3.5 Methods and tools How do you think we acquire knowledge?Methods By ‘method’, we mean the system, strategy, process or procedure that we use to gain knowledge. Academic disciplines use various different methods of enquiry to gain knowledge, and these are explored further in the chapters on optional themes and areas of knowledge. For example, we explore the qualitative and quantitative methods used in the human sciences, and the historian's method of using a sound interpretation of evidence to construct a meaningful and explanatory narrative. There may be significant commonalities between methods — for instance, the notion of a hypothesis and the use of evidence is shared by scientists and historians. Furthermore, Professor Tom McLeish (1962-) in his book The Poetry and Music of Science: Comparing Creativity in Science and Art argues that creativity and imagination are essential parts both of the scientific method and of any artistic process. He points out, for example, that the scientific method might suggest a way to test ideas, but it does not specify how to arrive at a hvoothesis. He therefore araues for the role of creativity in relation to the scientific method. Indeed, the creative process is central to all areas of knowledge — from mathematics and human sciences to history and the arts. Method is a central concept because it invites you to explore how we go about gaining and constructing knowledge — whether it is through trial and error, experiment, research or observation.An interdisciplinary method for gaining knowledge The Ordered Universe Project is a project where experts in the natural and human sciences, mathematics and the arts have adopted an interdisciplinary approach to come together to understand the writings of the medieval thinker and polymath Robert Grosseteste (1170-1253). Moreover, it is an example of not only interdisciplinary but also international collaboration, based at Durham University and University of Oxford and partnered with multiple international universities. The focus has been on Grossteste’s insight into natural phenomena, in order to understand the context and content of his manuscripts from the multiple perspectives of different experts. Here, there is an implicit idea that knowledge can be found in and through a method and process that allows experts from different disciplines to share and learn from each other in a common cause.Figure 3.7: Robert Grosseteste, the 13th-century bishop who wrote a treatise, On Light, combining faith and imagination with natural sciences and mathematicsImagine that the following people are discussing a knowledge question: there is a scientist, an artist, a historian, a mathematician and a moral philosopher. Select a knowledge question. For example, ‘Should we value knowledge for its usefulness or accuracy?’ or ‘How far does culture influence what we know?’ Work together in a group where each person plays the part of the one of the people from a different area of knowledge. Discuss what each person might think about the question. Evaluate the knowledge question and consider whether the different perspectives get you closer to the truth.1 Do you think that this type of interdisciplinary approach yields more or less reliable knowledge than one where there is only collaboration between experts from within a single area of knowledge? What are the merits of both approaches? 2 Does confirmation from across perspectives enhance truth? Why? Why not? 3. Who is missing from this list? What else could other experts bring to the table, and why? EXPLORE 3.8 Do some research into Robert Grosseteste, starting with the Ordered Universe Project, an international research investigation into the thinking of Robert Grosseteste. Find out more about the original ideas that Grosseteste came up with. How has an interdisciplinary approach and method enabled academics to gain shared knowledge of Grosseteste's ideas?Thesis, antithesis and synthesis Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) developed a dialectical method using the ideas of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Our understanding of reality begins with a proposition (thesis) which contains within itself a contradictory aspect that requires a counter-argument (anti-thesis), which needs a resolution (synthesis) — a new idea that resolves the conflict between thesis and antithesis. Hegel recognised that his method continued a tradition begun by Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, who presented philosophical arguments between the character of Socrates and the counter-arguments of another person. Critics have challenged Hegel's belief that reason necessarily generates contradictions. Moreover, while Hegel developed a dialectical method, he never used the terms ‘thesis’, ‘antithesis’ and ‘synthesis’ himself.A tool box as a metaphor for knowledge The methods we use to gain knowledge are closely linked to the tools at our disposal. By knowledge ‘tools’, we mean the devices needed to carry out a certain task, specifically the tools we use to construct or produce knowledge. For us as knowers, the ways in which we use ‘methods and tools’ to construct knowledge are highly complex. In this section, we do not attempt to deal with every possible method and tool, as these are developed in later chapters. Instead, we outline a few tools to get you thinking about some of the knowledge questions and concepts involved. Just as we use appropriate tools for different practical tasks in everyday life, we also use various tools and methods to gain knowledge. For example, if you wanted to build a piece of flat-packed furniture such as a wardrobe, you would need a ‘tool box’ including a screwdriver and a hammer, among others. In the same way, as knowers, we require ‘multiple tools for constructing knowledge. There are essential knowledge tools we use to gain knowledge, and these are used distinctively in each area of knowledge. These include practical or material tools which could extend our observations further, such as a telescope or a microscope, and cognitive tools such as sense perception.The internet is an obvious example of a practical knowledge tool. If we want an answer, we might use a search engine. However, as we discussed in Chapter 2, access to information is not the same thing as knowledge, and while this quick and convenient way of gaining information may give us the illusion of instant knowledge, it does not provide deep knowledge and understanding. In Chapter 5, we explore how technology is shaping us as knowers, affecting the way we construct knowledge and think about the nature of knowledge and knowing, Other practical tools, such as those used in mathematics, include the scientific calculator, the protractor and the compass, and in the natural sciences, equipment such as the Bunsen burner. Cognitive tools are the mental processes of acquiring knowledge, such as sense perception, memory, imagination, experience or rational thought. Some people argue that our Knowledge is the result of the interaction of various cognitive knowledge tools. One characteristic of being human is our capacity for rational and logical thought, but equally, the way in which our brain actively interprets the data it receives from our biological senses seems to be essential in our construction of knowledge.Figure 3.8: What ‘tools’ do we use to construct knowledge?The exploration of this question has a long history. From the perspective of the human sciences, which includes the study of philosophy, there has been a traditional dispute among philosophers who have disagreed about the way in which we acquire knowledge. For the supporters of empiricists, David Hume (1711-1776), John Locke (1632-1704) and George Berkeley (1685-1753), experience and sense perception are essential sources or tools for producing knowing. In contrast, for the rationalists such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), rationality and logic are the main sources and tools of knowledge. ur task in this section is not to outline the detail of this philosophical dispute, but rather to explore the various ways in which we might construct or produce knowledge. As knowers, it is essential that we have some understanding and insight into the process by which we acquire knowledge. In this section, we identify and explore various related knowledge questions.The senses Is seeing believing? Can we trust our senses to give us reliable knowledge? Our senses play a fundamental role in giving us knowledge of the world. Indeed, according to the major school of philosophy known as empiricism, all knowledge is ultimately based on perceptual experience. This may be too extreme, but sense perception clearly plays a key role in almost all subject areas, ranging from the sciences through history to the arts. Think, for example, of the role played by observation in biology, eye-witness accounts in history or the ability to see things with new eyes in the visual arts.There is more to perception than meets the eye, and it is a more active process than common-sense realism allows. Rather than our senses passively reflecting an independent reality, our experience of the world is affected not only by what is ‘out there’, but also by the structure of our sense organs and our minds. This has implications for the reliability of sense perception as a source of knowledge. On the one hand, it generally makes sense to trust our senses, given that they have evolved in the ways that they have for natural reasons and are essential to our survival. Our nervous system ensures that if we touch something hot, we immediately and instinctively remove our hand from the heat. This evolved reflex is built into our survival. Yet, on the other hand, we should keep in mind that ‘our senses cannot always be trusted, and may sometimes deceive us.Imagination Is imagination a reliable source of knowledge? Whereas sense perception relates to what we can experience and observe, imagination goes beyond observation. ‘According to one common definition, imagination is the ability to form a representation of something that Is not present to the senses, However, imagination covers both mental images and the entertaining of possibilities. You can imagine all kinds of