and examine the problems with vocabulary and knowledge acquisition, a critical knowledge problem arises: Is knowledge derived from new vocabulary (thus influencing our thoughts and behaviors), or is vocabulary developed as a mere response to new knowledge? Before
TOK
To what extent is it possible to overcome the double ambiguity and vagueness in language? In what contexts might ambiguity either contribute or impede knowledge? Does the balance between precision and ambiguity alter from one discipline to another? Knowledge is information that forms the basis for human thoughts and actions. Among these are theories and experiments of scientists, who work together to create our knowledge of the outside world. Knowledge has historically been identified by language, logic and human beliefs. Language is a set of symbols that is used as a form of communication and language performs different functions. Can language be well used without knowledge? For a word to have a meaning in a language knowledge is needed, but this is only for the knowledge needed to write. There are many other languages that are used (eg: Handspeak). Ambiguity is the doubtfulness, particularly as to the meaning of language, arising from a word having more than one meaning and vagueness is when words are not expressed clearly. As language is a part of reality and thought, ambiguity and vagueness is possible to overcome if the common sense view is used, which is we think first and then we express our thoughts. This is also because language is dependent on thoughts. For example like Ludwig Wittgenstein said for a word to have a meaning in a language there have to be
TOK
Consider the meaning of "justification" in different areas of knowledge. Is any one kind of justification more compelling than any other? Have you ever wondered where things come from or how they appeared? In this high-paced world, we as humans live, there are many such questions for which we have no answers. By using the different areas of knowledge; history, art, natural science, human science, ethics and math, one is able to justify these questions. Though all the areas of knowledge are useful in determining the truths of the world, math is more compelling than any other. Math, more so than any other, seems 5 to display more answers to our continuous questions. In history, a person can learn about knowledge, because it has been recorded for future generations. Though it is good for one to see the artifacts and history of the past, we often find out that we as humans have transformed the history ourselves by perceiving things differently. Even when one is looking at facts on display, different people can see the same facts in a different 0 manner. An example taken from today would be a news reporter reporting the news. While numerous reporters from various stations would be reporting the same news, they would each have diverse stories according to their point of view. The same principle applies in both cases, though it may be the same object
TOK
Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of reasoning as a way of knowing How do we know? That is the main TOK question, how do we know? Well we know through our experience, senses, knowledge, and reasoning etc. What is reasoning? For me it's a claim, which supports essential processes, interactions, relationship; as well we base our reasoning on some knowledge in order to find some truth. However, reasoning as knowledge can be objective and subjective. On the picture on the left you see an apple; it is a usual apple, grown up somewhere in America. For a 3 year old child, it's just a red apple with a nice smell. Apple has these traits and without child or person trying it, therefore this knowledge is objective, it exists without any other influence. But when kid is eating it, an apple becomes tasty, or bitter, in other words it becomes a subjective knowledge. I.e. the girl on the picture is eating an apple; she is excited and happy, the apple is tasty for her, she just experienced that, it's subjective. Therefore, reasoning might be defined as, just an objective knowledge existing without any external effects and as knowledge based on our (individual) experience. Now let's see, examples of reasoning of an Apple in different areas of knowledge. As far as I choose reasoning for my TOK topic, for me I thought that the closest area of knowledge to reasoning is a science. So that's