# data[].attributes.body
"Readers must trace the ways in which the events described in one chapter interact with those mentioned in other sections of the report. For example, the Air Accident Investigation Branch's (1990) report into the Kegworth accident contains a section on the Engine Failure Analysis and another on the Crew Actions. Many of the events that are mentioned in the first chapter are not presented in the second and vice versa. This makes it difficult to trace the exact ways in which equipment failures complicated the task of controlling the aircraft (Johnson, 1994, 1995)."
(FIGURE 1 Section): Accident Reports and the Design Life Cycle

Another Site for more info behind the crash:
https://flashbak.com/the-kegworth-air-disaster-the-story-in-photos-7956/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A newly declassified CIA document reveals that the intelligence agency investigated the possibility that Adolf Hitler was alive in South America as late as 1955 - nearly a decade after World War II ended.

The document, which appears on the CIA's website, highlights a former SS soldier who told spies he had regularly met with Hilter in Colombia. "CITROEN [a CIA source] claimed to have contacted HITLER about once a month in Colombia on his trip from Maracaibo to that country as/an employee of the KNSM (Royal Dutch) Shipping Co. in Maracaibo," the document reads.

It goes on to say that the CIA source indicated to CI MELODY-3's [CIA informant] he had taken a picture with Hitler, but "did not show the photograph."
HITLER MAY HAVE COME CLOSE TO BUILDING AN ATOMIC BOMB, GERMAN TREASURE HUNTER FINDS
The document, three pages in length, suggests that Hitler may have worked as a shipping company employee, prior to potentially fleeing to Argentina. On the second page is a picture of the informant, Phillip Citroen, with a person he claims is Hitler in the mid-1950s.

"CIMELODY-3's friend states that during the later part of September 1955, a Phillip Citroen, former German SS trooper, stated to him confidentially that Adolph Hitler (sic) is still alive," the documents state.

Hitler committed suicide by taking a cyanide capsule and shooting himself. His wife Eva Braun killed herself by swallowing a cyanide pill. His body was later discovered by Soviet soldiers and buried in an unmarked spot. A German court declared Hitler dead, but not until 1956, more than a decade after the war ended.

Despite the findings of the German court, rumors have abounded for years that Hitler survived and fled to South America. The discovery of Holocaust planner Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele - the doctor who carried out sick experiments on Auschwitz inmates - in Argentina and Brazil respectively has only added fuel to the rumors, according to a report in news.com.au, which is part of 21st Century Fox.

Eichmann was eventually captured and hanged by Israel for his crimes in 1961, but Mengele managed to avoid capture. He ultimately died, having drowned while swimming off the coast of Brazil in 1979.
JFK'S DIARY REVEALS FASCINATION WITH HITLER, COMPARED TO 'LEGEND'
The file was put together by CIA Caracas bureau chief David Brixnor and wired to Washington in 1955, alongside the aforementioned picture of Citroen and the person who was allegedly Hitler.
Follow Chris Ciaccia on Twitter @Chris_Ciaccia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hitler WWII 'escape' investigated by the CIA, bombshell document reveals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A newly declassified CIA document reveals that the intelligence agency investigated the possibility that Adolf Hitler was alive in South America as late as 1955 - nearly a decade after World War II ended. The document, which appears on the CIA's website, highlights a former SS soldier who told spies he had regularly met with Hilter in Colombia.

# data[].attributes.body
Is the world flat? -U-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Business Insider UK spoke with astronomer Stuart Clark, author of Unknown Universe, about why people still believe in a flat earth.

Stuart Clark theorises that flat-earthers could be doing it for "comic effect".

He then goes on to address other questions that would arise as a result of flat earth theory.

Full transcript below

Stuart Clark: It's so clearly obvious that the world isn't flat. We see when ships leave the harbour you can see as they gradually disappear below the horizon. You can see if you go up on top of a tall tower or a hill and you see more over the horizon.

All our physics is constructed now, the physics of orbits of things going around the earth is all constructed with this three dimensional world. And the pictures from space show our world as a globe and yet somehow there are some people that still seem to believe the earth is flat.

So as human beings we love stories because stories make sense of our lives, of our world, they endow it with meaning and they can be understandable. Science is a way of what we hope is a true story something that is demonstrably true through experiment.

But as we see throughout the ages of the day can be overturned as we turn to a more precise understanding of the universe around us.

And generally speaking those become more complicated. So there is a tendency for people to reject that reality, that science of the day, on comfortable myths. Things that make them feel at home things that make them much happier that they know what's going on.

Maybe this obsession with the flat earth is one of those. Or maybe they're just contrarian. I don't know, it's one of those things that I find so difficult to get my head around. I really do.

My own pet theory is that they're doing it for comic effect.

Imagine for a moment that the earth was flat. Well, how much thickness does it then have? These are the kind of questions that you have to ask.

So you have an edge. Well, would things fall of the edge? How do you generate gravity to make the things fall? What is it that is actually causing the gravity to make things fall off the end? A flat surface is fairly unstable, the other forces it would be flexible and move around.

It's hard to even begin what a flat earth would actually be like because it's just so impossible.
* The scary truth about earbuds and hearing loss Read the original article on Business Insider UK. © 2016. Follow Business Insider UK on Twitter.
* Eight reasons Finland's education system puts the US model to shame
* A village in Kenya is disproving the biggest myth about basic income
Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is why some people believe the world is flat, according to an astronomer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Business Insider UK spoke with astronomer Stuart Clark, author of Unknown Universe, about why people still believe in a flat earth. Stuart Clark theorises that flat-earthers could be doing it for "comic effect". He then goes on to address other questions that would arise as a result of flat earth theory.

# data[].attributes.body
Knowledge can make someone more confident about what they believe, or can make them begin to doubt.

# data[].attributes.body
"We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases."

# data[].attributes.body
What determines the certainty of knowledge?
-Knowledge usually gained through process of human existence. History is the exception.
The person determines what they believe is certain or not.

# data[].attributes.body
-Indigenous Knowledge System
https://sites.google.com/a/lvacademy.org/tok-to-becker/areas-of-knowledge/indigenous-knowledge-systems-as-an-aok?scrlybrkr
"When studying indigenous knowledge systems, it is important to examine the methods of communication, decision-making processes, thinking processes and the holistic view of knowledge."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction to indigenous knowledge systems

If you are like most IB Diploma students, it's very likely that you will have already travelled through a lot of towns and cities, visited a good number of countries, met many different people, and spoken (or tried to speak) in various foreign languages. You may pride yourself on how diverse your experiences have been; indeed, encouraging diversity and internationalism is probably one of the proud boasts made by the school in which you are studying, and one of the reasons why your parents decided to send you there.

However, it is also possible that you have managed to experience all these things without having had to operate outside of knowledge systems that are familiar to you, or shift the paradigm through which you view the world in order to make sense of things. Walk down the main street of any major city in the world, and it's likely to contain cafes and restaurants that you'll find anywhere else. Enter a clothing store, and you'll probably be able to use one of the four or five languages that are prevalent in your school to make your purchase.

...it is possible that you have managed to experience all these things without having had to operate outside of knowledge systems that are familiar to you, or shift the paradigm through which you view the world in order to make sense of things.