possibilies and possible worlds, such as a world without war or a world in which there is no global warming. If you are asked to ‘imagine a scenario when...’ there is an assumption built in that we can invent an imaginary world that only exists as a ‘possible world’ in our mind, and not in the observable world around us. Imagination can be valuable for the knower, given that we may spend vast amounts of our leisure time reading novels, watching movies, playing video games, Imagining the consequences of various courses of action — and idly ‘daydreaming about such things as winning the lottery! Imagination is not only an important knowledge tool, but also plays a role in its justification and constitution, Imagination in the form of empathy is particularly relevant to our knowledge of other people. This ralses a knowledge question about the relation between empathy and ethies, which ‘we explore in the section on ethics later in this chapter. ‘Various kinds of imagination can be distinguished: fantasy, possible worlds, realistic imagination and creativity. ‘Arguably, imagination is an essential tool in all areas of knowledge. For example, a scientist needs the capacity for imagination just as much as an artist or a historian, even if the precise role that imagination plays in that area of knowledge Is distinctive,Referring back to the section on ‘perspectives’ earrer in the chapter, you could argue that the imagination required to shift a paradigm is essential to the development of knowledge, and that imagination was as important to the scientist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) as it was to the artist Salvador Dali (1904-1989). Imagination and creativity are closely linked, and given that creativity is the furnace in which new ideas are forged, you may like to consider the extent to which it is essential to the production of knowledge.Memory Can we trust our memory as a reliable source of knowledge? In Chapter 2, we explored memory in relation to the problems of knowledge that it poses, and here you might evaluate it further as a knowledge tool. On a personal level, memory is crucial to self-knowledge — your sense of who you are consists in large part of your memories. Memory is closely associated with history — much of which is based ‘on eye-witness recollections of events which may have happened long before they are put on record, In the practical sphere, the perceived accuracy of a witness's memory may determine whether someone is found innocent or guilty Ina criminal trial. In fact, our entire stock of knowledge depends critically on memory. The human sciences, in particular psychology, can describe the processes associated with creating and recalling memories. Three different kinds of memory are commonly distinguished: personal memory, factual memory and practical memory. Personal memory consists of your internal recollection of various events that make up your fe, such as falling off your bicycle when you were a child, your first day at school or your holiday in Grete the summer before last. Personal memory gives you your sense of identity. If you suffered from amnesia and could remember nothing about your past, then you would not know who you are.Factual memory refers to the part of memory that is concerned with meanings, facts and ideas. For example, you may know that the word ‘mercurial’ means ‘fickle’, or that gold has atomic number 79, or that Riga is the capital of Latvia. Such memory is undated, in that itis concemed only with the content of the knowledge and not with when it was acquired. You may not, for example, have any memories of when you leamed the names of capital cities. Practical memory consists of your memory of the various skills and habits you have acquired in your life, such as knowing how to type, ski or play the violin. Unlike personal and factual memory, practical memory is usually implicit, inthe sense that itis dificult or impossible to put into words. Sports psychologists use the phrase muscle memory to denote the ability to perform complex motor tasks without conscious awareness. If you can ride a bicycle, you can, ‘or example, turn left without having to think about what you are doing. Some important practical memories — such as those associated with learning to walk and talk — are lald down before your eallest personal memories. Once established, they grow deep roots and become almost impossible to forget. ‘The connection between memory and knowledge is clearly important, and we explore it further in later chapters. ‘Some people might argue that in a digital age when we can instantly access information online, our capacity to remember factual information is less important. The counter-argument might be that our memory remains essential {or the knower, not only in terms of their personal identity but also in terms of their shared identity with others. This raises an ethical knowledge question about the responsibilities of individuals, communities and nations to remember their nastFigure 3.9: How reliable aro the various ‘tools’ that we use to construct knowledge?Rationality and logic Does knowledge need to be based