4. Tok Cambridge_ Tipos De Conocimiento 34 A 51.pdf

The nature of knowledge Bertolt Brecht, 1898-1956

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844 1900

classify. Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914

Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970 •

Fritz Machlup, 1902-83

Aristotle, 384-322 BCE

John Dewey, 1859-1952

Jacob Bronowski, 1908-74

learned

Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970

Introduction

Introduction

aving looked at the problem of knowledge, we now need to say something about the nature of knowledge.The word 'knowledge' is what might be described as a thick concept in that it is not exhausted by a short definition and can only be understood through experience and reflection. Indeed, the whole of this book is, in a sense, a reflection on the meaning of the word 'knowledge'. Having said that, a definition can still give us a usefül preliminary hook for thinking about the rneaning of a word, We shall begin this chapter by exploring a definition of knowledge as justified true belief. It is, however, important to note that chis is a starting point for reflection. With that in mind, we will then consider the idea that there are different levels of knowledge depending on one's depth of understanding. Finally, v.¡e will distinguish between three main types of knowledge: (1) knowledge by acquaintance, (2) practical knowledge (or 'know-how'), and (3) knowledge by description. In this chapter, we focus on (1) and (2), which together make up experiential knowledge.

KT - thick concept:

a

concept that can only be understood through experience and reflection KT - justified true belief:

the standard definition of knowledge dating back to the time of Plato (428-348 BCE) - to know that something is true we not only have to believe it but also need to have justification for our belief

Knowledge as justified true belief Taking our preliminary definition of knowledge as justified true belie}; let us consider the three elements that make it up.

Truth The most obvious thing that distinguishes knowledge from belief is truth. If you know something, then what you claim to know must be crue, but if you merely believe it, then it 1nay be true or it may be false. This is why you cannot know that Rome is the capital of France, or that pigs have wings, or that che earth is flat. Truth is another thick concept, which we shall have a lot to say about in Chapter 20. For the time being we can say that, as traditionally understood, truth is independent of what anyone happens to believe is true, and that simply believing that something is true does not make it true. Indeed, even if everyone believes that something is true, it may turn out to be false. For example, during the Middle Ages, everyone thought they knew that there were seven 'planets' orbiting the earth (Sun, Moon, Mercury,Venus, Mars, Saturn andJupiter).They were ,vrong: we now know that there are nine planets orbiting the sun. Or do we? Sorne astronomers argue that Pluto should not count as a planet at all. This raises the question of how can ,ve ever be sure that what wc think wc know really is true. Perhaps in the future they will discover a tenth planet, and what we

23

2

The nature of knowledge

Figure 2.1 How many planets

thought w« knew will turn out co be false.Since we are fallible beings, this is indeed possible. But, as we saw in Chapter 1, this simply shows that knowledge requires something less than certainty. In practice, when we say that something is true, we usually mean that it is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Since ,ve are willing to imprison and in some cases execute - people on the basis of evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt, this is surely an acceptable criterion for saying that we know something.

are there in our solar system>

Belief RLS - Headline: 'IBM's

Watson Supercomputer Crowned Jeopardy King'. ln what sense, if any, can a computer be said to know and understand things?

If you know something, then what you claim to know must not only be true, but you must also believe it to be true. We might say that, while truth is an objective requirement for knowledge, belief is a subjective requirement for it. If you have no conscious awareness of something, then it makes little sense to say that you know it.That is why encyclopaedias do not know that Paris is the capital of France, and pocket calculators do not know that 2 + 2 = 4.

ACTIVITY 2.1 1. Can you think of any cases in which someone might be said to know something without knowing that they know it?

