WAYS OF KNOWING

Because the Ways of Knowing are processes or activities so natural to students, their problematic aspects, worthy of reflection, do not come readily to conscious or critical attention. The senses, through perception, seemingly provide a window on the world as it really is, and the emotions have seldom been viewed as an integral aspect of human awareness and intelligence. Additionally, the acquisition of a first language occurs so easily for most people, and communication with others is so effortless, that the influence of language in shaping thought is seldom noticed. Finally, the appeal of a well-constructed argument can be sensed even without any formal training in logic or other forms of reasoning.

The questions which follow are intended to stimulate and guide the reflection of students about these and related issues.

Perception

He who has been bitten by a snake fears a piece of string. (Persian proverb)

Because perception is the active, selective and interpretative process of recording or becoming conscious of the external world through sense experience, this experience should be examined and critically evaluated. The following questions may help students become aware of the nature and power of perception, and how it relates to knowledge acquisition, knowledge claims, and making sense of the world.

Nature of Perception

* In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its perception? If humans are sensitive only to certain ranges of stimuli, what consequences, including limitations, might this have for the acquisition of knowledge? How does technology extend and modify the capabilities of the senses?

* What are the implications of the following claim?

'By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies – all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable.'

(Aldous Huxley)

Limitations of Perception

* What is the role of culture and language in the perceptual process? Given the partially subjective nature of perception, how can different knowers ever agree on what is perceived? Do people with different cultural or linguistic backgrounds live, in some sense, in different worlds?

* How, and to what extent, might expectations, assumptions and beliefs affect perceptions? How, if at all, can factors which bias views of the world be recognized? Is all perception necessarily theory-laden? Do knowers have a moral duty to examine their own perceptual filters?

* It is often claimed that information and communication technologies are blurring the traditional distinctions between simulation and reality. If this is so, what might be the consequences?

* What can be meant by 'In the dream of the man who was dreaming, the dreamt man awoke'? (Jorge Luis Borges)

Linking Questions

* What is the role of perception in the various Areas of Knowledge? How does it differ across the disciplines? Is it more important in relation to some disciplines than others? Is there any knowledge which is completely independent of perception?

* Does perception perform fundamentally distinct functions in the arts and the sciences? To what extent is it true that the artist makes an advantage out of the subjective nature of perception, while the scientist regards it as an obstacle to be overcome?

* What can be meant by 'Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes'? (Panchatantra)

Language

Words are more powerful and treacherous than we think. (Sartre)

Language is so much a part of human activity that it is easily taken for granted. The issues related to language and knowledge call for conscious scrutiny in order to recognize its influence on thought and behaviour.

Nature of Language

* How have spoken sounds acquired meaning? What is the nature of the connection between the sounds and what they are taken to represent?

* Is it possible to think without language? How does language extend, direct, or even limit thinking?

* To what extent does language generalize individual experience, classifying it within the experience of the group? To what extent does a personal experience elude expression in language?

* Can language be compared with other human forms of symbolic representation, such as conventionalized gestures, sign language for the deaf, dance, painting, music or mathematics? What might language share with these other forms in the communication of what we know? In what ways might it be considered distinct?

* To what extent is knowledge implicit in language? For example, could it be said that 'Saturday is in bed' does not convey meaning, even though the sentence is syntactically correct, because of the prior knowledge that days of the week are not physical objects?

* How do computer languages compare with the conventional written and spoken languages of everyday discourse?

Language and Knowledge

* How does the capacity to communicate personal experiences and thoughts through language affect knowledge? To what extent does knowledge actually depend on language: on the transmission of concepts from one person or generation to another, and on exposure of concepts or claims to public scrutiny?

* How does language come to be known? Is the capacity to acquire language innate?

* If knowledge is based on an internal representation of the world does this imply that language is a necessary component of knowledge?

* In most of the statements heard, spoken, read or written, facts are blended with values. How can an examination of language distinguish the subjective biases and values which factual reports may contain? Why might such an examination be desirable?

* How apt is Voltaire's view that 'Error flies from mouth to mouth, from pen to pen, and to destroy it takes ages'?

Functions of Language

* What different functions does language perform? Which are most relevant in creating and communicating knowledge?

* What did Aldous Huxley mean when he observed that 'Words form the thread on which we string our experiences'?

* In what ways does written language differ from spoken language in its relationship to knowledge? Can control of written language create or reinforce power?

* Is it reasonable to argue for preservation of established forms of language? Is it reasonable to ask for one language common to the whole world?

* What is the role of language in creating and reinforcing social distinctions, such as class, ethnicity and gender?

* What is the role of language in sustaining relationships of authority? Do people speak the same way to inferiors and superiors in a hierarchy? Does the professional authority speak in the same way as the person seeking opinion or advice?

* What may have been meant by the comment 'How strangely do we diminish a thing as soon as we try to express it in words'? (Maurice Maeterlinck)

Language and Culture

* If people speak more than one language, is what they know different in each language? Does each language provide a different framework for reality?

* How is the meaning of what is said affected by silences and omissions, pace, tone of voice and bodily movement? How might these factors be influenced in turn by the social or cultural context?

* What is lost in translation from one language to another? Why?

* To what degree might different languages shape in their speakers different concepts of themselves and the world? What are the implications of such differences for knowledge?

Linking Questions

* In completing the sentence, 'I know that . . .', one is making a knowledge claim. Why is it useful or necessary to express knowledge claims? Are there Areas of Knowledge where it is expected or required? Are there Ways of Knowing where it is not?

* To what extent is it possible to overcome ambiguity and vagueness in language? In what contexts might ambiguity either impede knowledge or contribute to it? Does the balance between precision and ambiguity alter from one discipline to another?