on rationality and logic? Our ability to think logically and to apply a logical framework to the world is arguably an important source of knowledge. Reason plays a crucial role in the construction of knowledge, not only in the natural sciences and ‘mathematics but also in other areas of knowledge, Including history, the human sciences and the arts. If you consider what rationality and reasoning is, you might think of it in a number of different ways. In this section we will explore the following: + deductive reasoning ‘+ inductive reasoning + abductive reasoning‘One of the great attractions of reason as a source of knowledge is that itis a tool that seems to give us a degree of ‘certainty. To take a well-known example, given that all human beings are mortal, and given that | am @ human being, it necessarily follows that | am mortal, provided the premises are true. There are no ‘ifs or ‘but’s about it, and it is ot a matter of personal opinion or the culture in which you were brought up. Given the premises — sometimes called ‘assumptions — the conclusion has to follow. There is no way that you can dispute it. This degree of certainty might ‘seem appealing, and it is perhaps not surprising that there is a school of philosophy — called rationalism — according to which reason plays a key role in how we acquire knowledge. The central assumption of rationalism is that we can discover important truths about reality through the use of reason alone.Deductive reasoning How reliable is deductive reasoning? Deductive reasoning is @ knowledge tool that can be used by the knower when the application of logical thinking is required. This type of reasoning is used in multiple areas of knowledge, from mathematics to history. Deductive reasoning Is any form of reasoning that moves from the general to the particular. ‘The type of deductive argument that follows is known as a syllogism, Which consists of the following items: 4 two premises and a conclusion 2 three terms, each of which occurs twice (18 Diploma Programme students’, ‘subjects’ and ‘Rosie’) 3° quantifiers, such as ‘all, ‘some’ or ‘no’, which tell us the quantity that is being referred toPremise 1: All IB Diploma Programme students study six subjects. Premise 2: Rosie is an IB Diploma Programme student. Conclusion: Therefore, Rosie studies six subjects. Before looking at some more examples of syllogisms, we need to make a distinction between truth and validity. These two words are sometimes used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing, Truth (which we explore in Chapter 4) is concerned with what is the case. Validity is concerned with whether conciusions follow logically from premises. Truth is a property of statements, whereas validity is a property of arguments. To avoid confusion, you should not say that an argument is true or false, but rather that itis valic or invalic, More formally, we can say that an argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically — that Is, necessarily — from the premises; and it Is Invalid if he conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. The main point to grasp Is that the validity of an argument Is independent of the truth or falsity of the premises it contains. Premise 1: All South American countries are in the Southern Hemisphere. Premise 2: Italy is a South Amer 1n Country. Conclusion: Italy is in the Northern Hemisphere.In this example, both premises are false and the argument is invalid. Even though the conclusion is true, itis not ‘sound because the argument is invalid — itis not a logical argument. Hence in order to be sound, the syllogism must contain both two true premises and a valid argument. ‘We cannot assume that the argument must be valid because we have reached a true conclusion. Validity is Independent of the truth of a conclusion. You can have two true premises and reach a true conclusion, but the ‘argument is invalid. This example is sound because it contains two premises and a valid argument: Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: | am human, Conclusion: Therefore, | am mortal. ‘The key point here is that we can use deductive reasoning as a knowledge tool to arrive at justified conclusions. However, itis worth noting that itis difficult to establish the truth of premises, and the process of reasoning can lead Us to very different, even contradictory conclusions, as shown by the following examples below: Premise 1: If country A fired nuclear weapons at country B, then country B would automatically fire back. Premise 2: No country would risk this station happening — known as mutually assured destruction (MAD). Conclusion: Therefore, nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Premise 1: Nuclear weapons have the capabilty to destroy another country Premise 2: The very existence of nuclear weapons risks destruction happening, Conclusion: Therefore, nuclear weapons are a threat to civlsation and peace.Evaluate the following syllogisms, and consider how the ideas of truth and validity apply to each of them. + For each of the premises, identity those that are true and those that are faise. + For each of the arguments, identity if itis logically valid or invalid. + Evaluate the conclusion. Premise 1: There are 198 countries that are members of the United Nations. Premise 2: Artsakh Is a country. Conclusion: Therefore, Artsakh is a member of the United Nations. Premise 1: All human life is precious. Premise 2: Abortion involves the destruction of a potential (unborn) human life. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong. Premise 1: Every woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. Premise 2: The right to have an abortion protects a woman's freedom. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is rightEXPLORE 3.10 ‘Work with your partner to invent your own examples of syllogisms for the following examples: two true premises and a valid argument b two true premises and an invalid argument ¢ two false premises and a valid argument two false premises and an invalid argument © one true premise, one false premise and a valid argument fone true premise, one false premise and an invalid argumentInductive reasoning Does inductive reasoning lead to justified knowledge? Inductive reasoning is another knowledge tool that the knower can use when the application of logic is required to reach general conclusions. This type of reasoning Is used in multiple areas of knowledge — from the natural sciences to the arts. While deductive reasoning goes from the general to the particular, inductive reasoning goes in the opposite direction — from the particular to the general. The premises of syllogisms can be based on inductive reasoning. With reference to the example All humans are ‘mortal, | am human, therefore, | am mortal, my belief that all human beings are mortal is a generalisation from a vast, number of particular instances. In history, every human being | know of eventually died, and | have never heard of a historical human being who did not die. Therefore, | can say with confidence that “All observed human beings ‘throughout history have died.’ But when we reason inductively, we typically go further than this and generalise — or ‘make an inductive inference — from the observed to the unobserved. Therefore in this example, we move from “All observed human beings are mortal’ to ‘All human beings are mortalThe natural sciences use inductive reasoning, and typically formulate general laws on the basis of a limited number of observations. For example, if metal A, metal B and metal C expand when healed, at some point, a sclentist is likely to arrive at @ conclusion, but will resist concluding that all metals expand when heated. This is because scientists will test all metals, but will only arrive at conclusions based on what they have observed. For example, if all of the copper tested expands when heated, we assume all copper will expand when heated, but this Is not the same as concluding that all metals will expand. Let's consider this example: Premise 1:1 have seen over 100 swans. Premise 2: | observed that each of them was white, Conclusion: Therefore, all swans are white. Premises may be based on a number of sources of knowledge, including observation and sense perception. If | have observed over 100 swans or over 10,000 swans and they have all been white, my premise will be more compelling with the larger number of swans that | have observed. Europeans used to believe that all swans are white, until they ‘went to Australia and discovered that some swans are biack. Premises 1 and 2 may be true for me, but my argument Is not valid and my conclusion is not true because there are swans that are black (which | have not yet observed). If | observed just one black swan, my second premise would be false.Figure 3.10: Thore are various species of swans, including the Bewick Swan pictured here with a black neck. How much observation is required before we reach a justified conclusion?Since inductive reasoning typically moves from the observed to the unobserved, it enables us to make generalisations about the world, and we are constantly using such reasoning in everyday life. This is a good example of reason, observation and experience interacting as tools to gain knowledge. (Our knowledge, based on inductive reasoning, is justified on the basis of our observation and experience. However, the extent of the ‘evidence’ gained by our observations is necessarily limited. Furthermore, our inductive conclusions may ‘go beyond’ our experience, therefore we might assume pattems that are more imaginary than real. For example, since apples have nourished me in the past, | assume that they will nourish me in the future. Since my neighbour's dog has been friendly to me in the past, | am confident that he will not bite me today. And since my chair has supported my weight in the past, | expect it to continue to do so in the future. In each of these cases, past experience shapes our expectations about the (unobserved) future. If you think about it, you will see that you make literally thousands of such inferences every day, and that fe would be impossible if you did not assume that most of the regularities that have held in the past will continue to hold in the future. The