The nearest multiscreen cinema is almost certainly showing a film you've already seen or are meaning to see; the sports news in the newspapers will feature a team that you support; the celebrity faces that are being used to sell magazines will be ones you recognize. This homogenization of cultures is one effect of globalization, and whilst it brings with it many benefits, it also brings problems. One of them is the way in which it subsumes the knowledge, traditions, and identities of the original inhabitants of regions - the indigenous peoples - and it is perhaps with the unstoppable march of fast food chains in mind that the IB have introduced a new area of knowledge for 2015: indigenous knowledge systems (IKS).

This section will focus on indigenous knowledge, but will put it into a wider comparative context, and consider it alongside the kind of knowledge that characterises larger-scale, industrialised societies, commonly referred to a 'Western'. In other words, the motive for looking at IKS is not only because it will provide us with a rich seam of ideas and theories, but also because it will allow us to consider the knowledge in our own society, and assess whether we really are as 'advanced' and 'developed' as we think we are.

Questions

1. What is your opinion about globalization?
2. Does it represent progress?
3. Who does it benefit?
4. Whose interests should we bear in mind when we assess its effects: the majority? The societies that are driving it? The societies that are impacted by it? Or is it possible to consider all at the same time?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you are like most IB Diploma students, it's very likely that you will have already travelled through a lot of towns and cities, visited a good number of countries, met many different people, and spoken (or tried to speak) in various foreign languages.

# data[].attributes.body
-Human Sciences
"The study of the reality of being human--the social, cultural, biological and behavioral aspects of human existence."

It helps us understand how humans are manipulated, what types of weaknesses we have a species. These include logical fallacies (see Reason Notes). Understanding these better can help us make better decisions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/us/hawaii-missile.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human Science Notes - Theory of Knowledge

"A branch of study which deals with people or their actions, including the social sciences and the humanities, as contrasted with the natural sciences or physical sciences" (Oxford).

The study of the reality of being human--the social, cultural, biological and behavioural aspects of human existence. (Adapted from the 2015 ToK Guide, Page 37).

Human sciences teaches us about p eople. For example, it gives us insights into how people react to things, which is often not what might be expected. One example is the bystander effect. Researchers have shown that individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are around. The more people who witness someone needing help, the less likely people are to help.

It helps us understand how humans are manipulated, what types of weaknesses we have a species. These include logical fallacies (see Reason Notes). Understanding these better can help us make better decisions.

The lessons learned through Human Science also help us improve society, through improved public policy. A great example of this is the UK's "Nudge Unit." In this government department, the insights of economists, such as Chicago's Richard Thaler, are being used to make changes to how to the government works. These changes are intended to "nudge" citizens toward choosing actions which are best for themselves and society (Guardian). The techniques are fascinating. For example, simply informing late-taxpayers that that most of their neighbours pay their taxes on time, improves the likelihood that they will pay theirs (Sunstein).

- - There's a lot more! - -

A premium version of the ToK notes is available, with many more helpful insights into all of the strengths and weaknesses of the WoKs and AoK's. You can join by clicking the link below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"A branch of study which deals with people or their actions, including the social sciences and the humanities, as contrasted with the natural sciences or physical sciences" (Oxford). The study of the reality of being human--the social, cultural, biological and behavioural aspects of human existence. (Adapted from the 2015 ToK Guide, Page 37).

# data[].attributes.body
Consider History AOK:
"If someone does not believe some historical facts, this would cause him to search information to find the truth. The person may not believe about the fact as he did not see the event by himself. There is a saying said that, 'seeing is believing'. By seeing, then only the person would believe."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Published:

Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

Doubt is the feeling of uncertain towards the truth. Persian proverb says that 'doubt is the key to knowledge'. The 'key' here means that the uncertain feelings bring us closer to the truth and making the level of knowledge increases. But, is it applicable in our daily life? Does doubt keeps someone to expand his knowledge in everyday life? If in a situation, an IB student doubt either he would pass or not in the examination, would his uncertain feeling causes his knowledge to expand? As for me, I think I would struggle hard because I do not have the confidence to pass the IB examination. And of course, I will expand my knowledge. But, here in this essay, we are going to discuss to what extent doubt brings us closer to the truth in different two areas of knowledge. In this essay, we are going to discuss whether doubt triggers or hinders the search for knowledge in two areas of knowledge, which are History and Natural Science.

From the point of view of History, doubt can widen our knowledge. If someone does not believe about some historical facts, this would cause him to search information to find the truth. The person may not believe about the fact as he did not see the event by himself. There is a saying said that, 'seeing is believing'. By seeing, then only the person would believe. But, as History is the story about the past, the person could not move the time backwards. Therefore, the person can only start searching for the information through the historical books, journals, and other related materials to get a better understanding about the event and to prove that the event really happened. And this eventually leads the person to gain extra information than he needed. For example, if a person could not believe that the Abbasids' rule was ruined by the Mongol people, he would also know the reason why Mongol people managed to sack Abbasids' capital in Baghdad, the attitude of Abbasids' people during the attack and many other related information about the fall of the Abbasid caliphate when he searched the information about it. He would also be acquainted with the leader of the Mongols. Thus, based from the explanation and example given, these strongly prove that doubt in History can increase knowledge by bringing the knowledge closer to the truth.

Next, if we are looking in Natural Science, doubt leads to more research, which means that it also leads to new findings. The uncertain feeling towards some existing theories leads the scientist to do research about it. The scientist would firstly made assumption through logic based from the theory he felt uncertain about. Then he has to formulate hypothesis and design appropriate experiment in order to prove that the existing theory is false and he also has to come up with a new theory based on his experiment. This process is called falsification, introduced by a philosopher, Karl Popper. Before establishing a new theory, there would be many practical experiment conducted and of course, many new discoveries found. This would also expand the knowledge when the experiment conducted show any unexpected results. For example, the periodic table has undergone many rearrangement and falsification processes by the previous scientist before it is being established as the modern and most reliable periodic table, created by Dmitri Mendeleev. The establishment of this modern periodic table was also due to the development of quantum mechanics theories by other scientist. Therefore, doubt in Natural Science trigger the scientist to carry out many researches in order to make progress in expanding the knowledge.

Apart from that, doubt sometimes becomes the inhibitor to knowledge. Let us now discuss why doubt cannot become the 'key' to knowledge in History and Natural Science.

Well, doubt in History will not become the key to knowledge if it stands on its own. Due to limitation like emotion, the uncertain feeling towards the historical facts solely will not bring knowledge closer to the truth. The expanding of knowledge is limited by emotion means that the knower himself did not want to belief about new facts or findings that contradicts from what he believed. When a new fact is revealed by the historians, he would feel uncertain about the fact because the fact is totally different from his belief. And if he still wants to stick with his belief, he will not gain any knowledge. In History, it took time to change someone's paradigm and if he was reluctant to be open-minded, the true knowledge will not be discovered. For example, during British's rule in Malaya, there were many local heroes who always protest against the government to fight for the rights of the Malayan. They were Dato' Bahaman, Tok Janggut, Syarif Masahor, and many more. Local folks said that they were very (berjasa) to the country and their names were (dijulang). But, there were new facts that reveals about the truth of those warriors. They were actually gangsters. They were not as kind as the local folks thought. But, many local folks did not believe on these statements. They just ignore their uncertain feeling and they keep the faith that those heroes were very (berjasa) to the country. Therefore, the emotion of the knowers here inhibit in the search for the knowledge in History.

