1

('--
0
D
0

511.1111 teach you wh.1t knvw!ec(s-e i;;!' When
you k1l0W.1 thins, tv recLl,S'nisc tll.lt YLJlI
knL)W it; .1nd when VUlt du IlLlt kttL1W.I
thins- to recognise th;t yvu. do not knLlw it.
rhJt l:> knuwledSe.
COI1jllliu:;
Whu-:, there' IS
shout:tng chere no
CruC" kmJwledge.
Lt'lllldrd(J dd Vi/h'i
0)
NOTHING IN ALL THE
WORLD IS MORE
DANGEROUS THAN
SINCERE IGNORANCE
AND CONSCIENTIOUS
STUPIDITY.
Mediocre minds usually
dismiss anything which
reaches beyond their Own
understanding.
c
--
C

CD
S
CD
L-
eu

eu
..c
5
l'vltlflill Lwita
Education is learning what you
didn't even know you didn't know.
Daniel J. Boorscin
FnlJh'ois til! L7 RUc/llirJlICdld
It i::; very for a llIall to
talk ahout what he does not
under:;tand: as as he
HIlIlel"stands that he does not
understand it.
C. K. CheSli::rton
Those wh() are CVl1vtl1ced they have a
mQ'lOPQly Qn The TrL(th always Feel that
they are Qnly saving the WQrld when they
slaughter the heretics.
A very popular
error - baving the
courage of one's
convictions;
rather it is a
matter of having
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr
THERE ARE MANY WHO
KNOW MANY THINGS,
YET ARE LACKING IN
WISDOM.
Democrirus
the courage for an
attack upon one's
convictions.
Anon
The most imporc.an-c truths are
likely to be which ...
socie"ty at that "time least wants
to hear.
vV'. H. Auden
Never assume the
obvious is true.
The criterion of truth is that it works even if
nobody is prepared to acknowledge it.
William Safire
Ludwig von Mises
c
c
h"
i
,
Ai m S By the end ofthis chapter you should:
understand that, perhaps contrary to what you have so far found
in your formal education, certainty and truth are not easily found
recognise that there are many dubious pieces of 'knowledge'
available and that even the word of a world authority is no
guarantee of truth
understand that 'certainty' is a matter of degree and that some
opinions are better than others
be able to give at least an initial definition of 'knowledge' and
distinguish between 'knowledge' and 'belief'
be able to list and give a simple critique of different reasons for
saying that you 'know' something
be able to discuss how these different reasons relate to the
standard academic subjects.
_____ J.l1 o...IJt..LlrOJ::Lucli.oD
You have probably been in full-time education for a number of
years, and in that time you have acquired a vast amount of
knowledge. With the help of your teachers and your textbooks.
the ;'umber of facts you know and the depth of your knowledge
are probably alnazing. What is more, you are learning more and
more. and will probably go on to do so for several more years. In
the sciences, for example, many of you will know about Einstein's
theories. Einstein is widely regarded as one of the greatest
geniuses of all time. and yet the physicists among you will be
writing about his ideas in your exams. In English literarure. many
of you will be able to analyse and discuss Shakespeare. possibly
the greatest English playwright the world has ever seen and will
ever see. The same goes for any Other subject; you will be studying
ideas that only thinkers of great genius could develop.
\Nhen you scale that up to all the people alive today. you realise
that the amount of knowledge out there is lTuly staggering. \Vhat
is more, you have access to so much of it. You wam to know vvhal
ill1imals \vere walking the Earth two hundred million years Jgo?
Look il up in a book. You Want 10 know \'Vhat it's like in
Antarctica in the middle of \vinter? \Natch a documentary. And
il'S getting better all the time - with newspapers. magazines. TV
the. internet. you can find out all about the world without
leaving the comfort of your own home. And what could be mure
reliable than journalism and the internet?
\Vell. recent headlines thaI hJve been seen in one. adminedly
less IhJn il\uslrious. newspaper include '\tv'oman Eaten by Fur
COJ!!' and 'Alien Base Found on Dark Side {)[ Moon!'. The lauer
is especially interesting, as vvhen it \yas poiJ1led OUl that NASA
piclUres sho\ved no such base. the nt'\-vspaper ran all 'Alien Base
Disappears!' story. The iJ1lerllet, too. is hardly a
totally lruslwonhy source of information -'just look for the 'Elvis
is alive and well and working as a plumber in Bolivia' websites!
So can we lrllSl the information that \-\'e have?
J can imagine wh,11 you art' at this stage: that these art'
stupid eXJmples. Ollly rl'ally gullible people would believe siories
i
J
as ridiculous as these, ilnd nobody with ,lilY sellse w(1uld 111.1kl'
errors as obvious. So now consider the following predictions.
They are slightly different from the ne\NSpapl'r he;:H.llinl's in th,ll
they Jre Jil claims about the fUlLlre, but they still lell us
something about the possibility of error.
That! is JlO likelihood ehar humalls l"t'ili tTl'f {dP (lIe POWtT ,l! rlit' 1/{0111.
Roben !v1illikan, Nobel Prize vVinner in Physics (1923)
The atom bomb will neva!:fo ojf dl1d I sped/.:. ,IS III! t'XPl'fL
AdmirJl vY. Leahy, Jdvisor to the US President (1945)
/ eliink rhue wi!! be a ~ v o r d marker for five LOI11Plf{t'rs.
Thonl<lS vYatson. founder of IBivl (1958)
By 2000 womt'n will we'l1r panes. !11e'Jl wii! We'dr skirrs. b{lr/t St'X!!S will
go bare-Lllt'Sh'd (we'dtiza permiuing) dJld c/<J{hes will be .\'t'e-tiznJ/{!:fh,
Rudi Gernreitch, American fashion expert (1970)
Tilt' {mane! wilt /lever lake' of!
Bill Gales. founder of !'vUcrosofr { 1988}
So it isn't just stupid people who get things wrong. Perhaps there Jre
errors in what you are told every day. even in what you are reading
now. It could be that what you [earn in school isn't towlly correct.
So when I said that you have a lot of knowledge, maybe I should
have been more carefuL How much of what you know is true?
A Identify something that you have been told, which you believed at
the time but which you now recognise is false. How did you find out
the truth?
B Think of some things about which you are absolutely certain. Is
anyone else certain about them, too?
C What is the difference between 'I am certain that .. .' and 'It is
certain that _ . . ?'
So when and how do you know if something is true? In relation to
your studies, which of your subjects is the mOst reliable, and why?
Does this reliability come at a cost? Answering these questions is
the central theme of this book, and sometimes the answers can be
quite surprising; they can force us to look at the world in a different
way. As a brief example, let's consider how much we know in light
of how long we have been around. Those of you who study history
may sometimes feel overwhelmed at the massive length of human
history. Geographers often comment how the impact of humans
can be felt all over the world, even in the remotest places. These are
both very valid perspectives. We humans dominate the Earth. In
many ways. we are the supremely powerful species on Earth at the
moment - there's no doubt about that.
But let's look at it slightly differently. Suppose you took the
whole history of the Universe and compressed it into one year.
(The year has been constructed on current estimates that the
Universe is 15 billion years old; that the Earth is 4.55 billion years
old; that humans developed around two million years ago. These
figures are controversial and almost certainly wrong, but we
don't know by how much! So take this example in the spirit in
which it is meant!) So now it is 12.00p.m .. I January. and the
Universe began exactly one year ago. How long would we have
c
been around for? Let's examine (he cosmic calendar.
Current theory suggests that our galaxy formed on 1 May. It
took another [our months, 10 9 September, until our solar system
appeared. A few days later. the Earth was formed. around
14 September. After life begins on 25 September, it may seem like
things are speeding up. bUl it then takes until 12 November for
the oldest photosynthetic plants to develop. and it isn't until
I December that there is a significant quantity of oxygen in the
atmosphere. So [or the first eight-and-a-half months. there was
no Earth. and even then for another two-and-a-half months
there was no conceivable way for humans. had they been
around, to survive. But at least now we are beginning to
approach human history ...
Although there was oxygen in the atmosphere. fish did not
develop until 19 December; trees followed soon after on
23 December. and the first dinosaurs turned up on 24 December.
Mammals arrived on 26 December. and had to live with the
dinosaurs until 28 December when it seems that a massive comet
struck the Earth. causing major climatic change. The dinosaurs,
unable to cope with this. died out. and the age of the mammals
started. Humans appeared on 3 I December. All of human history.
therefore. happened on the last day of the year. Well. at least we
have a day (remember that the dinosaurs had [our!). Or do we?
In fact. probably not. Humans developed rather late in the day.
around IO.50p.m. Current belief is that Peking Man first used fire
in a controlled way at 11.46p.m., and at 11.59p.m. cave paintings
started being created in Europe. Things happen in a rush now,
with agriculture transforming the human way of life at 11.59.10.
and the alphabet allowing detailed communication through
generarions at 11.59.51. The modern calendar began al 11.59.56
with the binh of Christ. The great Mayan civilisation and Chinese
Sung Dynasty came and weIll at 11.59.58. and ant' second later,
al 11.59.59, the modern technological world was born with the
Renaissance and Industrial Revolution.
