Epistomology

Imagine a world without opinion. One of the most astounding features of our daily thought processes is ‘forming an opinion’ that is initially thought of as a highway to truth, while in arguable theory it leads to a vague and incomplete reality. A knower’s personal point of view is a gigantic obstacle which s/he must overcome in the pursuit of knowledge. A world without personal or ideological biases influencing knowledge claims is one with vivid reality.

Many come to hypothesize that personal point of view could in fact be an asset or an advantage in the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, there is a very convincing theory, stating that if one develops an opinion in a particular area of knowledge acquired, his or her opinion will act as a driving force to the acquisition of more knowledge to either further prove the validity of the opinion, or disprove it. This means the pressure exerted by personal bias is not, therefore, a ‘problem’ of knowledge. A student may read an article in a magazine about euthanasia, and immediately develop an opinion against it for any given reason. This theory generalizes that the student (given s/he is in the constant quest for knowledge) will be driven to research more on the topic, proving or disproving the soundness of his or her opinion. Then it would be safe to say that the establishment of an opinion in any given area would in fact aid in the uncovering of truth (in its various forms).

Defects, specifically regarding the transfer of information from one knower to the next, are inevitable if an opinion is developed. A person that develops a point of view when acquiring knowledge cannot transfer information on the topic without imposing that opinion, or without making judgments (The Enterprise of Knowledge, 2000), particularly if in narrative form. This almost re-states the very prominent problem of knowledge: the extent to which personal ideological biases influence knowledge claims. A professor espousing the ownership of nuclear weapons might mildly present its dangers yet emphasize its importance in warfare deterrence, while another pacifist professor might present the same information, yet emphasize the dangers more than the deterrence. A more fanatic pacifist expert on the topic might even discard a whole branch of knowledge (for example, the theories of deterrence) if it conflicts with his or her opinion (Rourke, 1999). Next to that, professors and other teachers could make judgments, sometimes involuntarily, through even the tone of the voice used. Such acts (emphasis, judgments) during any given explanation could cause misinterpretation of facts. It is up to the knower (recipient of knowledge in this case) to use his or her intuition and override the teacher’s bias and any of his or her own formed opinions to gain a well rounded education on the subject; such a critical analysis is harder than it sounds. Opinion, therefore, if established by a knower, not only will influence his knowledge claims (in fact, distort them) but the knowledge of those who learn from him or her. In that case, the knowledge transferred is not subject to much interpretation by the knower; again proving biases (if indirect) influence knowledge claims.

Another vital reason to why a knower must discard any personal bias while in the pursuit of knowledge is to avoid perceptual selectivity. Developing an opinion, especially an early development, influences the absorption of more information on the topic, as only evidence supporting one’s opinion is considered. Meaning that in any given case, a knower who has taken a side on an issue, and has further researched it, will tend to see or learn (even if unconsciously) those facts that support his or her argument in a process called perceptual selectivity (Psychology Today and Tomorrow, 2002). This notion or theory, if applied on the earlier counter argument, completely disproves its validity, for a knower’s opinion would drive him or her to the hunt for more knowledge, however it is very unlikely, unless the facts are too obvious, that the knower will change his or her preconceived opinion. Why? As one psychologist puts it, opinion can sometimes be the product of months of mind labor – a product achieved through the summoning of reason, consulting emotion, investigating language, and identifying through perception - and to let go of it or change it would be especially hard on the knower (Zaher, 2002). Therefore, with perceptual selectivity, certainty is highly unattainable through the different ways of knowing, and this theory again degrades opinion. The candidate’s biologist friend once, after examining the bio-methods of HIV onslaughts, developed an opinion claiming a vaccine was impossible to prevent it. She tended, during her skim of notes on a new prototype for the vaccine, to come up with more and more reasons to why this is true, yet gave less heed, dismissed, or even did not see any possible counter-claim. This implies that development of opinion is lethal to the acquisition of knowledge, and could, as obvious through the example, make truth a difficult goal. To what extent does a formed ideological bias influence knowledge claims or collection? Perceptual selectivity plays on limiting perception, and this could mean either that the knower will not see a counter argument in any given source, or perceive meanings in a way that is complimentary to his or her opinion. Therefore knowledge claims acquired by a knower are incomplete for they are looked at from one angle, with the existence of all other angles (if involuntarily) ignored and, relating, could in effect influence how this knowledge is later on taught.

To better justify the thesis of this investigation, one must come to ask – what is possible if opinion is out-ruled in the knowledge process? Modern information technology (with the exception of the internet) has somewhat moved towards this goal over time as information in CD-ROMS and encyclopedias lean more and more to the objective route. Without opinion or judgments, knowledge is better gained, and the ambiguous nature of truth is better understood. Using the previous example of euthanasia, two cultures might have conflicting opinions on this issue and clash in ideologies. Each culture has reached their opinion after an examination of their values and belief system, and since these are overwhelmingly powerful collective motives, neither accepts the notion of the other’s idea’s potential. As impossible as this might sound, in a world where opinion is inexistent in the pursuit of knowledge, the two cultures will understand the potential for truth in each other’s value and belief system, and realize there is not one answer. Unfortunately, and as Collingwood claims in The Enterprise of Knowledge, objectivity is impossible anywhere, even (or especially) in knowledge sources. An encyclopedia will give information that is encyclopedic in nature; a ninth grade history textbook will give information considered important for ninth graders – therefore audience becomes a key factor and a limitation in the pursuit of knowledge.

It is worthy to mention that, in one area of knowledge, history, ambiguity and uncertainty in events, people, or places is so great that opinion and speculation on the three form a the majority of the knowledge to be gained. In this case it would be safe to suggest that secondary sources present the opinions or hypotheses regarding their objects of study while still conserving their relative objectivity. For example, a good resource would present the myth of Atlantis and all evidence supporting its existence (which includes opinions and speculations), then equally present contrary view points, thus keeping the reader in wonder at the balance of power in both arguments and not imposing a certain opinion (Dailey, 2002). History, then, is a special case because personal ideological biases are being studied; it is also an example of an area of knowledge where certainty is virtually unattainable.

Personal opinion in the pursuit of knowledge can only be an impediment a knower must overthrow. In fact, as obvious through previously given examples, it is a contradiction to the concept of “knowing”. A knower that fails to realize the existence of more than one truth, and falls in the unreasonable act of holding one opinion, is no more than an infant in the theory of knowledge, let alone life. T. H. Huxley once mentioned in his Science and Culture and Other Essays: “Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.” (Ratcliffe, 1994) As obvious through this investigation, opinion can only be an irrationally held truth.