2. As technology develops, do you think it will ever make sense to say that a computer knows things?

Since the time of Plato (428-348 BCE), sorne philosophers have argued that when you know something you are in a completely different mental state to when you merely believe it. For when you know something you are certain of it, and when you merely believe it you are not. However, we shall adopt a less demanding standard of knowledge. Rather than think of knowledge as being completely different from belief, it n1ay make more sense to think in ternis of a belief - knowledge continuum,

24

Knowledge

-10

-5

o

+10

+10

Impossible

Unlikely

Possible

Probable

Certain

Belief

Figure 2.2 The belief-knowledge continuum

as justified true belief

Knowledge

with unjustified beliefs at one end of the continuurn, beliefs for which there is some evidence in the middle, and beliefswhich are 'beyond reasonabledoubt' at the other end. Here are three examples of various kinds of belief: • A vague belief." I may vaguely believe that eating tomatoes helps to reduce the risk of heart disease, but have no idea where I came across this idea and readily abandon it in the light of counter-evidence. • A well-supported belief. I may believe that Smith killed Jones, and be able to give evidence for my belief, but still be unwilling to say that I know that this is the case.

RLS - Headline: 'Donald Trump Says Obama Birth Certificate Fake'. How strong must evidence be for us to be able to say that we know?

CERTIFICATE Of LIVE llllTff

:l.l.,.. 151

6:110641

OBAMA, ll

• A belief" that is beyond reasonable doubt. I n1ayfind the evidence which supports the claim that the Americans landed on the moon in 1969 so convincing and the counter-evidence of conspiracy theorists so flimsy that I am willing to say that I know the Americans landed on the moon. Given this way of looking at things, the question of exactly where we should draw the line between belief and knowledge does not appear to be a very interesting one. It is like asking where, in a spectrum of shades running from black to white, black ends and white begins.The important thing, surely, is to try to develop as reasonable and well-supported a set of beliefs as possible.

DlP'ARTMDlT Of HUU.TN

tl

1

u111~era.1tr G.:tfWw,

Figure 2.3 Barack Obama's birth certificate

ACTIVITY 2.2 Where on the belief-knowledge continuum, running from -10 to +10, would you put the following propositions? a. Christopher Columbus 'discovered' America in 1492. b. If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than c.

c, then A is bigger than C.

Human beings are descended from apes.

d. Murder is wrong. e. Aliens have visited the earth at some time during its history. f. All metals expand when heated. g. Human beings have an immortal soul. h. lt is possible to construct a square with the same area as a given circle.

25

2

The nature of knowledge

Justification You might think that true belief is a sufficient condition for knowledge, and that if you believe something and your belief is true, then you can be said to know it. However, something more is in fact required - your belief must also be justified in the right kind of way. Imagine that someone clairns to know that there are nine planets in the solar system. When you ask how they know, they reply that there is an analogy between the 'microcosmos' of the human body and the 'macrocosmos' of the solar system, and that.just as there are nine 'windows' in the temple of the body two nostrils, two ears, two eyes, a mouth, and two windows in the lower portion of the body - so there rnust also be nine planets in the solar system. This person believes that there are nine planets in the solar system, and his belief is true, but we would not want to say that he knows this because his belief has not been justified in the right kind of way. To us it makes no sense to talk of an analogy between the 'windows' in the human body and the planets in the solar system. The point, in short, is that in order to be able to say that you know sornething you must be able to justify your belief, and your justification must be of the right kind. We usually justify our knowledge claims by appealing to one of the ,vays of knowing that are distinguished in TOK. If someone asks you how you know, you might reply:

'Someone told me' (language) 'I saw it' (perception) 'I worked it out' (reason) 'It's obvious' (intuition) 'It feels right' ( emotion)

'I remember it' (memory) 'Empathy' (imagination) 'I have faith' (faith) With respect to our planetary example, you might be said to know that there are nine planets in the solar system if you are part of a team of astronomers that have niade the relevant observations, or if you came across this fact in a reputable encyclopaedia . ' or science 1nagaz1ne. You might ask why some kinds of justification, such as perception, are usually considered acceptable, while others, such as telepathy, are not. Imagine that a psychic asks you to think of an animal, and then correctly says that you are thinking of a zebra. When you ask her how she knew, she replies that she read your mind. Most people would not find this an acceptable justification, and would say that the psychic did not really know that you were thinking of a zebra, but simply made a lucky guess. The key thing that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable justifications seems to be reliability. Although it is not infallible, perception is a generally reliable source of knowledge. Telepathy, by contrast, is unreliable, and the scientific evidence to date suggests that psychics do no better than chance when it cornes to trying to read

26

Levels of knowledge

\.\Cl'!I IS li ntP.ì 111\S O\JI~~

~Rt> Kt-1()1/.l<; ALL 1\-it r>.l{SW~ 11) LIH.'S M'ISfü
011 GRtll,í ()\JIJI\ &lA~I>, OOW 1)() '{C\l i:'..~'N i\U.

