Language and Mind, Essay Example

“There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Knowledge Questions

Natural scientific theory is based on the continued experimentation, specifically attempts to prove and disprove hypothesise. Through testing hypothesise, people acquire new scientific knowledge. Observation, on the other hand, relies on perception and it ties into the body of knowledge that deals with moral principals. The knowledge question poses the possibility that these are currently the only two ways of knowing. Depending on whether or not one believes a cognizant mind can function passively and also hold the position that there are no other ways of producing knowledge outside of a passive state, through observation or through an active experiment, then the question can be answered directly with a simple I agree. The problem is I do not agree with this statement as it disregards many other ways of knowing such as acquiring knowledge through an authority, or the use of intuition, revelation, or inspiration. There is also reason or logic, which falls under the classification of rationalism, that the question disregards as well. This opens up a range of questions though. For example, one can gain knowledge through observation or experiment, but the act of observing or experimenting on a particular knowledge subject can potentially influence that subject in such a way that the knowledge could be tainted or modified. This would not be true knowledge of something, just knowledge of a particular element once it has been impacted by an outside force. Regardless, I disagree with the question as it overlooks three substantial ways of knowing, specifically authority, intuition/inspiration/revelation, and reason/logic.

Ways of Knowing

To truly answer the question, one must consider all ways of knowing (WOK) as a factor. and assess to what degree those ways of knowing could be considered passive observation or experimentation.

Emotion

Emotion entails the relationship between a cognitive functions and points of physiological arousal. It could be argued that knowledge produced from a physiologically cause of emotional response constitutes the production of knowledge through passive observation. This ties into the James-Lange theory of emotions (Cannon, 1927). On the other hand, the idea that  emotional response to cognitive labels of physiological arousal constitutes what Schachter & Singer (1962) call knowledge production through active experimentation is another way of classifying knowledge acquired through emotion. An example of both could be a situation where a child put his hand on a hot stove and gets burned verses a child seeing his mother put her hand on a hot stove and watching her get burned. In both instances the child forms an emotional response from the event that established the knowledgeable fact “do not put your hand on a hot stove”.  The first incident is an example of producing knowledge from an emotion gained through experimentation, while the second example the child produces knowledge from an emotion drawn from passive observation. Both examples reaffirm the statement in question 2 that passive observation and experimentation may be the only two ways of knowing. The problem is that there are other ways of knowing such as knowledge produce through authority, reason, or revelation that don’t rely on passive observation or experimentation.

Reason/Logic (Rationalism)

Reason, or logic, does not rely on simply on the limits of observation or experimentation. It predominantly relies on internal consistencies molded by rules of logic. The most standard example of reason would be for one to use their common sense as a way of knowing. It could be argued that these internal consistencies on which people base their logic are originally based on a collection of observations or experiments which now result in one knowing something through reason or logic alone; but, that would still negate the question and its notion that there are only two ways of knowing, as logic in this example as an WOK is birthed out of observation and experimentation as a third way of knowing. In addition to this, the logic or reasoning that one utilizes to know something might not come from a collection of observations they made or experiments they personally performed but they may base their knowledge on the observations and experiments of an authority. Utilizing the wisdom of an authority is a fourth WOK that the question overlooks.

Authority

One can feel they know something, or acquire knowledge through an authority without putting any real effort towards personal observations or experimentation. In this scenario the knowledge acquired could be indirectly based on passive observations and experimentation performed by the authority, but in reality the knowledge is based on the credibility of that authority and whichever way the authority comes about the information is not considered. This almost completely confirms that the question is false, and demonstrates why there are more than two ways of knowing because both passive observation and experimentation are non-factors in respect to utilizing authorities as a way of knowing. For example, if one bases their knowledge of a certain public event, like the facts of a crime or the death of someone famous on information provided to them by a newscaster, that could be considered relying on the observations and experimentation of an authority. The problem with this is that newscasters and journalists often issue retractions of the information they provide because instead of making the observations themselves or performing the experiments themselves they base their knowledge on an authority, who in turn does the same with another authority, who in turn based their knowledge  on presumed observations or experiments that never actually occurred.  In this way knowledge can get lost or diluted but also in this way knowledge is assumed or acquired without the contribution of passive observation or experimentation. There is also the more intangible way of knowing (WOK), which should be considered but doesn’t necessarily prove question 2 as false; this way of knowing would be intuition/inspiration/revelation.

