Theory of Knowledge, Essay Example

In order to discuss the accuracy and validity of the statement “Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts,” one must first define the word ‘systematic’ in regards to how knowledge is acquired and arranged. According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, ‘systematic’ as an adjective can refer to 1), having, showing, or involving a system, method, or plan, such as a systematic course of readings in an area of study; 2), methodology or using a method to arrange something systematically, such as the Library of Congress method for arranging books in an academic library; 3), something that is arranged as an ordered system; and 4), classification, such as the systematic approach to classifying plant and animal groups as individual genus and phylum.

Although knowledge itself is often arranged systematically, such as found in a set of encyclopedias or in a textbook, it is far more than a mere “systematic organization of facts” because some knowledge is not based on fact but on theory and assumption, such as with scientific theories and hypothesis on a particular subject or topic of interest and study. Some knowledge is also based on human emotion and experience, an example being a person who learns the hard way that driving while intoxicated is not a good idea. In simple terms, knowledge is what one knows or believes is true; it is also what occurs when a medical researcher or historian discovers something new about how a disease affects the human body or why a specific historical event happened.

Of course, exactly how knowledge is systematically arranged or collected depends on the source of the knowledge itself. This especially applies to two areas of knowledge–first, the area of mathematical knowledge and second, the area of scientific knowledge. Both of these are interlinked with the theory of knowledge or TOK, wherein subjects and/or disciplines are classified, organized, and arranged in a logical manner. This is also linked to the various ways of knowing which includes sense perception or perceiving the world via the five physical senses (especially sight and sound); language or a symbolic system that allows knowledge to be gained through communication and experience; reason or logic, being a “way of knowing that involves different elements” via a “collective endeavor by which people construct meaning together by exchanging, modifying and improving” ideas, theories, and assumptions; and lastly, human emotion which plays a “powerful role in shaping thoughts, influencing behavior, and steering the pursuit of knowledge.”

In the case of mathematical and scientific knowledge, both of which are composed of known facts and a great deal of theory and assumption and which are routinely organized systematically, such as in a book on algebra or calculus or a treatise on the scientific principles of evolution, the two sources of knowledge that play significant roles are rationalism and empiricism. Endorsed by such brilliant philosophers as Rene Descartes and Spinoza, rationalism is based on the idea that true knowledge can only be gained non-experientially through the use of reason and logic. In contrast, philosophers like John Locke and David Hume endorsed empiricism or gaining knowledge through experience, observation, and testing, such as in a laboratory or a research center. As James Fieser points out, the empiricists “felt that non-experiential reasoning would give us nothing” and that personal experience was the only path to true knowledge.

Indeed, the area of mathematical knowledge is more or less a collection or arrangement of numbers and symbols that represent mathematical fact or truth; also, as opposed to scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge is more akin to statistics, meaning that mathematics relies on numbers, symbols, and equations to express mathematical truth or certainty as in a chart or graph that displays statistical facts through numbers and percentages.

According to Benedikt Lowe and Thomas Muller, mathematical knowledge is most closely aligned with propositional knowledge, such as with a mathematical expression or equation that proposes whether something is true or false. In addition, Lowe and Muller declare that mathematical knowledge is “not really about knowing the true value of theorems” and assumptions, but about “knowing the techniques and ideas behind their proofs” or knowing how and why a certain type of mathematical truth exists.

In relation to the area of mathematical knowledge being a “systematic organization of facts,” Lowe and Muller point out that mathematicians are prone to grouping together various mathematical principles in order to solve a mathematical problem or in some instances to assess a person’s skills through statistical measurement.

This is often referred to as clustering which ranges from assessing talent and ability (i.e., assessing a person’s ability to repair a bicycle or drive a car) to clusters that assess the mathematical possibility of a particular equation or assumption.

In regards to the area of scientific knowledge, the empirical approach appears to be the most conducive to establishing facts and truth, such as conducting an experiment in a laboratory under controlled conditions or observing chemical reactions when two substances are mixed together. Much like mathematical knowledge, the greatest amount of scientific knowledge has been collected or arranged thanks to empiricism which Carl J. Wenning describes as being founded on the classical knowledge of the ancient Greeks who firmly believed that “logic, connected to verification though observation or experimentation, leads to knowledge” and that the empirical approach yields the most accurate information and data when coupled with reason and solid physical evidence.

Also, Wenning maintains that theories serve as the “hallmark of scientific understanding” and the knowledge that comes about when a particular theory is proven to be true or false. More often than not, scientific knowledge like mathematical knowledge is grouped together or clustered into a system of “unified data” or a “systematic organization of facts.” Thus, theories and the knowledge that arises from testing them against physical empirical evidence often end up as a form of “unified data” in a textbook which of course is systematically arranged via categories and groupings.  In essence then, whether scientific or mathematical, knowledge is truly “nothing more than the systematic organization of facts” such as one would find in an encyclopedia or a textbook on astronomy or algebra. However, the key word here is ‘facts,’ meaning that some knowledge is not based on facts but on personal perceptions and observations that often have nothing to do with logic or reason.

Bibliography

Fieser, James. Chapter 6: Knowledge. 2011. http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/6-knowledge.htm.

Lowe, Benedikt, and Thomas Muller. Skills and Mathematical Knowledge. 2010. http://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Reports/PP-2010-11.text.pdf.

Random House Dictionary of the English Language. 2013. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/systematic.

Ways of Knowing. 2014. http://crosslandibtok.wikispaces.com/Ways+of+Knowing.

Wenning, Carl J. Scientific Epistemology: How Scientists Know What They Know. 2009 http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf.