Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
take sides in significant debates in an•mannerinformedappreciate and be curious about the•of others.perspectives2 explores the phenomena of posttruthism,Chaptermisinformation and distrust inthat have surfaced prominently inexpertiselast decade. Chapter 7 examines scientifictheand denialism in depth. We turncontroversyto examining how we, as individualsnowknowers, deal with what appears to beandnew normal: political polarization andtheexperts are divided, and we are notWhenourselves, whom do we trust? Oneexpertsis to consider the positions andapproachof other experts carefully and tojudgmentsthe majority opinion. The philosopherdiscernBaggini, for example, prescribes a “triageJulianWhich kind of expert in this area should•choose? IWhich particular expert is worth listening to•(Baggini 2017).here?”and authority manifest differently acrossExpertiseFor example, a dentist informing you ofdomains.cavity and an economist providing a forecast ofagrowth are different propositions eveneconomicboth experts are qualified to do what they do.ifknow that many economists are wrong in theirWebut we continue to listen to them topredictions,the consensus opinion—such is the naturediscerntheir domain. If you are not religious, and/orofnot believe in God, then a theologian or priestdohave little influence on your opinions—butmightdoes it mean to not believe in science orwhathow we think about expertise isOften,by the opinions of experts thatinfluencedalready trust; this seemingly innocuousweclaim has profound implications,knowledgethat your history and context, oversuggestingyou may have had little control, influencewhichorientation to new knowledge generally,yourexpertise specifically. The further implicationandthat to know something, you must also knowisA triage or any other framework foryourself.about expertise is not a substitutethinkingyour good judgment. Jean-Paul Sartreforthis predicament, and the unavoidabledescribesof judgment that falls on all of us.responsibilityyou seek counsel—from a priest, for example—youIfselected that priest; and at bottom you alreadyhavethe ways in which your knowledgeConsiderbeen influenced by what experts thinkhasHow important have experts been for the1.you have gained?knowledgeDo you regularly refer to expert2.for the claims you make?knowledgeRecall a situation when you have3.contradicting expert opinions.encounteredpeople at some point encounter opinions,Manyideas and claims that they consider tobeliefs,false, inaccurate and/or immoral. How webesuch claims has implications for how wenavigaterelationships with other people, how wenavigateabout politics, who we vote for and manythinkthe other decisions we take over a lifetime. Dooffor example, avoid the category of offensivewe,and the people who hold them? Are weclaimstheir values might negatively influenceafraidSome caution is certainly warranted, but theus?to avoid some categories of belief and/orinstinctcloses us off to other perspectives and worldpeoplewith the risk that we stop learning. It alsoviews,II. PerspectivesII. Perspectivesknew, more or less, what he would advise.scientificdenialism.(Sartre 1946)II.1 Appeals to authorityFor ref lectionExpert opinionof truth” with three questions.and say.• “Are there any experts in this domain?How did you decide whom to trust?II.2 Intellectual humilityscientificexpertise?privileges our current cognitive perspective, which9
II. Perspectivesmay have inherited from parents or arrivedweunintentionally. When differences of belief andatare widespread, what makes you trustopinioncurrent perspective? How did you arrive atit?yoursees a bird in the garden and believes it’s aFrankStanding beside him, Gita sees the same bird,nch.she’s condent it’s a sparrow. What responsebutwe expect from Frank and Gita?shoulduseful attitude to cultivate is to think ofAas generally contestable. Section IVbeliefshow to engage with abhorrent beliefs,considersthe resulting judgment of the people whoandapproaches should we take whenWhatby disagreement? Consider theconfrontedanecdote, by Klemens Kappel, professorfollowingphilosophy at the University of Copenhagen.ofboth Frank and Gita become less confident inIfjudgment, the result is a conciliatory responsetheirallows for learning and change, a characteristicthatintellectual humility. When spotting birds inofgarden, it is relatively easy for us to be openmindedthelike this: our identities and wellbeingnot at stake. Disagreements that extend intoareand identity are in a different category.politicsbelieves that a particular homeopathic treatmentAmycure her common fever … Amy believes that therewillsolid evidence for her claim … as well as testimonyisgot from experienced homeopaths whom shesheBen believes that any medical interventiontrusts.be tested in randomised controlled studies,shouldthat no sound inferences are to be drawn fromandprinciples, since they are shown to behomeopathicby the principles of physics and chemistry…falseunderstands all this, but thinks that it merelyAmyBen’s naturalistic perspective on humanreectswhich she rejects. There is more to humannature,(and their diseases) than can be accuratelybeingsin Western scientic medicine, which reliescaptureddiscuss reductionist approaches in depth inWe7. Chapteryou were Ben or Amy, what would you do? WhatIfhave here is a deep disagreement, in whichweparties cannot change their opinion withoutbothchanging the structure of their reasoning, theiralsoviews and value systems. Typically BenworldAmy agree to disagree, but not always. Andandto disagree is not an option that you canagreeingfor, or put into policy. When we encountervoteopinions and beliefs that opposeperspectives,own, we must balance a tension betweenourin our knowledge and humility aboutconfidencelimitations. This is easier said than done.itsyou have a deeply held belief that youDomight be flawed? Would you offer thisacceptup for discussion and open yourself toopinionother perspectives on the issue?understandingterms: Reddit ChangeSearchview myis an online community onThere/r/changemyview, dedicated preciselyreddit,this type of exchange of views. Follow thetoto explore some of the top discussions.linkcould post your own view on somethingYousee if any of the 900,000 membersandwhat the issue looks like from theirshareRegardless of whether you decideperspective.(a) What is the value of accepting the1.of being wrong?possibility(b) Do you lose something in doing so?How can you cultivate a capacity for2.kind of dialogue among multipletheperspectives that we see oncontradictory/r/changemyview?To what extent can words, especially the3.of anonymous strangers, changewords1(Kappel 2018)For discussionharbourthem.Change my viewWhat would it take to change your mind?Consider another anecdote, also from Kappel.to do this, consider the following questions.on reductionist and materialist approaches.our core beliefs and deeply held opinions?(Kappel 2018)10