¡~_._..

ITS t.'1:)\/\MG !

ITS t,.'.o,J\NG !

W\.li\ì'S IT SA'/?

· 3:·

1\-lE AN~?

l£1'5 J>i:,V.. lì.

~,[.-,

12-Jq

Figure 2.4

other people's minds.The sceptic and magician james Randi has offered a prize of$1 million to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers. At the time of writing, the prize remains unclaimed, This does not prove that telepathy is false,but it does suggest that it cannot be appealed to as a reliable justification for our knowledge claims. Whether or not you are justified in saying that you know something also depends on context. For example, you might claim to know that Mr Thompson is in his office because you just saw him go in, and you can hear his voice through the wall. But if, for so1ne extraordinary reason, the future of the planet depended on whether or not Mr Thompson really is in his office, you rnight begin to feel less sure. Perhaps what you saw was only an actor who looked like Mr Thompson, and perhaps what you can hear is only a recording of his voice. This is the stuff of Hollywood dramas, and you are never likely to find yourself in such a situation. Since life is too short to raise sceptical doubts about everything you see, you have to make a judgernent about when doubt is appropriate and when it is inappropriate. While indiscriminate scepticism has little to commend it, you would probably be more cautious about saying 'I know' in a court of law than you would in everyday life. When you say you know sornething you are, in a sense, taking responsibility for its being true. If, for example, you say that you know the bridge across the chasm will support n1y weight, there is a sense in which you are responsible for what happens to me if I cross it. And if you say you know that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, you are implying that if other people look ac the evidence with an open mind they ought to come to the same conclusion. Although ,ve tend to clunk of facts as being completely different from values, this suggests that there is an ethical element built into the pursuit of knowledge.

Levels of knowledge There is a lot more we can say about knowledge than simply that it is justified true belief. For a start, there are also different levels of knowledge.You may,for example, have a superficial grasp, a good understanding, or complete mastery of a subject. When five-year-old Jirnmy says'My mum's a doctor' his understanding of what this means is clearly not the saine as his mother's, Much of what we claim to 'know' is in fact second-hand knowledge that we have acquired from other people and do not understand in any great detail.You might, for example, struggle to explain to another

27

2

The nature of knowledge

Figure 2.5

person what gravity is, or why the sky is blue, or how a mobile phone works.Young children who are continually asking 'Why?' are sometimes irritating precisely because they bring to light the superficial nature of our understanding. If you study a subject in depth, your understanding of it is likely to gro,:v and develop over time, For example, if you study the theory of relativity in your physics class, revisit it as a university student, specialise in it when studying for a doctorate, and finally teach courses on it as a university professor, your knowledge of the theory as a university professor will be deeper and rnore sophisticated than it was as a first­ year physics student.You rnay already have had the experience of revisiting a topic several years after you first studied it and realising how superficial your previous understanding of it was!

Knowledge and information KT - information: disconnected facts which have not been organised into systematic knowledge

At this point, ,:ve should make a distinction between knowledge and information. Imagine sitting a child. down one afternoon and teaching them some disconnected facts: 'nine tirnes seven is sixty-three'; 'the chenu cal formula for water is H2 O'; 'aardvarks live in Africa'; 'the heroine in Pride and Prejudice is called Elizabeth Bennett', and. so on. By the end of the afternoon, the child rnay be said to have acquired sorne knowledge in the limited sense of information, After all, each of these statements is true, the child (we assume) believes they are true, and she is justified in taking them as true because you are a reliable authority. However, if the child does not know how to multiply, knows nothing about atoms and molecules, does not know where Africa is, and has never read Pride and Prejudice, there is clearly something missing from her knowledge. Drilling random facts into someone's mind 1nay be good for quiz shows, but it does not lead to genuine understanding. A person with genuine knowledge of a subject does not merely have information about it, but understands how the various parts are related to one another to form a meaningful whole, To clarify with an analogy, v-1e might say that information is to knowledge as bricks are to a building. While you cannot have a building without bricks, a building is more than just a heap of bricks. Similarly, while you cannot have knowledge without information, an area of knowledge is more than just a heap of information. The point is that when you stud.y a subject you are not simply taught endless lists of facts, but you also learn various background assumptions, theories and informing ideas that help you to make sense of the facts.

28

Types of knowledge So, if you wish to understand something, it is not enough to merely acquire information about it - you also need to think about the information and see how it hangs together. In a well-known Sherlock Holmes story, che famous detective and his crusty assistant, Dr Watson, are at the scene of a murder surveying the evidence. Holmes turns to Watson and says 'I see it all now, I know who did it.'Watson says with astonishment 'My dear Hohnes, I've examined this sarne roorn with you and I see nothing at alll'To which Holmes replies 'No Watson, you "see" everything, but you "observe" nothing.'While Watson has at his disposal exactly the same information as Hohnes, he cannot see the pattern which has allowed Holmes to solve the crime, What this story shows is that you can sometimes acquire knowledge simply by reflecting on the information you already have at your disposal rather than by looking for more information, This is a point worth keeping in mind in the internee age when 1nany people have access to vast amounts of information.

ACTIVITY 2.3 1. Have you ever passed an exam by 'cramming' the week before, but felt that you did not really understand the subject? What does this suggest to you about the difference between knowledge and information? 2. What is the difference between knowing, in the sense of understanding, and knowing in the sense of being able to recite the relevant facts and theories without understanding them?

Types of knowledge Thinkers and philosophers commonly distinguish three main types of knowledge, which are distinct but connected: 1. Knowledge by acquaintance. First-hand knowledge based on perceptual experience, which can be thought of as knowledge of For example, you may have direct knowledge of Buenos Aires because you live there. 2. Practical knowledge. Skills-based knowledge which can be thought of as knowledge how. For example, you n1ay know how to dance the tango because you cook lessons. 3. Knowledge by description. Second-hand knowledge which comes in the form of language and which can be thought of as knowledge that. For example, you rnay know that Buenos Aires is che capital of Argentina because you read it in an encyclopaedia. Most academic knowledge that you find in textbooks consists of''knowledge by description' and ,ve will explore that idea further in the course of this book. In this chapter, we focus on the first two kinds of knowledge, which together constitute experiential knowledge. As we shall see in Chapter 3, experiential knowledge is, in turn, an important part of personal knowledge.

KT - experiential knowledge: knowledge gained through experience, either by acquaintance or as practical knowledge

29

2

The nature of knowledge

Figure 2.6 How do these people know?

Knowledge by acquaintance Acquaintance with things is one of the basic ingredients out of which knowledge is constructed. We are most obviously acquainted with such things as colours, sounds, smells, people and places. Some languages mark the distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description by using a different verb for each of them. For example, French uses connaître for the former and savoir for the latter; German has the verbs kennen and wissen; and a native American language called Wintu has different verb forms for knowledge based on direct observation and knowledge based on hearsay.

ACTIVITY 2.4 1. Do any other languages with which you are familiar use different words for different kinds of knowing? 2. Could someone who has never visited New York know more about it than someone who lives there? 3. Could a male doctor know more about childbirth than a woman who has had children? 4. What problems arise when female novelists try to represent male characters, or vice versa? 5. If you have never gone without food, how might that affect your attitude towards the estimated 925 million hungry people in the world? 6. Since you have no direct experience of it, can you really know what it is like to be elderly? How might doing social service in a retirement home help? 7. How might your knowledge of, say, land use or soil erosion change as the result of going on a geography field trip?

