Theory of Knowledge Perspectives - Essay Example

There are Many Different ities Including Academics, Politicians, Global Organizations and Companies, who Make Knowledge Claims. As an Experienced ToK Student, What Criteria do you use to Distinguish Between Knowledge, Opinion and Propaganda? Much has been written on the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) perspective. Bertrand Russell summarized it well, “Theory of Knowledge is a product of doubt…in the hope of being able to distinguish trustworthy beliefs from such as are untrustworthy.” (“Theory of Knowledge for the Encyclopaedia Britannica”). This definition however brings about questions, such as defining trustworthy and untrustworthy. Indeed, ToK can raise many questions: exactly how is a problem defined, what is one’s approach to solving the problem, is it valid, is the information associated with the problem fact or truth, and then how are those concepts measured. These and other questions are important with ToK, and equally appropriate in selecting criteria distinguishing between knowledge, opinion, and propaganda. With ToK, a question does not always get a direct answer. Trying to select criteria to distinguish between the three types of information noted, considering ToK, cannot yield a definite answer either. Each of the three listed words has varied definitions, often as a function of the author of the definition. For example, for the word knowledge, John Locke (1689) stated, “Knowledge is the perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas.” (“Book IV, Of Knowledge and Probability,” Knowledge). Almost five centuries later, Princeton’s WordNet Search 2.1 defines knowledge as, “the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.” (“Knowledge,” WordNet Search). The Random House Dictionary of the English Language has a 10-part definition, the first part defining knowledge as “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.” (“Knowledge,” Random House Dictionary). The varied definitions directly impact the differentiation. The Princeton definition is psychologically based, similar to opinion. Using the Random House definition, knowledge is not similar to opinion, and clear differentiation could be possible. Selecting a definition becomes a matter of value judgment and inherent bias as a function of who selects the definitions. Though injecting bias, selecting working definitions was necessary to perform the task at hand. It is acknowledged that the outcome of the paper could have been different with a different “bias,” though significant attempts were made to minimize this factor. Russell, in addressing a similar concern, noted “no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true.” (“Theory of Knowledge for the Encyclopedia Britannica”) This holds true for all three words. Propaganda, for example, has a negative connotation, and is generally tied to political communications. Case in point: it is often alleged in Western nations that the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera network televises “nothing but propaganda,” broadcasting what the ruling party wants the people to know or think, whether reality-based (translation: Western-based) or not. In America, a nation based on independence and free thought, such “thought control” is perceived quite negatively. But is there anyone who can state, without interpretative bias, what exactly is being shown on Al-Jazeera and, most importantly, why? Therefore is it propaganda? Opinion is less challenging to define, as it does not have the polar connotations of propaganda (fiction) or knowledge (fact). The Random House Dictionary’s first definition of opinion reads, “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty.” (“Opinion”). And, while opinion may “serve an agenda,” it has the presumption of belonging to an individual, not an organization or government “…opinion is thought to be merely subjective, or private in its efficacy.” (“Opinion,” Glossary of Philosophical Terms, Acronyms, & Technical Terms). Having defined knowledge, opinion, and propaganda, it becomes evident that the criterion that distinguishes the three is human interpretation. Consider the statement: The Bush Administration is using racial profiling at airports to harass persons who appear to be of Middle-Eastern descent. This could be considered propaganda: political in nature, aimed at serving an agenda. A Republican might consider it so. There is little explanation of what exactly the Administration is doing to harass Middle Easterners and the statement presents an unflattering picture of President Bush. The Republican might have thought that the statement was made by a Democrat to hurt Bush and the Republicans. Given the working definition of propaganda, that designation would be appropriate. However, it could also be opinion. It is “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty.” Is there a legally accepted definition for “racial profiling” that is commonly accepted? And, are statistics kept on who is harassed, and why, at airports, and what is harassment and who is considered of Middle-Eastern descent? The statement does reflect a belief or judgment, and there are not enough facts to produce certainty. If the statement is made by an individual, thus being “private” in its efficacy, the statement would likely be considered opinion. Using Russell’s definition of knowledge as “belief in agreement with the facts,” one could interpret