On the cosmic scale, therefore. it is only in the last fraction of a
sl'cond. on the last day in the entire year that an'}lone alive today
has existed. that you were born. Most people feel this to be
profoundly humbling. And vvhere dot'S it leave humans' feelings
of grandeur, sense of power and Sense of cenaiJ1lY?
A What is the humans' place in the Universe? How likely is it that
humans have found out any profound truths about the Universe?
B What are humankind's greatest successes?
C Does it really matter how long we have been around?
S01lll' people think that lhe cosmic calendar anJlogy cJ:\Is into
qUl'stioll our ccrtaiJ1lies and our claims 10 knowledge. Cenainly.
il aler!.s us to tht' fact that our POiIll of view is jusl one. perhJjb
vl'ry rtn:1lI ilnd very moot'st. perspective J:nd it gives us good
rl'JSllil 10 Jpproach grand clJims to knowledge with SOl1l<:
hllmility. Howevl'f. 'Nt' il<lve skirted Jround lilt' subject for l(lng
l'lwugh. V'Ve 1l1..'ed t(l find oul whJI knowledgl' JctuJlIy is hl'iorl'
Wl' begin propl'l'ly In qUl'stion il.
,
I
I
i
!
,
!
LJ
, o.
1
I
I
>=

's:
i",
icc
,'"
I ....
I",
'J::
Is:
,-
I

This may seem like a ridiculous question. 'vVe know Wh,ll
knowledge ('5. don't we? WelL maybe, but explaining it may
prove to be i.1 little tricky. Le(s think about <1 couple or eX<llllpks
where we use [he word 'know', 'vVhJt do you l1l<lke of thl' person
who claims that [hey know that (he Sun is pulled JCross thl' sky
by six chameleon-like horses who blend into the sky so well thal
they Jre invisible: Or about my knowledge that [ am. in fJel. Lhe
secret hybrid product of an alien/human experimelH? Can wt'
really say we 'know' such things?
Most people would say that these beliefs are nut knowledge
because they are not true. We wouldn't say that people knew the
Earth was flat; we would say that they believeu it. but that they
were proven wrong. Similarly, children cannQ( know, but can
only believe, that Santa Claus is coming to town. There is ..1
difference between belief anu knowledge.
A We have suggested that you can believe something without knowing
it. Is it possible to know something without believing -it?
B Is knowledge the same as true belief? Can you imagine a case where
someone beHeves something which is true, but where we would not
say that she knows it?
C One night my watch broke at 11.51, but I didn't realise. I was
asleep at the time, and when I woke up I just put the watch on
without looking at it. The next time I looked at it, it was, by chance,
11.51.1 believed it was 11.51, and it was, in fact, 11.51, So did I
know it? If not, why not?
In answer to question C, mOSt people would say that I did nOt
know it was 11.51. and that it was just a fluke. But this means
something is wrong with saying knowledge is true belief. I
believed it was 11. 51. and it was true that it was 11.51. So why
didn't I know it was 11.51?
Let's consider another example. Imagine that you find a
lost manuscript detailing a conversation between two scholars,
Joseph and Daniel, from the Middle Ages. The text starts;
'JOSeph! I have made a great discovery! The Earrh is round, not flat as
everyone believes!'
Immediately your eyes light up! You have a fantastic new
historical document. Excitedly, you read on:
'Whar rubbish Daniel. Anyone can see that the Earrh is flat. The Greeks
may have written something about a round Earrh, but we have moved on
since chen. We know it is flat. Why are you saying this?'
'I have compelling evidence: can deny it. '
'Go on chen, tell me what brilliant discovery YOll have made. '
You are breathless with excitement - what evidence has Daniel
found? Will he talk about the shadow cast by the Earth on the
moon, or about ships vanishing on [he horizon?
c
'Its wonder lies in its ve1Y simplicity! Take off your shoes and /o(Jk at your
feet - they are wnlcd on the bocrom! Your Jeer have arches! Whar is the
reaSOl1 for char? It can only be that in your childhood. when you H-'alked
around shoes. your fcer were moulded to rhe shape oj [he round
Earrh! '
Deflated and disappointed. you realise that Daniel did not know
the Earth was round at all! He believed it. and it is true, but he
didn't know it because his reasons were n01 adequate - his belief
was unjustified. In the case of my faulty watch (above), I did not
know that it was 11.51 because my justification would have
rested on a false assumption - that my watch was working. So
perhaps we may define knowledge as justified, true belief.
A Does the 'justified, true belief' definition fit our understanding of the
term 'knowledge', or does it wrongly include or exclude anything?
That is, can you think of a situation where either:
someone might have justified, true belief but we wouldn't say
that they knew something
someone did not have justified, true belief but we would say they
knew something?
So is the 'justified, true belief' definition absolutely correct? It has
been suggested that to define knowledge like this is not very
helpful- and for a very simple reason. If we claim to know
something then we believe it. and we believe it to be justified and
to be true. But how do we know if it is really justified andlor
really true? You should see the problem here - we are trying to
define knowledge in terms of justificalion and truth, but we are
having to use the concept of knowledge in doing so! Our
definition has become circular, and ultimately unhelpful.
A Moliere once wrote that a sleeping potion worked by virtue of its
'dormitive faculty'" How is this related to what was said in the
previous paragraph?
B Can you find a solution to the problem that defining knowledge as
'justified, true belief' may be a circular definition?
If we Jpproach the issue in a dif!t'n:nt \Nay" then the
problem (If justification is nut as serious JS we Rather
than saying "Ihis is juslifi<:d' or "this is 11tH justifit:J", mJybe \Ne
sh()uld talk about the validity of lhe jllslifici1!illn - inr exampk,
'poor jtlslificJtit1n', justifiCJlinn' or 'l'xcelknl justification'
- il'Jding 10 'slronger' (lnd 'wl'Jke( forms of knowkdgt.
A What sort of justifications would lead to 'strong' knowledge or
'weak' knowledge?
B ReVisit the examples in this section and describe the validity of the
justifications, Is the 'knowledge' 'strong' or 'weak'?
C Which of your school subjects give you 'strong knowledge'? Which
give you 'weak knowledge'?
8
How do we proceed from here: 'yVc have beell arguing aboul [hl"
meaning of words for a little toO long (this is something thJt.
rightly or wrongly, philosophers are of len accused of dOing!).
Perhaps we need to start looking at examples of whJt we consider
to be knowledge. and see how we justify these clJims. So let us
take our tentative definition of 'justified, true belief' Jt face VJlut'
and, while we remain aware that it is a limited definition, let's
use it to set our the parameters of our inquiry. If knowledge is
justified, true belief then we must examine whitt we believe, how
we justify our beliefs and whether or not they are likely 10 be
true. Let's start with a simple question.
It is very easy to read, often in reputable newspapers, that news is
about facts, and opinions un those facts. Facts are disputable (for
example, we can argue about the number of computers sold in
lndia in (999) but there is a right and a wrong answer. Opinions
are rather different - you may hear it said that an opinion can
never be wrong because everybody is entitled to their own
opinion. The notion of freedom is sometimes interpreted as
meaning that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.
This is actually pure nonsense. Suppose you are a keen runner.
but you break your leg in an accident. Your leg is put in plaster
for a month. and when the plaSter is removed you are keen to
start training straightaway. In my opinion. you should start
training immediately. and push yourself really hard. ignoring any
pain. until you are as fit as you were before the accident. In your
doctor's opinion. you should take things very slowly. and stop as
soon as you feel any pain.
Which opinion is better? Clearly. the one that is based on
reason and experience. This is the kind of opinion most important
to educated people. and the kind we will concentrate on in this
course. Most people would agree that some opinions are better
than others - the difficult thing is to decide how to tell a good
opinion from a bad one. In the case of the injured runner. it
seems reasonable to trust a doctor. as she will have better reasons
for her judgement than a lay person.
We might plausibly argue that there are three types of questions.
Questions that have one correct answer. Example: how many
atoms of hydrogen are there in a water molecule?
Questions that have many possible answers but which require
justification and reasoned judgements. Example: what is the
beSt way to tackle the developing world's debt problem?
Questions that have no correct answer but depend totally on
the' person answering the question. Example: which type of
chocolate tastes best?
Sometimes it is possible to argue about which category a question
falls into - for example. 'Is this painting good an?' Some people
might put it in the third category while some might choose the
second. If in doubt. it is worth assuming that it is a question
worthy of debate and exploring how a discussion develops. If it
o
turns out to be pure personal choice. with nothing to be said for
one side more than the other. then it will probably turn out to be
a short and boring discussion! If you find yourself coming up with
reasons that appeal to 'universal' intellectual standards. such as
clarity, consistency. honesty, factual accuracy and so on. then the
question is cenainly a 'type two' question.
It is the appeal to 'universal' intellectual standards which is
important. and it is these standards which we shall be looking at in
some detail. (Of CQurse, we might argue about 'universal' bUI 10
argue at all requires some agreement.) The standards mean that we
can at least try to make coherent intellectual progress towards a
well-reasoned and justified answer with even the hardest questions.