30

Types of knowledge To see the difference between acquaintance and description, consider the contrast between sorneone who has visited the Amazon rain forest and someone who has simply read about it in a book. Most people would say that this difference is not simply one of degree, but one of kind. If you visit the rain forest, you don't simply know more facts about it than someone who has not; you also know it in a different \Vay which

you rnay find difficult to communicate to them. When you try to explain such an experience, you might end up saying 'You had to be there!' Of course, acquaintance itself 111ay also be experienced by degrees. There is a difference between sorneone who goes to the Amazon on a two-week jungle adventure, an anthropologist who lives and works with a tribal community for a year, and an indigenous person who was born and raised in the Amazon, According to a well-known saying, 'Travel broadens the mind', but the extent to which this is true will depend on how much people engage with the places they visit. We n1ay all be familiar with tourists who seem to have been everywhere but seen nothing! The difference between acquaintance and description is especially clear in the case of our knowledge of people. When you meet someone you have previously only heard about, you might find yourself saying, 'You are not at all as I imagined you to be.' Once again, there are degrees of acquaintance.You may, for example, be acquainted with someone, but not well-acquainted with them, and forrn a superficial - and perhaps misleading - impression of them after meeting them briefly.This is very different from the way good friends know each other. The relation between acquaintance and description

Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description are related to each other in varrous \.Vays: 1. Description depends on acquaintance. According to a widely held view, known as empiricism, knowledge by description must ultimately be based on knowledge by

KT - empiricism: the

acquaintance.The common-sense idea is that if a description of,say, the Amazon is to count as knowledge, you must be able to trace it back to someone who has first­ hand experience of it.

belief that all knowledge is ultimately based on sense experience

2. Acquaintance spills beyond description. We can never fully capture our first-hand experiences in language. lt is, for example, hard to describe the taste of coffee or chocolate to someone who has never had them. Similarly,we often struggle to pin our emotions down in words. Sometimes a work of art can express a feeling such as love more accurately than a factual description; but no matter how moving a poen1 or a piece of rnusic is, it can still never perfectly describe what you are feeling. 3. Description colours acquaintance. You are likely to see things differently if they have been described to you in advance. Such verbal overshadowing can easily distort perception. To prevent this happening, you might refuse to describe someone to a friend who has not met them because you don't want to prejudice their opinion: 'I'll let you meet them and then you can make up your own mind,' 4. Acquaintance fades with time. We are more likely to remember things if \:Ve can

KT-verbal overshadowing: the

tendency of a verbal description to influence and distort perception

capture them in words; but the uniqueness of our first-hand experiences fades with time and they can easily be replaced by general descriptions which simplify and distort them.

31

The nature of knowledge

2

ACTIVITY 2.5 1. Try describing the following experiences to someone who has never had

them: a. The taste of an onion

c. The smell of freshly cut grass

b. Toothache

d. Hunger

2. Can a work of art capture the uniqueness of an experience better than words? Explore this question with reference to a specific example. 3. Animals and pre-linguistic infants are acquainted with many things; but in what sense, if any, can they be said to know anything?

.....

_

---

"I keep tMnking it's Tuesday"

Knowledge by acquaintance is connected not only with sense perception, but also with emotion and intuition. Sorne people claim that.just as ,Ne have external senses which acquaint us with the world outside, "'e also have an internal sense which acquaints us with our own thoughts, feelings and moods, and an intellectual sense which acquaints us with abstract things such as numbers and values. What is allegedly corrunon to each of these 'senses' is that they enable us to see directly that something is the case without our needing to give any further justification. We will look in detail at sense perception, emotion and intuition in Part 2 of this book.

