"There are only two ways that humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment. " To what extent will you trust this affirmation?
What is knowledge? Knowledge from what we understand is a thick concept as it is the knowledge of or information about a subject that you will get by experience or review, either known by one individual or people genrally dictionary. cambridge. org(add citation). Though in the T. O. K content material by Richard truck de Lagemaat knowledge can be reported to be "justified true notion" and therefore if something is witnessed, a concept that is believed, that it is true and if justified then that is knowledge. These two meanings can both can be reported to be correct definitions of knowledge. Though just how do we gain this understanding or perception to begin with? The tittle of the TOK essay it declares that "there are just two ways that humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation and working experimentation. " Working experimentation is seen as an action where there is voluntary cognisant proposal on the experience accessible while passive observation be observed as proccesses that are definitely more fixed by environmental pushes and for that reason involuntary. Though knowledge questions established of the deduction on what exactly are passive observation and active experimentation are; could it be ever easy for a cognisant mind to maintain a passive status? And so are there forms of knowledge creation in addition to passive observation and working experimentation?
In both clinical and behavoural tests is it ever before easy for a cognisant brain to maintain a passive talk about? Experiments such as the bobo doll test could be brought into question in this case as well as certain simple highschool science experiments. A bobo is an inflatable toy that is roughly five feet large and usually made of a tender durable vinyl or vinyl. This test was going and created by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 where he examined the behavior of children. This test engaged two different observational rooms both could have a bobo doll, adult role model, a kid and the same toys. In one room the mature role model acted in a violent manner on the doll verbally abusing it and acting aggresive bodily using the toys and games or his/her fists. While in another room the adult role model simply performed by his or herself demonstrating no direct indications of aggresion after a tiny period of time both adult role models left the room. The area which included the violent role model the kid acted violently into the bobo doll within the room with the adult that did not show aggresion the child would either keep doing what he was doing or played out in friendly with the bobo doll. It was seen by Bandura that through the passive observation of the kids they learned how to do something towards an subject or person. The kid was not in a position to control the surroundings he/she was is it was set. Though can you really say that all these children didn't have a cognisant head when it came up to behaviour?
What had not been taken into account in the experiment where the experience that the kid had opted through at his/her house with their individual parents what acquired effected them psychologically. Say for example in the event a home where parents had been violent to the other person and so this child would have percieved how to proceed when he/she found violence, to do something back with assault. Would it be considered a lie to state that child's head is not congnisant in this case? I really believe so. At this time he/she actively tests the positioning of his/her mother or father by behaving violently based on what he/she acquired percieved, this may be the case with some of the children who acted violently towards the bobo doll and therefore the child's cognisant mind would be not in a passive point out this also earned the means of knowing both understanding and emotion affecting each childs reponse in the experiment. In a situation I was obligated against my will to swing action a bung tied to a string around in a circle and keep it moving in a circular motion. It is not easy for me to passively see as I know the technicians behind it learnt though my physics course at institution hence I am able to deduce a certain force must keep carefully the bung swinging in a uniformly circular motion and as such I do not want to apply a larger force than what is needed. Which means speed of the bung will not make it more challenging to carry the string and apply the pressure and it will not stop or go out of control suddenly. Though another question remains.
Are there varieties of knowledge development in addition to passive observation and dynamic experimentation. As innate knowledge will come in to question, therefore does the knowledge directed at us by expert. It is hard to judge if the data is enough enough for many new things such as ideas or if this is knowledge that is produced through this active experimentation during this time credited our explosive progress of knowledge, over that previous hundred years, a short time when compared to the creation of the world, expert opinion's transformed the ways we think of things such as Isaac newton who arrived of nowhere 1 day and uprooted the laws and regulations of physics, but it is unusual for that to happen again in this millennia since Albert Einstein. Experts are humans and therefore imperfect so we can also say they can be wrong, just because they might focus on a certain field and they have been in that field for years doesn't imply that everything they state is "justified true perception" or appropriate information. This knowledge was brought on by a transition from a unaggressive observation to a dynamic experimentation for the authorities but given to us as second hand information so do we say that it's through unaggressive observation that people learned this or active experimentation or would it fall under both? As expert's views tend help form the entire world so does the news headlines media, stating what's currently happening in the world; bad news, amazing reports or relevant information. As they can be seen as authority supplying knowledge to folks who watch or find out about what's reported.
In the truth of innate knowledge it is commonly a mystery as to when did it commence? Was the only reason that it had been passed down was that it was essential for life? Innate knowledge is produced through a species evolution. Can other knowledge that's not nessecary forever be transmitted down through the DNA, from a Daddy to a kid? As baby birds hatch they function the same as almost every pet animal in terms of eating and excreting. Although only reason as to why the nest will not fill with excrement is innate knowledge that was at their DNA, no-one or thing possessed tought them do to any such thing they just recognized that they had to do it. Other situations include a infants knowledge they can suckle at their mother's breasts to be able obtain nutrients or satisfy their appetite. So for this reason knowledge that is innate is possible to state that it was produced through progression or through the DNA? Another exemplory case of innate knowledge is the swimming reflex for small small children, stated when face down in water that ranges their face's they instictively paddle and or kick in a swimming motion.
These reflexes were neither gained through passive observation nor lively experiment but what are a few examples of such knowledge producing situations where there was either passive observation or lively test. In basic physics we observe the law of gravity and hence in an experiment to test legislation you'll release an subject from your palm like a ball we'd have previous knowledge and expect the ball to drop due to the make of gravity. If the hear the sound of rain drops outside hitting the pavement or objects which can be outside we can passively deduce that it is raining. Or for when you are outside in the center of the day when the sun is meant to be out though there dark grey clouds blocking the sun's rays of light then it rains now knowledge is produced where the person is aware that with dark gray clouds rain comes after immediately after. These three situations are one dynamic experiment and two unaggressive observations in which knowledge was produced.
I consent to an extent since how most knowledge is usually produced through unaggressive observation or active experimentation. Through both obeservation and dynamic experiment we use many means of knowing such as belief, sentiment, intuition and storage. Though these are not the only ways that humankind can produce knowledge. As innate knowledge that is passed on through the DNA whether discovered through the unaggressive observation of someone dying before them or a close to death experience which etched to their very DNA. I assume that the roots of all knowledge production is due to either unaggressive observation or working experimentation.