Next, in Natural Science, doubt will become the inhibitor to knowledge when there is too much doubt. If the scientist is not certain about many things, he will not gain any information from his uncertain feelings. Excessive doubt will make something become more complex and the scientist might become confused too. When the theory becomes complex, the experiment to falsify the theory will become more complicated. And without the suitable and appropriate apparatus, the scientist cannot make any progress from the theory that he felt uncertain. As for an example, the existence of aliens or the living creatures from other planets cannot be proven true or false until nowadays. The technology that we have nowadays still cannot find the truth about them. To conclude here, in Natural Science, too much doubt will become a hindrance in gaining knowledge.

We have seen that how doubt works as the key to knowledge in History and Natural Science. We also have known in what conditions doubt becomes a hindrance in gaining the knowledge. Doubt is very important to bring the knowledge closer and closer to the truth. However, we must not doubt too much in both History and Natural Science. We might ignore the excessive doubt that we have and finally no new knowledge will be discovered. Therefore, we must have an equal level between doubts and confident before accepting and believing the truth. Hence, doubt can be considered as the 'main' key in gaining knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Published: Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

# data[].attributes.body
pg. 4-5 IB TOK textbook
"Most people do not think that there is a problem of knowledge and they see knowledge as nothing more than organized common sense...common sense consists of a little more than vague and untested beliefs that are based on such things as prejudice, hearsay and blind appeals to authority." (Lagemaat 4)

# data[].attributes.body
Intro- Break down the topic.
Para 1- AOK 1 Indigenous KS
Para 2- AOK2 Human Sciences
Para 3- AOK 3 History..?
Conclusion- Brief sum up; discuss the claim and anything learned

# data[].attributes.body
-Donald Trump
-Ignorance: myself and others
-easter egg thorn bush incident.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump, our 45th president, sold the electorate an America First bill of goods, when what he really had in mind was Me First. "I won," he gloats, "therefore I can do this! I won, therefore I can do that!" In early January, our then president-elect was invited up to the offices of Condé Nast, the parent company of V.F., to meet with the editors of its magazines. The get-together was off the record. (Not my wish. Nor was the meeting itself.) The standard practice is that, in such a context, nothing of what Trump said can be repeated. It doesn't really matter, because I recall nothing being said that he hadn't already said many times before.

Is there any American at this point who hasn't heard Trump talk about pretty much everything? He always speaks lovingly about his favorite subject-himself. He spent an entire campaign talking about the size of his victories, the size of his rallies, the size of his Twitter following, the excellence of his golf game, and the greatness of his company. A more recent theme, as he prepared to shoulder the burdens of office, has been that the man who followed him on his clammy reality-TV show has lower ratings than when he was on it.

Trump's messy birdcage of a mind careers from one random thought to the next. He likes to strut and talk big-league. One of his ongoing observations-in tweets and elsewhere-is that "many people" have been calling him "the Ernest Hemingway of Twitter!" These are presumably people who have never read one of Hemingway's books. In manner and execution, and in his almost touching desire to be liked, Trump comes across not as larger than life but as one of the smaller people on the world stage. He always had a sort of oafish charisma: as we used to say at , a hustler on his best behavior. In small groups, as many can attest, he has mastered the salesman's trick of creating faux sincerity and intimacy when answering a question by including the first name of the person who asked it. But no amount of grifter charm can conceal his alarming disregard for facts and truth. It's this combination of utter ignorance and complete certitude that his detractors find most terrifying. Trump not only doesn't know the unknowns but appears to have no interest in even knowing the knowns. Fact-checkers can't keep up. How often does Obama play golf? Who cares-let's inflate the number by 50 percent. What's the murder rate in a major American city? What the hell-let's multiply it by 10. The writer Michael O'Donoghue used to say that the definition of insanity is the length of time it takes for a lie to be uncovered. The shorter the period, the crazier you are. By this standard, our president will be setting a new threshold for that definition.

In temperament, we now have an unbridled man-boy in the highest office in the land, one who will lash out at the most reasoned criticism. The brusque childishness of his response to Meryl Streep's measured comments at the Golden Globes-about Trump's mocking gestures in reference to disabled New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski-was enough to be worried about. Then he hurled insults at Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a living icon of the civil-rights movement. Really? John Lewis? If he feels that he can so blithely attack two of the most respected people in the country, who is off limits? Trump was always a bad loser. But in the weeks since his disputed victory in the election we've discovered that this preening narcissist is also a very bad winner.

As he drags family members into the administration, a certain amount of sympathy has gone out to Tiffany Trump, the president's daughter with his second wife, Marla Maples. In the end, being the forgotten Trump may turn out to be an asset. Her father's administration is starting off in typical Trump fashion: renovating a house by first hacking away at the foundation. His disparagement of America's intelligence apparatus-what former vice president Joe Biden calls "one of the crown jewels of our national defense"-is a complete mystery, and one that may come back to haunt him. On the health-care front, I confess that I've never fully understood the frantic scramble to shut down Obamacare-the name that opponents of the Affordable Care Act gave to the legislation, and meant as a pejorative. There are actually people out there who say they don't want Obamacare-they prefer the Affordable Care Act. All of which is to say: repealing this landmark piece of legislation will serve only to hurt many of the same people who voted for Trump. Do the hopeful citizens of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-the states that swung the election in his favor-really think that this administration's collection of billionaires, former bankers, deregulators, and climate-change deniers are going to be looking out for them rather than for themselves and their cronies? I wouldn't be the first to think that we are wading into a quagmire of exceptions, conflicts of interest, and corruption, both financial and moral, which will then be followed by a long, long road to "Trexit"-our president's extraction from the White House. Populists like Trump sweep into office on lies. They are undone by truths.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump: A Pillar of Ignorance and Certitude

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump, our 45th president, sold the electorate an America First bill of goods, when what he really had in mind was Me First. "I won," he gloats, "therefore I can do this! I won, therefore I can do that!"

# data[].attributes.body
"This is a matter of understanding what knowledge is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something."
The person determines what they believe is certain or not.

# data[].attributes.headline
Used to give an idea of what to do. Don't use on paper.

# data[].attributes.subject
Used to give an idea of what to do. Don't use on paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thoughts on the May 2018 TOK prescribed essay titles

Due to copyright issues, we are not allowed to reproduce the May 2018 TOK essay prescribed titles on our site - and you should not be able to view them on any reputable non-IB accredited site. But you can obtain them from your TOK or IB Diploma Coordinator.

Here we offer a few thoughts on the key words that need pinning down in the different titles, and we link each title to one of our Big Questions. If you are a member of theoryofknowledge.net, and have access to our Big Question framework, then you'll be able to access lessons, ideas, and articles that will help you to tackle the PTs. Our free TOK newsletter also provides 8 different real life situations each month, which may help you to support your arguments and analysis with examples.

Find out more about our Big Question Framework here, and become a member of theoryofknowledge.net (unlocking access to our BQ lessons and resources) here. You can also get in touch with us by using the contact form at the bottom of the page.