Figure 2.7

Practical knowledge When we discuss knowledge, we often focus on theoretical 'knowledge of the head' and overlook practical 'knowledge of the hand'. Indeed, there seems to be something of a prejudice against the latter. For example, the abstract knowledge of the scientist is generally held in higher esteem than the practical knowledge of the car mechanic or the craftsman. This prejudice may derive from the widespread assumption that our capacity for reason is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. However, it could be argued that our ability to manipulate things is just as unique, and that the hand with its opposable thumb is as good a symbol of human intelligence as the head with its bulging cranium, Indeed, there is a sense in which know-how is prior to, and more fundamental than, know-that.After all, we need basic skills, such as the ability to speak and the ability to manipulate objects, before ,ve can acquire any kind of knowledge, Know-how across the curriculum Although we naturally associate know-how with physical skills and manual dexterity, it covers a wide spectrum of activities ranging from the more physical to the more cerebral.You 1nay, for example, know how to swim, know how to play the trumpet, know how to play chess, know how to speak Swahili, know how to solve a quadratic equation - and know how to write a TOK essay! Indeed, it could be argued that the real test of knowledge is the ability to put what you have learned into practice by applying it to the real world. That is why enlightened school systems stress the value of acquiring skills rather than memorising facts.

32

Types of knowledge To see the importance of know-how, consider the role it plays in the following four areas of knowledge.

• The Arts. We naturally associate the arts with practical knowledge and speak of knowing how to draw, or weave, or play a musical instrument. • Language. In studying a second language, you must learn how to put your theoretical knowledge of grammar and vocabulary together so that you can communicate with people. • The Sciences. Although we tend to think of the sciences as theoretical, they are based on experimentation - which is a form of know-how, • Ethics. A person's ethical knowledge could be said to show itself less in what they say than in the ,vay they live their life.

Figure 2.8

ACTIVITY 2.6

1. Which of the following would you say are genuine examples of know-how and which are not? Give reasons.

a. I know how to digest food. b. I know how to play the guitar. c. Birds know how to fly. d. Leo Messi knows how to play soccer.

e. Joe Average knows how to play soccer. f. I know how to speak English.

g. Calculators know how to multiply.

h. I know how to write a TOK essay. 2. What role does practical know-how play in the 18 subjects you study? Consider, in particular, languages, sciencesand the arts. 3. Do you think that education puts too much emphasis on theoretical knowledge and not enough on practical knowledge? Doing and explaining

Practical know-how is often difficult to put into words.You would probably find it very hard to write simple instructions on how to tie your shoelaces, or how to ride a bicycle, or how to swim, Following someone else's instructions can be equally difficult. If you ask a stranger for directions in an unfamiliar town, they 1nay know where you should go and yet be unable to explain it to you. Similarly, if you buy an electronic device or some flat-pack furniture you 1nay find the allegedly 'easy to follow' instruction manual incomprehensible; and it's a strange fact that no matter how carefully you follow grandma's recipe for a cake, it never tastes quite the same as it does when she makes it! When it conies to sport, the writer David Foster Wallace once complained that the autobiographies of great athletes are often boring because the athletes themselves are 'stunningly inarticulate' about precisely those skills 'that constitute their fascination'.

33

2

The nature of knowledge

We should not, however, exaggerate the difficulty of communicating know-how, You only have to think of the number of self-help and how-to-do-it books on the market to see that, in some cases,at least, we can benefit from verbal guidance. Moreover, there are plenty of websites, such as wikil-Iow, which give helpful advice on how to do just about anything (there is even an entry for 'How to wiggle your ears'l). While there is doubtless a discrepancy between words and the reality that they seek to convey, the internet has made it increasingly easy to supplement explanations with pictures and videos. ACTIVITY 2.7 1. Many people can speak their own language fluently, but cannot explain its

underlying grammar. What does this suggest about the relation between know-how and know-that? 2. Write a paragraph explaining as clearly as you can how to do one of the following. How useful do you think your instructions would be to a novice? a. How to turn left on a bicycle

d. How to catch a ball

b. How to use chopsticks

e. How to tie a necktie

c. How to roll your Rs

f. How to whistle

3. Take a skill you possess - such as speaking a language, playing the guitar, or skiing - and explain what role theoretical knowledge played in your acquisition of it.

Theory and practice RLS - Headline: 'Omani

Football Cameraman Performs Spectacular Back Flick'. How can we assess know-how and distinguish skill from luck?