Intuition/ Inspiration / Revelation

This path to knowledge is not the most conventional path to knowing something as it entails relying on one’s internal gut instincts. In many cases, the knowledge acquired this way can be perceived as powerful and can have a deep impact on someone’s life, but to assume that one comes about a revelation with absolutely now used of passive observation or experimentation would be naive. The idea of one acquiring knowledge through intuition or inspiration, essentially involves them tapping into cumulative memories of observations. This is more a form of producing knowledge through memory than anything else. For example, an artist inspired to be make something original must first rely on his memory of past works and then build on those memories to create something seemingly new. The new art the artist produces is only as new as the modifications he makes to old ways of thinking. An example of this can be seen with modern music today and how Hip-Hop music evolved out of jazz and rock and roll. Revelation, inspiration, and intuition as ways of knowing are significantly vulnerable to error. While scientific hypothesis may not always be correct, and in fact in “The Half-life of Facts” Kuchment argues that half of all established knowledge is discard as time progresses. The bulk of this discarded knowledge happens through a process of scientific discoveries that disprove previous discoveries. This does not change the fact that experimentation as well as observation are based on finite evidence, while intuition, inspiration and revelations are based on instinct.  This exposes them to potential error and distinctly separates them from relying on experimentation or observation as a concrete source of information. For example, in the same previous scenario used with the child putting his hand on a hot stove or observing his mother putting his hand on a hot stove and gaining the knowledge not to do it through an emotional response, the same child could form the revelation that this time he will not burn his hand if he puts it on the hot stove. This revelation could be based on the same information gained from his previous observation and experimentation, except he just has an intuitive feeling or vision that produces different knowledge.

Conclusion

In sum, I do not agree with the notion that passive observation and experimentation are the only ways of knowing for humankind. While passive observation and experimentation are pertinent within a wide range of the ways of knowing (WOK), there are many WOKs to which they do not apply. The prime example of these would be producing knowledge through the use of an authority or producing knowledge through reason or logic. Producing knowledge based on information provided by an authority is clearly a different way of knowing (WOK) when related to passive observation or experimentation. In regards to producing knowledge through reason or logic there is the possibility that one could form logic or base their reasoning on previous observations or experimental results which could classify it as an extension of passive observation and experimentation. Scholarly research on the subject of logic argues against this notion. As Henle, M. (1962) notes the main two positions on the relationship between logic and thinking are “the older view that logic is the science of thought, and the position more widely held at present that its relation to thinking is normative only… . [Ordinary] thinking, more often than not, does not assume the form of the syllogism, and… errors in reasoning are frequent… . [But] even where the thinking process results in error, it can often be shown that it does not violate the rules of the syllogism” (Henle, 1962). What the author means by ‘syllogism’ is the act of producing a result through deductive reasoning. When Henle notes that when even when people base their logic on normative thinking, ordinary thinking based on standard beliefs which is prone to error, it still does not violate the tenants of syllogism. This means one can logically assert that they know something that is untrue and never perceive it to be untrue. In this way, it’s clear how logic and reasoning don’t fall within the realm of passive observation or experimentation as both ways of knowing are based on some fundamental testable hypothesis. Personal observations or experimental results can be proven or disproved, while logic based on false premises just results in false knowledge and even a valid premise put through deductive reasoning is still subject to the potential error that logic can produce. This does not mean that logic and reason do not constitute a way of knowing it just affirms that passive observation and experimentation are of a distinctly different branch within WOK classifications, also proving the statement in question 2 to be false. It should also be noted that I personally used deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion, so I might be false as well.

References

Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (p. 100). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cannon, W. B. (1927). The James-Lange theory of emotions: a critical examination and an alternative theory. The American Journal of Psychology.

Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological review, 69(4), 366.

Kuchment, A. (2012). The Half-Life of Facts. Scientific American, 307(4), 90-91.

Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological review, 69(5), 379.