Prescribed title 1

Prescribed title 2

Prescribed title 3

Prescribed title 4

Prescribed title 5

Key words to pin down 'Quality of knowledge'; 'academic discipline'; 'duration of historical development'.

Links to BQ2: PURPOSE & VALUE, and BQ7: DEVELOPMENT. In these Big Questions, we look at how and why knowledge (including its 'quality') develops over time and how we can assess the 'value' of knowledge. Within these BQ units, we provide links to articles and sources that include comparisons of different areas of knowledge, allowing students to evaluate the role of historical development in creating valuable knowledge, and whether there is a correlation between length of time and quality of knowledge.

Prescribed title 6

Key words to pin down 'Robust knowledge'; 'consensus and disagreement'.

Links to This PT links to many of our Big Questions, as case studies on consensus and disagreement form the basis of many aspects of our exploration of TOK. These include the debate between Paul Bloom and figures like Barack Obama over the role of empathy in ethics (in BQ4), and Steven Pinker versus John Gray over whether human society is progressing or not (in BQ6). Within these BQ units, we provide a large number of links to articles and sources looking at well known knowledge debates, and the effect they have on the production of knowledge.

Contact form

If you have any questions about the essay, how the PTs relate to our Big Question framework, or how to join theoryofknowledge.net, contact us using the form below. We'll get back to you very swiftly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
May 2018 TOK essay prescribed titles - theoryofknowledge.net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Due to copyright issues, we are not allowed to reproduce the May 2018 TOK essay prescribed titles on our site - and you should not be able to view them on any reputable non-IB accredited site. But you can obtain them from your TOK or IB Diploma Coordinator.

# data[].attributes.body
More Ideas on how to work info into paper:
Confidence- knowledge is not always applied properly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases." Do you agree or disagree?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 28): Knowledge and confidence are undoubtedly the two most important qualities one can possess. Together they create a universal groundwork for success . Basically Knowledge and Confidence complement each other. "In simple terms, knowledge is the product and confidence is the method ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If I told you that the world is flat, I'm hoping you would know that I'm wrong. But how do you know that I'm wrong? And why did people once believe that they knew that the world was flat? Presumably the shape of the earth did not change dramatically in the time that we went from "knowing" one thing about it to knowing the other; however, something certainly changed our minds. Understanding both what changed our minds (science) and how might tell us a lot about what we know, what we think we know, and what we think we can know.

This book is dedicated to understanding exactly how it is that we know what we know. More specifically, we will examine the ways that sociologists come to know social facts. Our focus will be on one particular way of knowing: social scientific research methods A systematic process of inquiry applied to learn something about our social world. . Research methods are a systematic process of inquiry applied to learn something about our social world. But before we take a closer look at research methods, let's consider some of our other sources of knowledge.

Different Sources of Knowledge

What do you know about only children? Culturally, our stereotype of children without siblings is that they grow up to be rather spoiled and unpleasant. We might think that the social skills of only children will not be as well developed as those of people who were reared with siblings. However, sociological research shows that children who grow up without siblings are no worse off than their counterparts with siblings when it comes to developing good social skills (Bobbitt-Zeher & Downey, 2010). Sociologists consider precisely these types of assumptions that we take for granted when applying research methods in their investigations. Sometimes we find that our assumptions are correct. Often as in this case, we learn that the thing that everyone seems to know to be true isn't so true after all.

Many people seem to know things without having a background in sociology. Of course, they may have been trained in other social science disciplines or in the natural sciences, or perhaps they read about findings from scientific research. However, there are ways we know things that don't involve scientific research methods. Some people know things through experiences they've had, but they may not think about those experiences systematically; others believe they know things based on selective observation or overgeneralization; still others may assume that what they've always known to be true is true simply because they've always known it to be true. Let's consider some of these alternative ways of knowing before focusing on sociology's way of knowing.

Many of us know things simply because we've experienced them directly. For example, you would know that electric fences can be pretty dangerous and painful if you touched one while standing in a puddle of water. We all probably have times we can recall when we learned something because we experienced it. If you grew up in Minnesota, you would observe plenty of kids learn each winter that it really is true that one's tongue will stick to metal if it's very cold outside. Similarly, if you passed a police officer on a two-lane highway while driving 20 miles over the speed limit, you would probably learn that that's a good way to earn a traffic ticket. So direct experience may get us accurate information but only if we're lucky (or unlucky, as in the examples provided here). In each of these instances, the observation process isn't really deliberate or formal. Instead, you would come to know what you believe to be true through informal observationMaking observations without any systematic process for observing or assessing accuracy of what is observed. . The problem with informal observation is that sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is wrong. And without any systematic process for observing or assessing the accuracy of our observations, we can never really be sure that our informal observations are accurate.

Suppose a friend of yours declared that "all men lie all the time" shortly after she'd learned that her boyfriend had told her a fib. The fact that one man happened to lie to her in one instance came to represent all experiences with all men. But do all men really lie all the time? Probably not. If you prompted your friend to think more broadly about her experiences with men, she would probably acknowledge that she knew many men who, to her knowledge, had never lied to her and that even her boyfriend didn't generally make a habit of lying. This friend committed what social scientists refer to as selective observationNoticing only patterns that one has experienced directly or wishes to find. by noticing only the pattern that she wanted to find at the time. If, on the other hand, your friend's experience with her boyfriend had been her only experience with any man, then she would have been committing what social scientists refer to as overgeneralization Assuming that broad patterns exist based on very limited observations. , assuming that broad patterns exist based on very limited observations.

Another way that people claim to know what they know is by looking to what they've always known to be true. There's an urban legend about a woman who for years used to cut both ends off of a ham before putting it in the oven (Mikkelson & Mikkelson, 2005). She baked ham that way because that's the way her mother did it, so clearly that was the way it was supposed to be done. Her mother was the authority, after all. After years of tossing cuts of perfectly good ham into the trash, however, she learned that the only reason her mother ever cut the ends off ham before cooking it was that she didn't have a pan large enough to accommodate the ham without trimming it.

Without questioning what we think we know to be true, we may wind up believing things that are actually false. This is most likely to occur when an authority A socially defined source of knowledge. tells us that something is so (Adler & Clark, 2011). Our mothers aren't the only possible authorities we might rely on as sources of knowledge. Other common authorities we might rely on in this way are the government, our schools and teachers, and our churches and ministers. Although it is understandable that someone might believe something to be true because someone he or she looks up to or respects has said it is so, this way of knowing differs from the sociological way of knowing, which is our focus in this text.

As a science, sociology relies on a systematic process of inquiry for gaining knowledge. That process, as noted earlier, is called research methods. We'll discuss that process in more detail later in this chapter and throughout the text. For now, simply keep in mind that it is this source of knowledge on which sociologists rely most heavily.

Table 1.1 Several Different Ways of Knowing

Informal observation

Occurs when we make observations without any systematic process for observing or assessing accuracy of what we observed.

Selective observation

Occurs when we see only those patterns that we want to see or when we assume that only the patterns we have experienced directly exist.

Overgeneralization

Occurs when we assume that broad patterns exist even when our observations have been limited.