You cannot acquire know-how without practice. To achieve mastery of a skill, you need to engage in what is known as deliberative practice. This requires that you break it into manageable chunks, focus on your weaknesses, get feedback on how you are doing, and gradually increase the level of challenge. Failure to engage in deliberative practice n1ay explain why s0111e people who practise a skill regularly never improve beyond a certain level. While there is no substitute for practice, it is clear that skill can benefit from theory. To see this, consider a classic experiment in which children practised throwing darts at targets submerged under water. Half the children were taught the theory of refraction, which explains why a submerged target is not where it seems to be; the other half were not. In subsequent trials the first group did much better than the second at hitting targets at a variety of different depths. This is because their behaviour was guided by theory rather than being based on trial and error. So if you understand why you are doing what you are doing, it is generally easier to adjust your behaviour to different contexts. When you first learn a skill, you need the guidance of rules in the same vvay that a child learning to ride a bicycle needs the guidance of training wheels. A beginner skiing down a slope may say to themselves 'Lean forward!', 'Bend your knees!', 'Keep it smooth!' As they progress, they will gradually acquire 'muscle memory', and eventually, if all goes well, their body will simply 'know' what to do without

34

Types of knowledge

their consciously having to think about it. At the highest level, a skilled performer makes what they do appear effortless. The state of grace in which one is completely absorbed in and at one with what one is doing is known as flow. Analysis paralysis

Sometimes, when you think too much about what you are doing, theory disrupts practice. For example, if you are speaking a foreign language and you focus too much on the rules of grarnmar, your conversation loses its fluency and spontaneity; and if you think about what your fingers are doing when you type or play the piano you make more mistakes, In sport, analysis paralysis is known as choking and is usually attributed to over-thinking. As the American baseball legend Yogi Berra once asked: 'How can you think and hit at the same timeê'We can also choke in everyday life when we think too much about an important decision and are unable to make up our minds, If we were to give the title of 'patron saint of chokers' to anyone, it would have to be Shakespeare's Hamlet,

KT - flow: a mental state in which one is completely absorbed in an activity

KT - analysis paralysis: over-analysis of a problem which results in the inability to take action

ACTIVITY 2.8 1. Assuming that you know how to type and are familiar with a standard keyboard, take a piece of paper and reproduce the layout of the alphabet from memory. What does this task suggest to you about the relation between know-how and 'knowledge that'? 2. How would you try to avoid analysis paralysis in deciding which university to attend? Is there an optimal amount of information?

Assessing know-how

When someone says they know how to do something, we cannot simply take their word for it and their knowledge claim needs to be justified.While sorne people are unduly modest about what they can do, others are overconfident and have an exaggerated sense of their talents and abilities. At the beginning of this chapter, we gave a preliminary definition of knowledge as justified true belief. When it cornes to practical skills, we might say that genuine know-how requires a sucœssfu! peformance (similar to justification) judged against a standard of excellence (similar to truth) with sorne kind of conscious awareness (similar to belief). 1. Successful peifòrmance. You must be able to justify your claim to practical knowledge by giving a successful performance, Furthermore, if you claim to be, say, a good batter in baseball, you must show that you can reliably hit the ball well. Anyone can get lucky and hit a home run once, but it requires a great deal of skill to achieve a consistently high standard.

Figure 2.9 Hamlet: Is thought the enemy of action?

35

2

The nature of knowledge

2. Standard of excellence. We have a standard of excellence for any skill against which we judge a person's performance.Sometimes people have an inflated view of their abilities because they are not aware how good it is possible to be. If you are a keen S\VÎ1nn1er you 111ay think your freestyle is pretty fast, but once you've seen Michael Phelps perforrn you will probably revise your opinion.You may be a good swimmer, but you are not that good! 3. Conscious awareness. Know-how also requires some kind of conscious awareness. We saw above that thinking can sometimes interfere with expert performance. Nevertheless, the ability to step back and reflect on what one is doing is what distinguishes the intelligent activity of a human being from the blind activity of a machine. In 1997 an IBM chess-playing computer called Deep Blue beat the then world champion Gary Kasparov in a six-match series. Despite its success, you would probably not want to say that Deep Blue knew how to play chess. This is because, unlike Kasparov,it was simply following a prograin and had no idea what it was doing.

Conclusion We began this chapter by defining knowledge asjustified true belief, and then suggested that the difference between knowledge and belief is one of degree rather than kind. We then saw that knowledge consists of more than a jumble of isolated facts, and that its various parts are related to one another in a systematic way.You only have to think of the way Îl1 which a textbook is organised to see that this is the case.This suggests that, in order to gain a deeper understanding of an area of knowledge, you need a mixture of detail and context. (If the mind is like a carnera, we could say that you need both a zoom and a wide-angle function.) We then distinguished between knowledge by acquaintance, practical knowledge, and knowledge by description, and \¥e focused on the first two, which together make up experiential knowledge. Such knowledge is hugely important, but it can be difficult to express in words and communicate to other people. This may explain why it is sometimes overlooked. In Chapter 3 we will look at a related distinction that also plays a key role in Theory of Knowledge - namely that between personal knowledge and shared knowledge.

36

Key points

•

t

• A good preliminary definition of knowledge is to say that it is justified true belief. • According to the traditional view, truth is independent, and simply believing that something is true does not make it true. • Rather than say that belief and knowledge are two completely different things, it may make more sense to think of there being a belief-knowledge continuum. • Knowledge is more than true belief, for your belief must be justified in the right kind of way. • The main thing that seems to distinguish an acceptable from an unacceptable justification is reliability. • Whether or not you are justified in saying you know something depends on context. • When you say you know something you are in a sense taking responsibility for its truth. • There are different levels of knowledge ranging from a superficial grasp of a subject to complete mastery of it. • The difference between knowledge and information is that knowledge is information organised into a meaningful whole. • Three different types of knowledge can be distinguished: (1)

knowledge by acquaintance, (2) practical knowledge, (3) knowledge by description. (The first two make up experiential knowledge.) • Knowledge by acquaintance - that is, direct knowledge based on personal experience - is held by empiricists to be the basis of all knowledge. • Although it is often overlooked, one might argue that practical 'know-how' is prior to, and more fundamental than, knowledge-that.

analysis paralysis ernpmcrsm

experiential knowledge flow information justified true belief

knowledge by acquaintance knowledge by description practical knowledge thick concept verbal overshadowing

37

The nature of knowledge

IB

rescribe

f:'S

1. 'Knowledge

is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.' Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge. (May 2014)

2. 'The knowledge that we value the most is the knowledge for which we

can provide the strongest justifications.' To what extent would you agree with this claim? (November 2008 I May 2009)

Further reading Books Stephen Law, The Philosophy Gym (Hodder, 2003), Chapter 19: 'What is Knowledge?' Law helps you to exercise your intellect by considering some problems with the definition of knowledge as justified true belief and considering an alternative which also runs into problems. Such is TOK! Charles van Doren, A History of Knowledge (Ballantine, 1992). A fascinating book to dip into; van Doren weaves a coherent narrative of the people and events that advanced knowledge from ancient times up to the present.

'1nline articles A. C. Grayling, 'The Importance of Knowing How', New Scientist, 6 August 2008. Jason Stanley, 'The Practical and the Theoretical', New York Times, Opinionator blog, 6 May 2012.

38

The nature of knowledge

The nature of knowledge: some questions TRUTH

ACQUAINTANCE

Can we ever be certain of the truth?

How does acquaintance differ from second-hand knowledge?

PARADIGMS

What role do paradigms play in knowledge? BELIEF KNOW-HOW

Where does belief end and knowledge begin? INFORMATION

AUTHORITY

What is the difference between knowledge and information?

What is the relation between theory and practice?

To what extent should we accept knowledge by authority? CONTEXT

Does knowledge depend on context? JUSTIFICATION

What distinguishes a good justification from a bad one? WISDOM

What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

39