Reason

A chain of reasoning is no stronger than its weakest link. (Anon)

It is often the case that when disputes arise over knowledge claims, what is at issue is not only the substance or facts of the matter, but also the logic or reasons given for acceptance of the facts, and the procedures used in reaching a conclusion. The questions in this section probe the nature, value and limits of reason, and the techniques associated with the logical rigour that many suppose is a shared standard of evaluation.

Nature of Reason

* What constitutes 'good reason' and 'good arguments'? What is the value of learning to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments?

* What constitutes a 'good reason' for belief? Is a persuasive reason necessarily grounded in truth?

* How accurate is the definition of logic as the study of form in argument, irrespective of the subject matter. Is this form/content distinction found in other Ways of Knowing or Areas of Knowledge?

* Does the nature of reason vary across cultures?

Reason and Knowledge

* Does knowledge always require some kind of rational basis?

* If knowledge claims cannot be rationally defended, or can be shown to be irrational, should they be renounced?

* What may be meant by Nietzsche's comment that 'Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme which we cannot escape'?

Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason

* Why are informal fallacies often plausible and convincing? When, where, and how can they be formulated?

* How do beliefs affect the capacity to reason logically and the capacity to recognize valid arguments? How do they affect the capacity to recognize fallacies and rationalization?

* What, if any, are the advantages of expressing arguments in symbolic terms (for example, p^q)? Are the ambiguity and vagueness of conventional language eliminated by this formulation?

* If logic puzzles are formulated in highly contrived terms, such as 'liars' and 'truth-tellers', do such formulations diminish or emphasize the relevance and role of logic as a useful tool to demonstrate a point?

* In what ways can the person presenting an argument and the context in which it is made influence its acceptance or rejection?

* In everyday discourse, the 'rational' choice is usually equated with the 'best' choice. Does this conjunction hold in all social contexts?

* What did Pascal mean by the comment that 'The last function of reason is to recognize that there are an infinity of things which surpass it'? To what things does he refer?

* What are the implications of Patrick Shawe's claim that 'When ... disagreements occur ... [where] competing claims cannot be easily and obviously tested, attention is bound to turn to the route by which a controversial conclusion was reached. We are forced to become self-conscious about the reasoning process. How far reasoning will take us remains to be seen, but so far as it leads we must be sure that it is sound'?

Linking Questions

* What may be meant by André Gide's comment that 'What eludes logic is the most precious element in us, and one can draw nothing from a syllogism that the mind has not put there in advance'?

* What role does formal logic play in arriving at, and justifying knowledge? How does this role compare with the roles of the other Ways of Knowing? Does the role of formal logic affect the degree of certainty in, or the social status of, the various Areas of Knowledge?

* Is it correct to think that what constitutes a good reason varies from discipline to discipline and from culture to culture? What are the implications of the answer to this question when disputes arise among practitioners and between cultures?

* Attempts have been made to identify universal, self-evident and incontrovertible 'laws of logic'. The 'law of identity' (for example, 'an apple is an apple') or the 'law of non-contradiction' (for example, 'nothing can be an apple and also a non-apple'). Are these actually 'laws' in the scientific sense of the term, or are they 'axioms'? How do they compare with axioms in mathematics, and with foundational, underlying beliefs we take for granted in other Areas of Knowledge?

Emotion

[Emotion] has the advantage of being open to all, the weak and the lowly, the illiterate and the scholar. It is seen to be as efficacious as any other method and is sometimes said to be stronger than the others, since it is its own fruition, while other methods are means to some other ends. (Bhagavad Gita)

Although many have felt the power of emotions in shaping thoughts and influencing behaviour, there are those who believe that emotions are an obstacle in the pursuit of knowledge. While emotions may be a key to self-understanding and to understanding the world, the extent to which they contribute to both can be explored through a discussion of the following questions.

Nature of Emotion

* Can feelings have a rational basis? Would it be better or worse if emotions could be justified? Are emotions and feelings essential? Is 'emotional intelligence' an oxymoron?

* Can there be 'correct' or 'appropriate' emotional responses? Is it 'correct' to be horrified by accounts of torture?

* Is it possible to experience an emotion, a feeling, an attitude or sensibility that cannot be expressed in language? Can an emotion, such as love or grief, have its origins in, or be shaped by, language?

* Is the knowledge gained from emotional responses influenced by culture? Are concepts such as patriotism and racism examples of collective emotions? What does it mean to be responsible for our emotions? Can emotions be classified as 'good' or 'bad'? Do emotional responses emanate from cultural influences?

Emotion and Knowledge

* Does emotion reside in the realm of private knowledge in the sense that it cannot be verified by others? Is all private knowledge necessarily some form of emotion? Is physical pain or hunger an emotion? Can people be wrong about their own emotions? Do people have, in some sense, exclusive access to their emotions or can others lead them to recognize previously unknown emotions?

* Is there any kind of knowledge which can be attained solely through emotion? Is the answer to the question dependent on factors such as gender, age, culture, and/or socioeconomic group?

* Is emotion an essential ingredient of scientific or artistic knowledge? Can there be creativity without emotion?

Linking Questions

* What part does emotion play in the acquisition of knowledge? Does the role of emotion vary across the different Areas of Knowledge? Should emotion play such a role in the evaluation of knowledge claims?

* Is an action morally justifiable if it feels right? What part do, or should, emotions play in the formation of moral judgements or political judgements? Do people act their way into feeling or feel their way into action? In other words, are the motives for involvement emotionally prompted? At what point, if any, may the motives for involvement in the Creativity, Action, Service programme be emotionally prompted?

* Is faith purely emotional or is it possible to provide a rational justification for religious belief? Is emotion a source of spiritual knowledge? If so, how can we justify discussing spiritual matters in public?