Authority

A socially defined source of knowledge that might shape our beliefs about what is true and what is not true.

Research methods

An organized, logical way of learning and knowing about our social world.

In sum, there are many ways that people come to know what they know. These include informal observation, selective observation, overgeneralization, authority, and research methods. Table 1.1 "Several Different Ways of Knowing" summarizes each of the ways of knowing described here. Of course, some of these ways of knowing are more reliable than others. Being aware of our sources of knowledge helps us evaluate the trustworthiness of specific bits of knowledge we may hold.

Ontology and Epistemology

Thinking about what you know and how you know what you know involves questions of ontology and epistemology. Perhaps you've heard these terms before in a philosophy class; however, they are relevant to the work of sociologists as well. As we sociologists begin to think about finding something out about our social world, we are probably starting from some understanding of what "is," what can be known about what is, and what the best mechanism happens to be for learning about what is.

OntologyAn analytic philosophy concerning the nature of reality. deals with the first part of these sorts of questions. It refers to one's analytic philosophy of the nature of reality. In sociology, a researcher's ontological position might shape the sorts of research questions he or she asks and how those questions are posed. Some sociologists take the position that reality is in the eye of the beholder and that our job is to understand others' view of reality. Other sociologists feel that, while people may differ in their perception of reality, there is only one true reality. These sociologists are likely to aim to discover that true reality in their research rather than discovering a variety of realities.

Like ontology, epistemologyAn analytic philosophy concerning how we know what we know. has to do with knowledge. But rather than dealing with questions about what is, epistemology deals with questions of how we know what is. In sociology, there are a number of ways to uncover knowledge. We might interview people to understand public opinion about some topic, or perhaps we'll observe them in their natural environment. We could avoid face-to-face interaction altogether by mailing people surveys for them to complete on their own or by reading what people have to say about their opinions in newspaper editorials. All these are ways that sociologists gain knowledge. Each method of data collection comes with its own set of epistemological assumptions about how to find things out. We'll talk in more depth about these ways of knowing in Chapter 8 "Survey Research: A Quantitative Technique" through Chapter 12 "Other Methods of Data Collection and Analysis", our chapters on data collection.

Key Takeaways

There are several different ways that we know what we know, including informal observation, selective observation, overgeneralization, authority, and research methods.

Research methods are a much more reliable source of knowledge than most of our other ways of knowing.

A person's ontological perspective shapes her or his beliefs about the nature of reality, or what "is."

A person's epistemological perspective shapes her or his beliefs about how we know what we know, and the best way(s) to uncover knowledge.

Exercises

1. Think about a time in the past when you made a bad decision (e.g., wore the wrong shoes for hiking, dated the wrong person, chose not to study for an exam, dyed your hair green). What caused you to make this decision? How did any of the ways of knowing described previously contribute to your error-prone decision-making process? How might sociological research methods help you overcome the possibility of committing such errors in the future?

2. Feeling unclear about ontology, epistemology, what is, what we can know, and how we know what we can know? This video may help, or it may not. But it addresses some of these questions, and it's hilarious. I highly recommend it: http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_jun_04/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If I told you that the world is flat, I'm hoping you would know that I'm wrong. But how do you know that I'm wrong? And why did people once believe that they knew that the world was flat?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Studying knowledge is one of those perennial topics-like the nature of matter in the hard sciences-that philosophy has been refining since before the time of Plato. The discipline, epistemology, comes from two Greek words episteme (επιστημη) which means knowledge and logos (λογος) which means a word or reason. Epistemology literally means to reason about knowledge. Epistemologists study what makes up knowledge, what kinds of things can we know, what are the limits to what we can know, and even if it's possible to actually know anything at all.

Coming up with a definition of knowledge has proven difficult but we'll take a look at a few attempts and examine the challenges we face in doing so. We'll look at how prominent philosophers have wrestled with the topic and how postmodernists provide a different viewpoint on the problem of knowledge. We'll also survey some modern work being done in psychology and philosophy that can help us understand the practical problems with navigating the enormous amounts of information we have at our disposal and how we can avoid problems in the way we come to know things.

Do We Know Stuff?

In order to answer that question, you probably have to have some idea what the term "know" means. If I asked, "Have you seen the flibbertijibbet at the fair today?" I'd guess you wouldn't know how to answer. You'd probably start by asking me what a flibbertijibbet is. But most adults tend not to ask what knowledge is before they can evaluate whether they have it or not. We just claim to know stuff and most of us, I suspect, are pretty comfortable with that. There are lots of reasons for this but the most likely is that we have picked up a definition over time and have a general sense of what the term means. Many of us would probably say knowledge that something is true involves:

1. Certainty - it's hard if not impossible to deny

2. Evidence - it has to based on something

3. Practicality - it has to actually work in the real world

4. Broad agreement - lots of people have to agree it's true

But if you think about it, each of these has problems. For example, what would you claim to know that you would also say you are certain of? Let's suppose you're not intoxicated, high, or in some other way in your "right" mind and conclude that you know you're reading an article on the internet. You might go further and claim that denying it would be crazy. Isn't it at least possible that you're dreaming or that you're in something like the Matrix and everything you see is an illusion? Before you say such a thing is absurd and only those who were unable to make the varsity football team would even consider such questions, can you be sure you're not being tricked? After all, if you are in the Matrix, the robots that created the Matrix would making be making you believe you are not in the Matrix and that you're certain you aren't.

What about the "broad agreement" criterion? The problem with this one is that many things we might claim to know are not, and could not be, broadly agreed upon. Suppose you are experiencing a pain in your arm. The pain is very strong and intense. You might tell your doctor that you know you're in pain. Unfortunately though, only you can claim to know that (and as an added problem, you don't appear to have any evidence for it either-you just feel the pain). So at least on the surface, it seems you know things that don't have broad agreement by others.

These problems and many others are what intrigue philosophers and are what make coming up with a definition of knowledge challenging. Since it's hard to nail down a definition, it also makes it hard to answer the question "what do you know?"

What is Knowledge?

As with many topics in philosophy, a broadly-agreed-upon definition is difficult. But philosophers have been attempting to construct one for centuries. Over the years, a trend has developed in the philosophical literature and a definition has emerged that has such wide agreement it has come to be known as the "standard definition." While agreement with the definition isn't universal, it can serve as a solid starting point for studying knowledge.