counter-argument is that while inductive reasoning does have some justification, it does not lead to certain knowledge, and we should not rely too much on past examples, past experience nor perceived pattems. Since Induction goes beyond the immediate evidence of our senses, we cannot always rely on It. This Is because we tend to make hasty generalisations and jump to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence. The trouble, as the Psychologist Gordon Allport (1887-1967) observed, is that, ‘Given a thimbleful of facts, we rush to make ‘generalisations as large as a tub.”There is an important link between inductive reasoning and language as a knowledge tool, given that sometimes even well-established generalisations can let us down. With reference to the examples mentioned above, itis always possible that apples make me sick tomorrow, my neighbour's dog will bite me and my chair will collapse. You might even question a well-established regularity, such as ‘Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.’ After all, itis not true if you are at the top of a mountain! The tendency to make hasty generalisations is made worse by a phenomenon known as confirmation blas, which Is the tendency for people to remember only evidence that supports their beliefs, and to forget evidence that goes against them. This may explain why itis so difficult to change the mind of someone who is in the grip of a prejudice. Inductive reasoning and language How far does language lead to reliable inductive generalisations?Language is one of the main ways in which we acquire knowledge about the world, and we explore this in greater depth in Chapier 6. We claim to know some things simply because they are correct by definition. For example, ‘All teenagers are between 13 and 19 years of age’, or ‘All bachelors are unmarried,’ are true by definition, and therefore count as accurate statements. However, given that these are examples of analytic statements that are true by definition, they tell us nothing about the reliability of our observation. Indeed, there is an important link between language, observation and generalisation. When we put labels on things, such as ‘teacher’, ‘dog’ or ‘table’, we are implicitly organising them into general classes, based on our experience and observation, so that we can make predictions about them. If we call something a ‘wolf, we have different expectations about its behaviour than if we call ita ‘dog’. Similarly, if we call something a ‘table’, we have different expectations of its use than if we callit a ‘chair’. Therefore, language might be thought of as the inherited wisdom of the community about how the world is organised; and our tendency to look for regularities in our environment and put labels on them has obvious survival value. In addition to describing our world, language also expresses our opinions and values — a theme that we look at in Chapter 4. In conelusion, inductive reasoning applies rationality and ‘oherenee to our everyday experience and observation, which we can express and communisate via language.4. Discuss examples of hasty generalisations. 2 Whatis the difference between a prejudice, a generalisation and a scientific law? ls deductive reasoning more certain than inductive reasoning? ‘When we compare inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning, we might think that deductive reasoning Is more ‘certain because it is based on logic rather than generalisations. In practice, however, deduction turns out to be no more certain than induction. This is because the premises on which deductive reasoning Is based are ultimately derived from induction. In the case of deductive reasoning, no new knowledge is created that was not already implied in the premises. In the case of inductive reasoning, new knowledge is created but itis only as reliable as our ‘observations are accurate and our experience permits. The difference between the two types of reasoning can be ‘summarised in the following table:Definition Reasoning from general to particular Reasoning from particular to general Example ‘All metals expand when heated. A is 4 metal. ‘Therefore A expands when heated. ‘Metal A oxpands whon healed, metal B expands when heated, metal C expands when heated. ‘Therefore all metals expand when heated, Value More certain ifthe premises are sound and the argument is, vali, but less informative than induction ‘More informative, but less certain than deductionEXPLORE 3.11 Using this table as a starting point, work with a partner to discuss and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of deductive and inductive reasoning. Then develop your ideas further, and discuss the follow + Does either type of reasoning lead to certain knowledge? Why’? Why not? + How might we use deductive and inductive reasoning as tools to evaluate knowledge claims? REFLECTION To what extent do your expectations and assumptions affect the ways that you use reasoning and other tools of knowing?Abductive reasoning How do we know if our explanations are accurate and justified? Abductive reasoning relates to best explanations. Itis like inductive