The science of knowledge making

Kamakshi Balasubramanian

In the previous two articles on Theory of Knowledge (January 2018 and March 2018), I introduced
1. Personal Knowledge and Impersonal Knowledge
2. Ways of Knowing (WOK)

Most of the work we do as teachers has to do with Impersonal Knowledge or shared knowledge. In our classrooms, we teach a variety of subjects or disciplines that belong to Areas of Knowledge (AOK). Each subject or discipline requires our learners to have a complex set of skills, so that they can process the information they receive in that subject or discipline and use it.

Literacy and numeracy skills are commonly required for all the subjects we teach in the formal, structured schooling system. Besides those, learners need to acquire and develop other skills that are necessary to gain and build knowledge in subject areas (AOK).

Among such skills are those that enable learners to be autonomous, responsible, and reflective in their pursuit of knowledge. One key skill in such pursuit of knowledge is the ability to reason.

As educators in today’s formal school systems, we do not want learners to accept anything on faith. We base our methodology on enquiry-based learning. We want learners to use a great deal of reasoning skills and critical thinking skills, as well as put memorization skills to appropriate use.

Theory of Knowledge foregrounds the function of reason as a way of knowing in the context of acquiring impersonal knowledge.

What ways of reasoning do we use to establish the validity of knowledge claims in the various disciplines we teach? Are there different ways of reasoning in different subject areas? Let us look at some examples.

In a plane geometry class, students learn a theorem, which is a knowledge claim. Should the learner accept the theorem on authority? How do we establish the validity of the theorem?

We work out the proof as a first step, following conventional methods found in textbooks. Are there additional ways for a learner to prove the theorem? Yes. It can be done by using physical models. In order to test the validity, learners solve several problems that require the use of the theorem. Riders follow.

In mathematics, proofs exist. What about claims in other disciplines? Let’s move to a knowledge claim in physics. If Euclidean geometry gives us theorems as our foundation, physics gives us laws. How do we establish the validity of a law in physics? Most commonly, we use experiments in the physics lab or the classroom. Nearly always, at the very initial stages of learning physics, we rely on a specific fact of physics to explain why something happens.

For example, after introducing Newton’s laws of motion, a teacher might set up a simple experiment. Here’s one. You tie a longish piece of string to a brick and another equal length of string to a styrofoam block, the same size as the brick. If you apply a lot of force to pull the brick to move fast, the string will break. The same force will not break the string attached to the styrofoam block when moved.

Students observe the experiment and then attempt to explain what is at work. To do so, they need to use a fact of physics about force and acceleration.

At slightly advanced levels in the study of physics, explanations could require equations and mathematical calculations in addition to facts of physics.

Reasoning is how students internalize a law of physics to explain phenomena in the physical world. The same law can look like magic to a person who is not trained to reason why an event occurred or a why a phenomenon exists in nature.

In the social sciences, theoretical claims are justified somewhat differently. Economists use observation based evidence as well as mathematical equations to explain or establish a theory. One well-known example of observation-based evidence is a case study.

From evidence that is purely logical to evidence that is empirical, there are a variety of ways we use to explain, support, and establish knowledge claims in different areas of knowledge. In other words, how we collect and present evidence differs from discipline to discipline. This method of establishing knowledge claims using evidence-based reasoning is called the scientific approach in the Areas of Knowledge we teach at school.

The learner could go further and investigate if a particular theorem, or a law of physics, or a theory in economics has been challenged and what the outcome was. If a body of knowledge has remained stable and useful for centuries, can it be taken on authority? Learners should be encouraged to ask these questions. This critical thinking activity guides the learner to accept the important notion that knowledge is susceptible to change. Things are certain only as long as we have not found convincing evidence to prove the contrary.

In this article, I have not touched upon history as an Area of Knowledge, because the study of history is complex in unique ways. We shall discuss what constitutes evidence in history separately. At that time, it might be useful to treat ethics also as an Area of Knowledge in its foundational role.

To sum up then, the following points emerge from our discussion:

•Shared or impersonal knowledge requires that we establish knowledge claims with supporting evidence. Different Areas of Knowledge use different types of evidence to justify a knowledge claim.

• Laboratory experiments can be replicated to establish their validity as evidence. Problems in geometry can be solved in different ways to arrive at a unique solution that establishes the validity of a theorem. Case studies can be scrutinized for the logic and rigor with which conclusions have been derived to accept or reject the validity of a claim. This is the strength of the scientific approach to knowledge.

• Any knowledge claim that is supported by reason and by verifiable evidence can and will be challenged. If contrary and verifiable evidence is available, the original knowledge claim will be re-examined and revised, if necessary. This is the distinct strength of the scientific approach to knowledge.

• So, we can conclude that reasoning that is not founded on faith requires evidence to establish a claim.

• Knowledge claims that are presented as a matter of faith cannot be challenged in this fashion. Thus, faith as a basis for knowledge is entirely different from reason as a basis for knowledge.

In our next article, we shall further define “Knowledge.” Is it enough to justify a claim with adequate supporting evidence to consider it knowledge? Does something have to be true in order to be accepted as knowledge? These are fundamental concepts in understanding the complex nature of knowledge. When we internalize these concepts, we grow responsible about using existing knowledge and generating new knowledge.

The author is an educator and writer with significant experience teaching at secondary and tertiary levels. She can be reached at papukamakshi@gmail.com.