The definition involves three conditions and philosophers say that when a person meets these three conditions, she can say she knows something to be true. Take a statement of fact: The Seattle Mariners have never won a world series. On the standard definition, a person knows this fact if:

1. The person believes the statement to be true

2. The statement is in fact true

3. The person is justified in believing the statement to be true

The bolded terms earmark the three conditions that must be met and because of those terms, the definition is also called the "tripartite" (three part) definition or "JTB" for short. Many many books have been written on each of the three terms so I can only briefly summarize here what is going on in each. I will say up front though that epistemologists spend most of their time on the third condition.
Belief
First, beliefs are things people have. Beliefs aren't like rocks or rowboats where you come across them while strolling along the beach. They're in your head and generally are viewed as just the way you hold the world (or some aspect of the world) to be. If you believe that the Mariners never won a world series, you just accept it is as true that the Mariners really never won a world series. Notice that accepting that something is true implies that what you accept could be wrong. In other words, it implies that what you think about the world may not match up with the way the world really is. This implies that there is a distinction between belief and truth. There are some philosophers-notably postmodernists and existentialists-who think such a distinction can't be made which we'll examine more below. But in general, philosophers claim that belief is in our heads and truth is about the way the world is. In practical terms, you can generally figure out what you or someone else believes by examining behavior. People will generally act according to what they really believe rather than what they say they believe-despite what Dylan says.
Truth
Something is true if the world really is that way. Truth is not in your head but is "out there." The statement, "The Mariners have never won a world series" is true if the Mariners have never won a world series. The first part of that sentence is in quotes on purpose. The phrase in quotes signifies a statement we might make about the world and the second, unquoted phrase is supposed to describe the way the world actually is. The reason philosophers write truth statements this way is to give sense to the idea that a statement about the world could be wrong or, more accurately, false (philosophers refer to the part in quotes as a statement or proposition). Perhaps you can now see why beliefs are different than truth statements. When you believe something, you hold that or accept that a statement or proposition is true. It could be false that's why your belief may not "match up" with the way the world really is. For more on what truth is, see the Philosophy News article, " What is Truth? "
Justification
If the seed of knowledge is belief, what turns belief into knowledge? This is where justification (sometimes called 'warrant') comes in. A person knows something if they're justified in believing it to be true (and, of course, it actually is true). There are dozens of competing theories of justification. It's sometimes easier to describe when a belief isn't justified than when it is. In general, philosophers agree that a person isn't justified if their belief is:

1. a product of wishful thinking (I really wish you would love me so I believe you love me)

2. a product of fear or guilt (you're terrified of death and so form the belief in an afterlife)

3. formed in the wrong way (you travel to an area you know nothing about, see a white spot 500 yards away and conclude it's a sheep)

4. a product of dumb luck or guesswork (you randomly form the belief that the next person you meet will have hazel eyes and it turns out that the next person you meet has hazel eyes)

Because beliefs come in all shapes and sizes and it's hard to find a single theory of justification that can account for everything we would want to claim to know. You might be justified in believing that the sun is roughly 93 million miles from the earth much differently than you would be justified in believing God exists or that you have a minor back pain. Even so, justification is a critical element in any theory of knowledge and is the focus of many a philosophical thought.

[Incidentally: while JTB is generally considered a starting point for a definition, it by no means is the final word. Many philosophers reject the JTB formulation altogether and others think that, at the very least, JTB needs to be "fixed up" somehow. Regarding this latter category, a small paper written by a philosopher named Edmund Gettier really kicked off a brouhaha that made philosophers doubt that JTB was sufficient for knowledge. Gettier's paper was roughly two and a half pages long (almost unheard of in philosophy) but has become so important that the issues he raised are known as The Gettier Problem.]

People-centered Knowledge

You might notice that the description above puts the focus of knowing on the individual. Philosophers talk of individual persons being justified and not the ideas or concepts themselves being justified. This means that what may count as knowledge for you may not count as knowledge for me. Suppose you study economics and you learn principles in the field to some depth. Based on what you learn, you come to believe that psychological attitudes have just as much of a role to play in economic flourishing or deprivation as the political environment that creates economic policy. Suppose also that I have not studied economics all that much but I do know that I'd like more money in my pocket. You and I may have very different beliefs about economics and our beliefs might be justified in very different ways. What you know may not be something I know even though we have the same evidence and arguments in front of us.

So the subjective nature of knowledge partly is based on the idea that beliefs are things that individuals have and those beliefs are justified or not justified. When you think about it, that makes sense. You may have more evidence or different experiences than I have and so you may believe things I don't or may have evidence for something that I don't have. The bottom line is that "universal knowledge" - something everybody knows-may be very hard to come by. Truth, if it exists, isn't like this. Truth is universal. It's our access to it that may differ widely.

Rene Descartes and the Search for Universal Knowledge

A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that there isn't universal knowledge. Philosopher Rene Descartes (pronounced day-cart) was one of them. When he was a young man, he was taught a bunch of stuff by his parents, teachers, priests and other authorities. As he came of age, he, like many of us, started to discover that much of what he was taught either was false or was highly questionable. At the very least, he found he couldn't have the certainty that many of his educators had. While many of us get that, deal with it, and move on, Descartes was deeply troubled by this.

One day, he decided to tackle the problem. He hid himself away in a cabin and attempted to doubt everything of which he could not be certain. Since it wasn't practical to doubt every belief he had, Descartes decided that it would be sufficient to subject the foundations of his belief system to doubt and the rest of the structure will "crumble of its own accord." He first considers the things he came to believe by way of the five senses. For most of us these are pretty stable items but Descartes found that it was rather easy to doubt their truth. The biggest problem is that sometimes the senses can be deceptive. And after all, could he be certain he wasn't insane or dreaming when he saw that book or tasted that honey? So while they might be fairly reliable, the senses don't provide us with certainty-which is what Descartes was after.

Next he looked at mathematics. If certainly is to be found, it must be here. He reasoned that the outcome of mathematical formulas and theorems hold both in dreams and in waking so at the very least, it fares better than the senses. But he developed an argument from which he could not spare math. Suppose there is an evil genius, he thought, that is "supremely powerful and clever" and was bent upon deceiving Descartes and developed mathematics as a device to carry out his evil deceptions ( The Matrix should be coming to mind about now). Descartes found there was no way to rule out this possibility. Whether it's highly unlikely or not isn't the point. Descartes was looking for certainty and if there is even a slim possibility that he's being deceived, he had to throw out mathematics too.

Unfortunately, this left Descartes with no where to turn. He found that he could be skeptical about everything and was unable to find a certain foundation for knowledge. But then he hit upon something that changed modern epistemology. He discovered that there was one thing he couldn't doubt: the fact that he was a thinking thing. In order to doubt it, he would have to think. He reasoned that it's not possible to doubt something without thinking about the fact that you're doubting. If he was thinking then he must be a thinking thing and so he found that it was impossible to doubt that he was a thinking being.

This seemingly small but significant truth led to his most famous contribution to Western thought: cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). Some mistakenly think that Descartes was implying with this idea that he thinks himself into existence. But that wasn't his point at all. He was making a claim about knowledge. Really what Descartes was saying is: I think, therefore I know that I am.

The story doesn't end here for Descartes but for the rest of it, I refer you to the reading list below to dig deeper. The story of Descartes is meant to illustrate the depth of the problems of epistemology and how difficult and rare certainty is, if certainty is possible-there are plenty of philosophers who think either that Descartes' project failed or that he created a whole new set of problems that are even more intractable than the one he set out to solve.

Postmodernism and Knowledge

Postmodern epistemology is a growing area of study and is relatively new on the scene compared with definitions that have come out of the analytic tradition in philosophy. Generally, though, it means taking a specific, skeptical attitude towards certainty, and a subjective view of belief and knowledge. Postmodernists see truth as much more fluid than classical (or modernist) epistemologists. Using the terms we learned above, they reject the idea that we can ever be fully justified in holding that our beliefs line up with the way the world actually is. We can't know that we know.