reasoning in that itis reasoning that infers ‘conclusions based on particular examples and pattems. However, unlike inductive reasoning, the conclusions are inferred because they point to the best explanation. For example, if | know that two friends - Hamid and Chong Beng — have recently had an argument but | see them together in the school café chatting over a coffee, | may think that the best explanation is that they must have made Up. have no other evidence or hard data, but | arrive al my conclusion because itis the best explanation for their meeting over coffee. On the other hand, my reasoning could be unjustified, given that they may not have made up but instead are meeting to work on a collaborative homework task together. The truth is that | have limited evidence to support my theory. We might argue that evidence is required as a basis for knowiedge, but what counts as evidence Is dependent on the situation. Evidence varies between areas of knowledge and within knowledge ‘communities. Also, what constitutes enough or legitimate evidence might be up for discussion. Our explanations may vary according to thelr degree of accuracy and the evidence available. Deductive reasoning is based on an inference that is logically necessary. However, inductive and abductive reasoning arrive at conclusions based on inferences that might or might not follow logically. With inductive reasoning, the conclusion is based on an inference, which relies on an appeal to the frequency of examples or observations. With abductive reasoning, the conclusion inferred is based on an appeal to the best explanation. In Chapler 13, we will explore Occam's Razor the principle that a simple solution or explanation is more likely to be correct than a complicated one.‘You have now explored a wide range of methods and tools for acquiring knowledge. Consider how you know or how you might justify claims a-t. Match each of the claims, a-t, to one or more of the following concepts, numbered 1-29: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 observation evidence inductive reasoning deductive reasoning true premise false premise research personal experience9 experiment 10 logic 14 definition 12 experience 18 Interpretation 14 emotion 415 Intuition 16 faith 17 trust 418 memory 19 imagination 20 language24 rationality 22 sense perception 23 conscience 24 aesthetic sense 25 common sense 26 value 27 authority 28 trust 29 expertise Then rate and comment on the certainty of the claims. Put them in rank order where 1 Is the most certain claim and 20 is the least certain claim.‘@ Compound x is more soluble in water than compound y. You sense that you can trust William, © Monet painted beautiful pictures of waterilies. All bachelors are unmarried. @ The cosmos is rapidly expanding. The element sodium has 12 neutrons, 11 electrons and 11 protons. @ Henry VII (1457~1508), who was the King of Engkand from 1485-1509, was not stable on the throne. fy Ifyou add motals fo acid, the amount of hydrogen produced can indicate how reactive the metal s, i As interest rates rise, the number of people who apply for 4 mortgage decreases, | An average increase in wages will lead to an increase in house prices.k The milk has gone off | Every swan you have ever seen has been white m Community rules are more important than individual rights 1 Ifby God we mean the ‘greatest being imaginable’, then God must exist, given that existence is a quality of greatness. © You can boost your brain power by exploring now environments, and staying both physeally and socially active, PItis wrong for one country to invade another country Itis right for a country to defend its borders. Humans are the cause of climate change [tis impossible to change the past A piano player can improve with practice.Peer-assessment Compare your work with your partner. What do you notice? What do you think of your partner's ratings? Have they missed anything? What did your partner think of your ratings? Had you missed anything? Give each other some feedback, based on how well you have understood the different justifications that can be given for various claims. 11 Using the statements in the table, discuss the following questions: How do we know each of them? Are there any that cannot be known? 2 How far might different methods and knowledge tools enable us to gain knowledge? 3. Why might we disagree about different degrees of certainty? 4 Can we still have valuable knowledge even if itis not certain knowledge?Knowledge questions related to methods and tools Here are some examples of related knowledge questions: » What counts as a fact in two areas of knowledge? What are the similarities and differences? » What constitutes evidence in two different areas of knowledge? How Is evidence used in the construction of knowledge in these areas? + What are the similarities and differences in the concepts, methods and tools of enquiry used in two areas of knowledge? + How far can we rely on the cognitive and material tools used to produce knowledge in two different areas? + How far Is technology influencing the methods used to produce knowledge In different areas?