“Without the group to verify it, knowledge is not possible.” Discuss
- In this claim, it states that individual information is not to be considered knowledge, but rather only shared knowledge. This relates back to the idea of shared vs personal information (exactly what it sounds like; shared amongst a group of people vs only verified/known by one person). However, I do not agree with it. I believe that there is value within the knowledge of the individual that is not impacted by the cognitive biases of the others present in their surroundings. Humans are consistently open to error, therefore it cannot be decided for every context that only shared or individual information is accurate, but rather smarter to accept the value within both.
In the arts there are a variety of different type of information, classified mainly into two; logical and creative. The logical side of information is concrete facts that can be incorporated, or ignored, as the artist wishes. The creative is, alternatively, a source of information that stems from ones own imagination or perception of the world around them, rather than a concrete set of facts that dictate our universe.
All claims in art are open to being shared and discussed. All who view and create art come equipped with their own set of values and beliefs, leading them to have differing opinions from one another. This is, what I believe, to be one of the many beautiful aspects of art; the diversity. All claims are open to suggestion and discussion as there is no one right or wrong answer, but rather a selection of answers to debate and play around with to gain a desired effect.
Reflecting on our discussions in class, and with inspiration from the TED video, what
distinguishes Natural Science from other AOKs?
Unlike many other AOKs, science is often confirmed by several large groups of people before being accepted as factual. As Naomi Oreskes states, we often ‘fall back’ onto the Natural Sciences as they are viewed as being more factual than any other AOK because they are concerned with the world around us rather than being subjective to human nature, as many of the others are. A problem within this however would be the same as with logic; induction. Many complex theories are formed as a result of an observation, which is then proved with the presence of empirical evidence. However, as with logic, the framework being present to structure the argument does not guarantee its accuracy. It is interesting to see how what is considered as being the most factual of all the AOKs is not necessarily any more reliable than, say, the Arts.
Pure logic is only concerned with the structure of arguments. The validity of an argument is independent of the truth or falsity of its premises.
I agree with this argument. In my opinion, logic is the thought process and system for determining the framework of arguments. It does not determine whether or not an argument will be true or false, as it is rather a way to structure reasoning rather than a specific truth. Pure logic is reasoning that can be applied to a wide variety of situations, but does not determine the extent to which the argument one makes will or will not be accurate.
As an example, drugs;
- Consistent drug use can alter ones brain chemistry
- Altering ones brain chemistry can result in long term detrimental effects to ones mental health
Conclusion: drugs are bad.
While this argument is, in fact, logical, it is not accurate in all situations. Drug abuse can, and often is, a bad decision that has harmful consequences, however could the same logic not be applied to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy? Chemotherapy has numerous health consequences, however in the longterm can cure one of their cancer. Therefore, the aforementioned argument cannot be applied to this example without being inaccurate. Furthermore, antidepressants;
- The SSRIs John’s psychiatrist prescribed him made him want to jump off a roof
- Jumping off of roofs can lead to death
Conclusion: SSRIs lead to suicide
Often Bipolar disorder is misdiagnosed as its more common cousin depression, and the patient is prescribed SSRI’s. Their consistent ingestion of this species of antidepressants can lead to an increased risk of suicide, as a result of the way the inhibitor reacts with their brain chemistry. Is this to suggest that SSRIs are, inherently, bad? No, it is not. It was a human error, that one could apply subjective logic to to question the reliability of antidepressants as a whole.
Therefore, pure logic is not concerned with the accuracy of its argument, but rather the general ideals and reasoning surrounding all arguments.
“The vagueness and ambiguity of language always limits the production of knowledge”
It should be aforementioned that in different regions across the world, different words have very, very different connotations. Take, for example, the word ‘moist’. Maybe it makes you shudder, or mayb;e it makes you moist. If you’re like me, that’ll make you uncomfortable. I was brought up for the greater half of my life in the UK, which most likely lead me to despise said adjective. I should probably give you some context…
In 2016, a least liked word survey was done in the UK.
Betty Crocker, a famous renowned N’American brand, has this popular selling item.
So what caused this discrepancy in meaning? Cultural, or lack thereof, differences. If even within one language there is such variance, what is to be expected to be lost between two complete opposite languages?