Perspective at the Center

In order to have certainty, postmodernists claim, we would need to be able to "stand outside" our own beliefs and look at our beliefs and the world without any mental lenses or perspective. It's similar to wondering what it would be like to watch ourselves meeting someone for the first time? We can't do it. We can watch the event of the meeting on a video but the experience of meeting can only be had by us. We have that experience only from "inside" our minds and bodies. Since its not possible to stand outside our minds, all the parts that make up our minds influence our view on what is true. Our intellectual and social background, our biases, our moods, our genetics, other beliefs we have, our likes and dislikes, our passions (we can put all these under the label of our "cognitive structure") all influence how we perceive what is true about the world. Further, say the postmodernists, it's not possible to set aside these influences or lenses. We can reduce the intensity here and there and come to recognize biases and adjust for them for sure. But it's not possible to completely shed all our lenses which color our view of things and so it's not possible to be certain that we're getting at some truth "out there."

Many have called out what seems to be a problem with the postmodernist approach. Notice that as soon as a postmodernist makes a claim about the truth and knowledge they seem to be making a truth statement! If all beliefs are seen through a lens, how do we know the postmodernists beliefs are "correct?" That's a good question and the postmodernist might respond by saying, "We don't!" But then, why believe it? Because of this obvious problem, many postmodernists attempt to simply live with postmodernist "attitudes" towards epistemology and avoid saying that they're making claims that would fit into traditional categories. We have to change our perspective to understand the claims.

Community Agreement

To be sure, Postmodernists do tend to act like the rest of us when it comes to interacting with the world. They drive cars, fly in airplanes, make computer programs, and write books. But how is this possible if they take such a fluid view of knowledge? Postmodernists don't eschew truth in general. They reject the idea that any one person's beliefs about it can be certain. Rather, they claim that truth emerges through community agreement. Suppose scientists are attempting to determine whether the planet is warming and that humans are the cause. This is a complex question and a postmodernist might say that if the majority of scientists agree that the earth is warming and that humans are the cause, then that's true. Notice that the criteria for "truth" is that scientists agree. To use the taxonomy above, this would be the "justification condition." So we might say that postmodernists accept the first and third conditions of the tripartite view but reject the second condition: the idea that there is a truth that beliefs need to align to a truth outside our minds.

When you think about it, a lot of what we would call "facts" are determined in just this way. For many years, scientists believed in a substance called "phlogiston." Phlogiston was stuff that existed in certain substances (like wood and metal) and when those substances were burned, more phlogiston was added to the substance. Phlogiston was believed to have negative weight, that's why things got lighter when they burned. That theory has since been rejected and replace by more sophisticated views involving oxygen and oxidation.

So, was the phlogiston theory true? The modernist would claim it wasn't because it has since been shown to be false. It's false now and was false then even though scientists believed it was true. Beliefs about phlogiston didn't line up with the way the world really is, so it was false. But the postmodernist might say that phlogiston theory was true for the scientists that believed it. We now have other theories that are true. But phlogiston theory was no less true then than oxygen theory is now. Further, they might add, how do we know that oxygen theory is really the truth? Oxygen theory might be supplanted some day as well but that doesn't make it any less true today.

Knowledge and the Mental Life

As you might expect, philosophers are not the only ones interested in how knowledge works. Psychologists, social scientists, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists have been interested in this topic as well and, with the growth of the field of artificial intelligence, even computer scientists have gotten into the game. In this section, we'll look at how work being done in psychology and behavioral science can inform our understanding of how human knowing works.

Thus far, we've looked at the structure of knowledge once beliefs are formed. Many thinkers are interested how belief formation itself is involved our perception of what we think we know. Put another way, we may form a belief that something is true but the way our minds formed that belief has a big impact on why we think we know it. The science is uncovering that, in many cases, the process of forming the belief went wrong somewhere and our minds have actually tricked us into believing its true. These mental tricks may be based on good evolutionary principles: they are (or at least were at some point in our past) conducive to survival. But we may not be aware of this trickery and be entirely convinced that we formed the belief in the right way and so have knowledge. The broad term used for this phenomenon is "cognitive bias" and mental biases have a significant influence over how we form beliefs and our perception of the beliefs we form.1

Wired for Bias

A cognitive bias is a typically unconscious "mental trick" our minds play that lead us to form beliefs that may be false or that are directed towards some facts and leaving out others such that these beliefs align to other things we believe, promote mental safety, or provide grounds for justifying sticking to to a set of goals that we want to achieve. Put more simply, mental biases cause us to form false beliefs about ourselves and the world. The fact that our minds do this is not necessarily intentional or malevolent and, in many cases, the outcomes of these false beliefs can be positive for the person that holds them. But epistemologists (and ethicists) argue that ends don't always justify the means when it comes to belief formation. As a general rule, we want to form true beliefs in the "right" way.

Ernest Becker in his important Pulitzer Prize winning book The Denial of Death attempts to get at the psychology behind why we form the beliefs we do. He also explores why we may be closed off to alternative viewpoints and why we tend to become apologists (defenders) of the viewpoints we hold. One of his arguments is that we as humans build an ego ( in the Freudian sense; what he calls "character armor") out of the beliefs we hold and those beliefs tend to give us meaning and they are strengthened when more people hold the same viewpoint. In a particularly searing passage, he writes:

Each person thinks that he has the formula for triumphing over life's limitations and knows with authority what it means to be a man [N.B. by 'man' Becker means 'human' and uses masculine pronouns as that was common practice when he wrote the book], and he usually tries to win a following for his particular patent. Today we know that people try so hard to win converts for their point of view because it is more than merely an outlook on life: it is an immortality formula. . . in matters of immortality everyone has the same self-righteous conviction. The thing seems perverse because each diametrically opposed view is put forth with the same maddening certainty; and authorities who are equally unimpeachable hold opposite views! (Becker, Ernest. The Denial of Death, pp. 255-256. Free Press.)

In other words, being convinced that our viewpoint is correct and winning converts to that viewpoint is how we establish ourselves as persons of meaning and significance and this inclination is deeply engrained in our psychological equipment. This not only is why biases are so prevalent but why they're difficult to detect. We are, argues Becker and others, wired towards bias. Jonathan Haidt agrees and go so far as to say that reason and logic is not only the cure but a core part of the wiring that causes the phenomenon.

Anyone who values truth should stop worshipping reason. We all need to take a cold hard look at the evidence and see reasoning for what it is. The French cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber recently reviewed the vast research literature on motivated reasoning (in social psychology) and on the biases and errors of reasoning (in cognitive psychology). They concluded that most of the bizarre and depressing research findings make perfect sense once you see reasoning as having evolved not to help us find truth but to help us engage in arguments, persuasion, and manipulation in the context of discussions with other people. (Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (p. 104). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.)

Biases and Belief Formation

Research in social science and psychology are uncovering myriad ways in which our minds play these mental tricks. For example, Daniel Kahneman discusses the impact emotional priming has on the formation of a subsequent idea. In one study, when participants were asked about happiness as it related to their romantic experiences, those that had a lot of dates in the past would report that they were happy about their life while those that had no dates reported being lonely, isolated, and rejected. But then when they subsequently were asked about their happiness in general, they imposed the context of their dating happiness to their happiness in general regardless of how good or bad the rest of their lives seemed to be going. If a person would have rated their overall happiness as "very happy" when asked questions about general happiness only, they might rate their overall happiness as "somewhat happy" if they were asked questions about their romantic happiness just prior and their romantic happiness was more negative than positive.