- Page 1 and 2: THEORY OFO X F O R D I B D I P L O
- Page 3 and 4: University Press is a department of
- Page 5 and 6: ContentsCORE THEMEOPTIONAL THEMESiv
- Page 7 and 8: lucky circumstance brings you to th
- Page 9 and 10: I. Scopecan seem abstract, intimida
- Page 11 and 12: I. Scopeis complicated by power and
- Page 13 and 14: I. ScopeWhat factors limit our know
- Page 15: I. ScopeII. PerspectivesTOK we exam
- Page 19 and 20: II. Perspectivesto Quassim Cassam,
- Page 21 and 22: III. Methods and toolsterms: NYT Ne
- Page 23 and 24: III. Methods and toolsof it? What m
- Page 25 and 26: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics(b)
- Page 27 and 28: IV. Ethicsin TOK is about the explo
- Page 29 and 30: Knowledgeand politics 2is concerned
- Page 31 and 32: I. Scopehas been great concern, esp
- Page 33 and 34: I. Scopeadministrative systems, had
- Page 35 and 36: I. Scopethis book we engage with th
- Page 37 and 38: II. Perspectives“Overton window
- Page 39 and 40: II. Perspectivesopposed to scientif
- Page 41 and 42: II. Perspectivesobjective “fact o
- Page 43 and 44: II. Perspectives7 deals with public
- Page 45 and 46: II. Perspectiveshe adds, ‘It wasn
- Page 47 and 48: II. Perspectivesargued that interne
- Page 49 and 50: II. Perspectivesmedia users report
- Page 51 and 52: III. Methods and toolsLorde said yo
- Page 53 and 54: III. Methods and toolsShould we tes
- Page 55 and 56: III. Methods and toolsend of the po
- Page 57 and 58: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethicsthe
- Page 59 and 60: IV. Ethicsoffence enters the pictur
- Page 61 and 62: IV. Ethicsenabled by technology. Pr
- Page 63 and 64: IV. Ethicsa 2018 article for the Ne
- Page 65 and 66: Knowledgeand technology 3does it me
take sides in significant debates in an
•
manner
informed
appreciate and be curious about the
•
of others.
perspectives
2 explores the phenomena of posttruthism,
Chapter
misinformation and distrust in
that have surfaced prominently in
expertise
last decade. Chapter 7 examines scientific
the
and denialism in depth. We turn
controversy
to examining how we, as individuals
now
knowers, deal with what appears to be
and
new normal: political polarization and
the
experts are divided, and we are not
When
ourselves, whom do we trust? One
experts
is to consider the positions and
approach
of other experts carefully and to
judgments
the majority opinion. The philosopher
discern
Baggini, for example, prescribes a “triage
Julian
Which kind of expert in this area should
•
choose? I
Which particular expert is worth listening to
•
(Baggini 2017).
here?”
and authority manifest differently across
Expertise
For example, a dentist informing you of
domains.
cavity and an economist providing a forecast of
a
growth are different propositions even
economic
both experts are qualified to do what they do.
if
know that many economists are wrong in their
We
but we continue to listen to them to
predictions,
the consensus opinion—such is the nature
discern
their domain. If you are not religious, and/or
of
not believe in God, then a theologian or priest
do
have little influence on your opinions—but
might
does it mean to not believe in science or
what
how we think about expertise is
Often,
by the opinions of experts that
influenced
already trust; this seemingly innocuous
we
claim has profound implications,
knowledge
that your history and context, over
suggesting
you may have had little control, influence
which
orientation to new knowledge generally,
your
expertise specifically. The further implication
and
that to know something, you must also know
is
A triage or any other framework for
yourself.
about expertise is not a substitute
thinking
your good judgment. Jean-Paul Sartre
for
this predicament, and the unavoidable
describes
of judgment that falls on all of us.
responsibility
you seek counsel—from a priest, for example—you
If
selected that priest; and at bottom you already
have
the ways in which your knowledge
Consider
been influenced by what experts think
has
How important have experts been for the
1.
you have gained?
knowledge
Do you regularly refer to expert
2.
for the claims you make?
knowledge
Recall a situation when you have
3.
contradicting expert opinions.
encountered
people at some point encounter opinions,
Many
ideas and claims that they consider to
beliefs,
false, inaccurate and/or immoral. How we
be
such claims has implications for how we
navigate
relationships with other people, how we
navigate
about politics, who we vote for and many
think
the other decisions we take over a lifetime. Do
of
for example, avoid the category of offensive
we,
and the people who hold them? Are we
claims
their values might negatively influence
afraid
Some caution is certainly warranted, but the
us?
to avoid some categories of belief and/or
instinct
closes us off to other perspectives and world
people
with the risk that we stop learning. It also
views,
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
knew, more or less, what he would advise.
scientificdenialism.
(Sartre 1946)
II.1 Appeals to authority
For ref lection
Expert opinion
of truth” with three questions.
and say.
• “Are there any experts in this domain?
How did you decide whom to trust?
II.2 Intellectual humility
scientificexpertise?
privileges our current cognitive perspective, which
9