A Do you think three categories of question are enough? Are there
any others you could add?
B For each of the following questions, decide which of the three
categories of knowledge the answer fits into.
How many planets are there in the solar system?
Who is the Singaporean minister with responsibility for education?
When was the French Revolution?
Is it wrong to kill?
What is the colour of the nearest wall?
Does God exist?
Are you happy?
Is your teacher happy?
is one plus one always two?
Does violence on television contribute to violence in the
community?
Was Hitler a good leader?
Can a male doctor know more about childbirth than a mother of
ten children?
Is it possible to know something but be unable to say what it is
that you know?
Will science eventually tell us how and why the Universe started?
C Three categories may not really seem to do the variety of questions
justice. If we want to analyse different types of knowledge, it might
be helpful to be more specific. What categories might you divide
knowledge up into?
In Jlls\vering the questions above, you have begun to justify your
thinking. In one sense. this whole book is about justifying our
thoughts on various topics: about arguing for what we believe in.
Vve nalurJlly do this all the time - when we explain why we
wZ!111 to set' a panicular film, how we solved a maths problem. Of
the nature of our religiOUS beliefs. For such an important topiC it
is surprising that we lIsually spend so little time examining
v.."helher ur nUl our reasons are-Jctually good reasons, or if some
II
-,
g!
(!J,
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
types of reasons are bener than others. In fact. most of us i
probably don'\ I'Ven know the differcl1ltypes of reasons IhM \Nl' !
h ~ l V l . so this IllLlSt be ollr stJrting point. U
,.
0
Q
0
I-
<:l


OJ
:s:
OJ
a:
"
.1-
i
A
Below is a rather dubious list of things that I might claim to know,
and another list of reasons that I might give to support these pieces
of knowledge. Match the reasons to the claims.
Claims
I know that the sky is blue because
I can see it.
I know that 1 + 1 = 2.
I know that it is wicked to murder a
person.
I know that I have a fear of spiders.
1 know that I went out for a run
yesterday.
I know that what the doctor said is true.
I know that women are more emotional
than men.
I know exactly what God wants of me.
I know that I am going to Heaven.
I know that a lake is more beautiful
than a sewage works.
I know that [love my brother.
Reasons
Value judgement
Faith
Memory
Authority
Intuition
Revelation
Sense perception
Logic
Self-awareness
Common knowledge
Instinct
B Are there any other ways to justify things that we know?
C Are any of these ways of knowing really the same thing?
D Which of these do you think are the most reliable ways of finding
the truth? Justify your answer.
We can argue about the distinctions, differences anu overlaps
between the categories given here as there are several possible
ways to categorise knowledge. For our purposes, we will suggest
that sense perception and logic (orm two vital cJ.tegories. and
later on we shall see how they arise naturally from an
examination of everyday and academic knowledge.
We have seen that there may be good reasons to think carefully
about we claim to know; that knowledge is a multi-faceted
and complex concept and humans are only recent additions to
the Universe. What hope do we have for certainty and truth
when we are so Iin1ited? And yet. we seem to have made so
much progress. even in the shon time we have been around. Our
societies are radically different to those of any animals; we know
how the stars shine and we have the power to destroy the Earth.
So far we have even had the wisdom not to! Have we overplayed
the weaknesses of humankind?
Perhaps in our quest for truth we should be a little more
positive and look at what we do know rather than what we do
nor. iY\avbe we should IlJrn OUf attention [Q what seems [Q be the
model for certainty in today's world - the narufal
sciences.
,
e
c
At this stage, any text that takes a thoughtful, reflective and wide-
ranging approach to knowledge will be very helpful. Excellent, short
and accessible essays on topics as diverse as propaganda, art, Santa
Claus, God and truth can be found in Martin Gardner's Order and
Surprise (Oxford University Press, 1983) and The Whys of a $crivening
Philosopher (Oxford University Press, 1985). For a more philosophical
but delightfully readable and very short introduction, you might try
Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean? (Oxford University Press,
1989). By the same author, Mortal Questions (Cambridge University
Press. 1979) is much more advanced but equally fascinating. For a
look at the whole concept of knowledge, it is hard to find a better
introduction than Stephen Gade Hetherington's Know/edge Puzzles
(Westview Press, 1996). In terms of relevant fiction, Robert Pirsig's Zen
and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Bodley Head, 1974) takes an
unusual but compelling approach to some of the issues, and the
dazzling stories, essays and parables in Jorge Luis Borges' Labyrinths
(Penguin, 1964) defy description, providing a unique and paradoxical
window on the everyday world.
""
,gl
~
~
~
~
"-I
!
i
11 i
--'