This type of priming can significantly impact how we view what is true. Being asked if we need more gun control or whether we should regulate fatty foods will change right after a local shooting right or after someone suffers a heart scare. The same situation will have two different responses by the same person depending on whether he or she was primed or not. Jonathan Haidt relates similar examples.

Psychologists now have file cabinets full of findings on 'motivated reasoning,' showing the many tricks people use to reach the conclusions they want to reach. When subjects are told that an intelligence test gave them a low score, they choose to read articles criticizing (rather than supporting) the validity of IQ tests. When people read a (fictitious) scientific study that reports a link between caffeine consumption and breast cancer, women who are heavy coffee drinkers find more flaws in the study than do men and less caffeinated women. (Haidt, p. 98)

There are many other biases that influence our thinking. When we ask the question, "what is knowledge?" this research has to be a part of how we answer the question. Biases and their influence would fall under the broad category of the justification condition we looked at earlier and the research should inform how we view how beliefs are justified. Justification is not merely the application of a philosophical formula. There are a host of psychological and social influences that are play when we seek to justify a belief and turn it into knowledge.2 We can also see how this research lends credence to the philosophical position of postmodernists. At the very least, even if we hold that we can get past our biases and get "more nearer to the truth," we at least have good reason to be careful about the things we assert as true and adopt a tentative stance towards the truth of our beliefs.

In a day when "fake news" is a big concern and the amount of information for which we're responsible grows each day, how we justify the beliefs we hold becomes a even more important enterprise. I'll use a final quote from Haidt to conclude this section:

And now that we all have access to search engines on our cell phones, we can call up a team of supportive scientists for almost any conclusion twenty-four hours a day. Whatever you want to believe about the causes of global warming or whether a fetus can feel pain, just Google your belief. You'll find partisan websites summarizing and sometimes distorting relevant scientific studies. Science is a smorgasbord, and Google will guide you to the study that's right for you. (Haidt, pp. 99-100)

Making Knowledge Practical

Well most of us aren't like Descartes. We actually have lives and don't want to spend time trying to figure out if we're the cruel joke of some clandestine mad scientist. But we actually do actually care about this topic whether we "know" it or not. A bit of reflection exposes just how important having a solid view of knowledge actually is and spending some focused time thinking more deeply about knowledge can actually help us get better at knowing.

Really, knowledge is a the root of many (dare I say most) challenges we face in a given day. Once you get past basic survival (though even things as basic as finding enough food and shelter involves challenges related to knowledge), we're confronted with knowledge issues on almost every front. Knowledge questions range from larger, more weighty questions like figuring out who our real friends are, what to do with our career, or how to spend our time, what politician to vote for, how to spend or invest our money, or should we be religious or not, to more mundane ones like which gear to buy for our hobby, how to solve a dispute between the kids, where to go for dinner, or which book to read in your free time. We make knowledge decisions all day, every day and some of those decisions deeply impact our lives and the lives of those around us.

So all these decisions we make about factors that effect the way we and others live are grounded in our view of knowledge-our epistemology. Unfortunately few spend enough time thinking about the root of their decisions and many make knowledge choices based on how they were raised (my mom always voted Republican so I will), what's easiest (if I don't believe in God, I'll be shunned by my friends and family), or just good, old fashioned laziness. But of all the things to spend time on, it seems thinking about how we come to know things should be at the top of the list given the central role it plays in just about everything we do.

Updated January, 2018: Removed dated material and general clean up; added section on cognitive biases.
Updated March, 2014: Removed reference to dated events; removed section on thought experiment; added section on Postmodernism; minor formatting changes

1. While many thinkers have written on cognitive biases in one form or another, Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind and Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking Fast and Slow have done seminal work to systemize and provide hard data around how the mind operates when it comes to belief formation and biases. There is much more work to be done for sure but these books, part philosophy, part psychology, part social science, provide the foundation for further study in this area. The field of study already is large and growing so I can only provide a thumbnail sketch of the influence of how belief formation is influenced by our mind and other factors. I refer the reader to the source material on this topic for further study (see reading list below). ↩

2. For a strategy on how we can adjust for these natural biases that our minds seem wired to create, see the Philosophy News article, " How to Argue With People". I also recommend Carol Dweck's excellent book Mindset. ↩

For Further Reading

Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses (Elements of Philosophy) by Laurence BonJour. One of the better introductions to the theory of knowledge. Written at the college level, this book should be accessible for most readers but have a good philosophical dictionary on hand.

Belief, Justification, and Knowledge: An Introduction to Epistemology (Wadsworth Basic Issues in Philosophy Series) by Robert Audi. This book has been used as a text book in college courses on epistemology so may be a bit out of range for the general reader. However, it gives a good overview of many of the issues in the theory of knowledge and is a fine primer for anyone interested in the subject.

The Theory of Knowledge: Classic and Contemporary Readings by Louis Pojman. Still one of the best books for primary source material. The edited articles have helpful introductions and Pojman covers a range of sources so the reader will get a good overview from many sides of the question. Written mainly as a textbook.

The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature by Steven Pinker.While not strictly a book about knowledge per se, Pinker's book is fun, accessible, and a good resource for getting an overview of some contemporary work being done mainly in the hard sciences.

The Selections From the Principles of Philosophy by René Descartes. A good place to start to hear from Descartes himself.

Descartes' Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict between Faith and Reason by Russell Shorto. This book is written as a history so it's not strictly a philosophy tome. However, it gives the general reader some insight into what Descartes and his contemporaries were dealing with and is a fun read.

On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt. One get's the sense that Frankfurt was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the small, engaging tract. It's more of a commentary on the social aspect of epistemology and worth reading for that reason alone. Makes a great gift!

On Truth by Harry Frankfurt. Like On Bullshit but on truth.

A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston. A handy reference for constructing logical arguments. This is a fine little book to have on your shelf regardless of what you do for a living.

Warrant: The Current Debate by Alvin Plantinga. Now over 25 years old, "current" in the title may seem anachronistic. Still, many of the issues Plantinga deals with are with us today and his narrative is sure to enlighten and prime the pump for further study.

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. The book to begin a study on cognitive biases.

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. A solid book that dabbles in cognitive biases but also in why people form and hold beliefs and how to start a conversation about them.

The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. A neo (or is it post?) Freudian analysis of why we do what we do. Essential reading for better understanding why we form the beliefs we do.

Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck. The title reads like a self-help book but the content is actually solid and helpful for developing an approach to forming and sharing ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this article, we explore a definition of knowledge and how the question 'what is knowledge?' differs from the question 'what is truth?' We'll look at a standard approach to defining knowledge and how postmodernists treat the problem of knowledge. We also look at how belief and what one believes relates to what one knows.

# data[].attributes.body
"Disagreement encourages the search for new knowledge"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowing What We Know - And What We Don't | Philosophy Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Philosophy Talk relies on the support of listeners like you to stay on the air and online. Any contribution, large or small, helps us produce intelligent, reflective radio that questions everything, including our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, culture, and the human condition.