the statement as knowledge, too. Racial profiling, whether called as such, is in place at airports (Derbyshire 2001) across the United States under the auspices of the government. Technically, the sentence is factual, and if an individual’s belief on this issue was in agreement with the facts as presented and implied in the statement, this could be considered knowledge. Russell noted it is difficult to determine what is factual. There is no unequivocal definition, one that cannot be disproved, for actions or statements people make on a day-to-day basis. Words and actions, the content of most propaganda/opinion/knowledge, are all subject to interpretation. A word can never be unequivocally defined as there is no such thing as a “factual” definition of a word. When one considers the millions of words in the English language; plus the differences in inflection, tone, and accent; on top of the non-verbal aspect of communication, that there are significant differences in word meaning and communication which leads to variability in interpretation and meaning is inevitable. Similarly, there can be no “fact” assigned to actions or events, again limiting the possibilities for knowledge. When the media covered the December 2004 tsunami in the South Pacific, many people were upset, felt helpless, or tried to help as they could when they saw the victims. But not everyone. Some people felt the victims brought devastation on themselves by living in a coastal area, others simply were not interested in people thousands of miles away. If an individual shared information about the victims, what they said could be propaganda, opinion, or knowledge, depending on whether they spoke based on hard data (i.e. death counts), feelings, or what they thought they saw on television or read in the news. An individual’s response to the tsunami, if expressed to another, would be a function of their interpretation or significance attached to the event, making “factual” data unlikely. Upon review, it appears that knowledge, opinion, and propaganda are inextricably linked, actually three points on a continuum. On the far right of the continuum is propaganda, here defined as “a type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture.” (“Propaganda,” Sourcewatch) When the listener hears the propaganda, and decides they agree (or disagree) with the position stated (factual, partisan, or not), what was propaganda shifts to (personal) opinion. At this point, the information, as opinion, is at the middle of the continuum. The listener, who has now formed an opinion based on information they have heard, in the absence of information to disprove that of the propagandist, may internalize the information as knowledge. This is conditional upon the listener deciding that what they heard is fact. If so, the information moves to the left of the continuum, as knowledge. Considering the three words on a continuum, rather than distinguishing them, supports analysis consistent with ToK theory. Russell indicated that theory of knowledge deals with distinguishing truth from error. (3). There is, a priori, an element of error in attempting to identify specific criteria to delineate concepts that are not specific. A continuum approach supports the idea that each dimension of information - propaganda, opinion, knowledge – has “shades” of one or both of the other dimensions and is not discrete. Though it may be presumptuous to say that this approach is closer to the “truth,” as “truth” cannot be defined, this approach does address the difficulties in trying to force one working definition for each word, as well as selecting criteria that is sensitive to each word. As noted, there is no benchmark, no standard, to determine if information is fact or fiction, yet this is necessary to differentiate propaganda, opinion, and knowledge. There will be no standard as long as human beings are involved in the interpretation of language. Some information is factual – generally in the areas of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and related sciences. However, the essence of a fact - reproducible, absolutely consistent, devoid of emotions – contradicts human nature. What separates human beings from objects/facts, are the very points noted above. Emotions, variation, intelligence, these make humans capable of forming opinions, of considering information as factual or not or consistent with their beliefs. Indeed, Theory of Knowledge is predicated upon this, upon the ability to think and analyze. It is also this ability to think and analyze that renders distinguishing between the three dimensions of information a Sisyphean task. Works Cited Derbyshire, John. “At First Glance – Racial Profiling, Burning Hotter – World Trade Center and Pentagon Attacks, 2001.” National Review , Oct. (2001) “Knowledge.” 10 May 2004. http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/knowledge/knowledge.html “Knowledge.” WordNet Search 2.1. 2005. Princeton University. 19 Dec. 2005 . “Knowledge.” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged Edition. 1981. “Opinion.” Glossary of Philosophical Terms, Acronyms, & Technical Terms. Houston Community College – Northwest. 19 Dec. 2005 . “Opinion.” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Unabridged Edition. 1981 “Propaganda.” Sourcewatch. 9 Dec. 2005. Center for Media and Democracy. 19 Dec. 2005 . “Theory of Knowledge for The Encyclopaedia Britannica.” 19 Dec. 2005 . Read More