Jessie Demnar THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE ESSAY To what extent do we need evidence to support our beliefs in different areas of knowledge? Name: Jessie N. Demnar School: Beijing BISS International School Candidate Number: 001123‐002 Subject: Theory Of Knowledge Teacher: Mr. Robert Anderson Session: May 2011 Word Count: 1, 599 2 To what extent do we need evidence to support our beliefs in different areas of knowledge? “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”1 According to David Hume, for wise people, strong belief is based on strong evidence. However, depending on whom you speak to or what authority you are appealing to, “evidence” can mean very different things. Also, the extent to which we need evidence to support our beliefs in different areas of knowledge varies along with the availability of evidence, which can be scarce or subjective. So, to what extent is evidence necessary to support our beliefs, ideas, viewpoints, and ways of thinking? Some areas of knowledge appear to require much more concrete and logic‐based evidence, however, others are satisfied by more subjective evidence as the beliefs have little proof yet are still considered valid. For example, in natural sciences we use the ways of knowing of reason and sense perception to support our beliefs, and in ethics we use emotion, sense perception and reason. Through these two areas of knowledge, ethics and natural sciences, this essay will examine various types of evidence and how necessary they are in supporting our beliefs. After all, beliefs, much like theories, are not always factual; sometimes they are simply strongly held convictions. In natural sciences, people follow a scientific method, which is well reasoned and is therefore an accepted way to prove a hypothesis. To justify theories, they conduct periods of testing in which they effectively ‘create evidence’ through numerous trials. Then to publish a scientific paper, scientists send their findings to a respected journal where other scientists critique it – therefore, they must have a lot of evidence to support their beliefs otherwise their peers will prove them wrong or doubt the findings. A lack of evidence often drives people to investigate and explore existing knowledge in the search for evidential proof. For example; people believed all swans were white; a 1
Richards, 2011. Theory Of Knowledge Essay 3 Jessie Demnar misconception stemming from a lack of knowledge. This theory was disproved upon the discovery of black swans in Australia2. Likewise, scarcity of fossil evidence has led to conflicting beliefs in the theory of evolution since there is not enough data to support one theory over another. The ‘Savannah Theory’ states that humans evolved from a common ancestor based in the African savannah3. The savannah theory is a well‐supported theory, but due to our lack of fossil records, many assumptions have been made increasing the possibility of inaccuracy. Another theory, known as the ‘Aquatic‐ape Theory’, challenges the ‘Savannah Theory’, saying that humans evolved from an aquatic ancestor. In IB biology, we learnt that even the most logical beliefs of the ‘‘Savannah Theory’ can be rebuked by evidence for the ‘Aquatic‐ape Theory’. The ‘Savannah Theory’ explains hair loss due to hot weather. Counter‐claims show that primates even in the hottest places have not lost their hair, however aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales that live in water have experienced hair loss.4 Additionally, the University of Toronto released a press statement in 1999, stating; “The popular image of the earliest humans living on the African savanna must be wrong, [Stephen] Cunnane says. His team has found that a specific fatty acid, DHA, necessary for human brain and eye development, is easily available in food near shore environments but not in the diet of savanna mammals.”5 Elaine Morgan is a strong supporter of this ‘Aquatic‐ape Theory’, yet the reason she was first intrigued by this theory was because she is a feminist and thought the ‘Savannah Theory’ was male‐centric6, therefore she may be biased by her personal views. “Morgan's first publication was mentioned by E. O. Wilson… as an 'inevitable feminist' counter, but describing the method as less scientific than other contemporary hypotheses.”7 As a female myself, my original beliefs were challenged because the ‘Aquatic‐ape Theory’ seemed more credible in relation to the explanation of female 2
Taleb, 2008. 3
Primitivism, 2011. 4
Primitivism, 2011. 5
Bast, 2011. 6
Sri Lanka DOT Com, 2011. 7
Sri Lanka DOT Com, 2011. 4 evolution. Therefore, bias can cause limitations in knowledge and conflicts have arisen because the evidence can support a range of viewpoints. However, these conflicting and sometimes closed views may not be as harmful to progress as one might assume. Charles Darwin said; "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a [salutary] pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path toward error is closed and the road to truth is often, at the same time, opened."8 Clearly, reason must be used to weigh the evidence that supports the aforementioned theories. It might be difficult to find support for the ‘Aquatic‐ape Theory’ because we often use our sense perception as evidence. Since primates resemble humans more closely than aquatic mammals, we can relate to the ‘Savannah Theory’ and are rendered visually biased. Before learning about the ‘Aquatic ape Theory’, I was very much biased by my sense perception towards the ‘Savannah Theory’. Consequently, a substantial amount of evidence is generally required to support beliefs in natural sciences. When we lack evidence there can be support for contrasting arguments, all valid until proven otherwise. This could lead to the conclusion that in natural sciences, sometimes the best evidence to support certain beliefs is not being able to prove one theory, but being able to disprove another. Ethics are beliefs that are hard to find evidence for, due to a variety of belief systems and legal rules. There is quite a contrast between our methods to support beliefs in natural sciences and in ethics. Ethical beliefs are based on principles and morals, which stem from a number of sources. Religious practices potentially provide evidence that support our morals because most religions have moral codes believers should follow, for example; the ‘Ten Commandments’ in Christianity and the ‘Decalogue’ in Judaism. As a counter‐claim to the role of religion in dictating our ethical beliefs, Albert Einstein once said; “I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no super‐human authority behind it.”9 Albert Einstein was educated in Judaism from family and 8
Moore, 2011. 9
Hitchens, 2007. Theory Of Knowledge Essay 5 Jessie Demnar Catholicism in school yet remained impartial to the role of religion in determining ethical beliefs; therefore, disallowing religion to limit his perception of ethics10. My upbringing and family values affect my personal ethical beliefs more than religion. For many people though, religious faith can influence their beliefs and disallow them to consider another point of view. Relating to natural sciences and beliefs, people who support the creationist view where a God created the universe are clearly influenced by their religious views. In biology class, we found that some people who believed in the ‘Creationist Theory’ refused to consider the other possible evolutionary theories because they resolute in their beliefs. We also have rules that everyone in society must follow, (religiously inclined or otherwise) and this is called the law. If broken, we can be severely punished by the rulers of society; fined, jailed or even killed in some countries. The majority of people believe that murder is ethically wrong. These beliefs stem from the ways of knowing; sense perception and emotion ‐ murder physically hurts someone and people dying presumably makes us sad. Another way to support these beliefs is that we can look to the commandments in all religions that say murder is wrong. If we need further evidence, we can look to the law, where killing someone is one of the most severely punishable offences. Using the way of knowing of reason, since the law and religious teachings both state murder as an offence, we infer this is morally wrong. Although ethical beliefs differ from person to person and can be affected by our culture and religious beliefs, the law is something that everyone must abide by. Yet, “some people seek to hand over their moral judgment to the state, and declare that ‘It is wrong to disobey the law.’ In doing this, they confuse two quite different things: what is morally wrong and what happens to be the law of their country… [yet] there might be something morally wrong which is not against the law of a country…”11 The law, which appears to have been derived from many of our ethical beliefs, is in apparent contradiction with morality when cases such as the death penalty are brought up because we are punishing murder with death. Therefore, evidence to support ethical beliefs can be manipulated 10 American Museum of Natural History, 2011. 11
Tomkinson, 1999. 6 because they are quite subjective consequently the value of this evidence may be less than evidence used to support scientific beliefs. It could be argued that subjective evidence may merely be personal convictions. Most of the time, there is no need for evidence to support people’s ethical beliefs because they are often ingrained in society’s unwritten rules of behavior. It is difficult to define what constitutes evidence and how much we must know in order to support our beliefs. Beliefs are the conviction that something is true; two people could hold opposing views believing it to be true with equal assurance. Our beliefs are often affected by bias and limitations in knowledge, making it difficult to be open to differing viewpoints. Evidence can be vital in proving some beliefs to be more accurate than others, but this is not always the case since evidence can sometimes support multiple ideas. Personally, regardless of the area of knowledge, it appears that the extent to which we need evidence to support our beliefs depends on our need to be able to substantiate our views when challenged. When our beliefs are contested, we have to be able to support our beliefs with as much evidence as is available rather than just assuming we are infallibly correct, otherwise our beliefs may be deemed invalid. Bibliography: Theory Of Knowledge Essay 7 Jessie Demnar 1) Bast, Robert. "The Aquatic Ape Theory." Survive 2012: Ancient Mayan Doomsday, Pole Shifts and Evolution. Web. 01 Feb. 2011. <http://survive2012.com/index.php/aquatic‐ape.html>. 2) "Einstein." American Museum of Natural History. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. <http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/life/early.php>. 3) "Elaine Morgan (writer)." Sri Lanka DOT Com. Web. 01 Feb. 2011. <http://www.srilankadot.com/wiki‐Elaine_Morgan_(writer)>. 4) Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007. Print. 5) Moore, Jim. "Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim?" Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim? Web. 20 Feb. 2011. <http://www.aquaticape.org/>. 6) Richards, Stephen A. "David Hume: 'Of Miracles' (Part 1) | That Religious Studies Website." That Religious Studies Website. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. <http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Religious_Studies/Phil_of_Rel/Miracles/
hume_miracles_critique.php>. 7) Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. The Black Swan. London: Penguin, 2008. Print. 8) "The Aquatic Ape Theory ‐ Elaine Morgan." Primitivism. Web. 15 Jan. 2011. <http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic‐ape.htm>. 9) Tomkinson, John L. The Enterprise of Knowledge. Athens: Leader, 1999. Print.