“There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment.”

This statement raises important knowledge questions that have to do with the production of knowledge itself. The first is: How do we produce new knowledge? The second: Is the production of knowledge limited to certain methodologies? When I use the word “production,” I do not mean the acquisition of knowledge; I mean the discovery of new knowledge previously unknown to humanity. With this definition in mind, I agree with the statement. Passive observation and active experiment form the basis for the production of new knowledge, whether it is produced through the senses, trial and error, or the scientific method. Some would argue that knowledge is produced from ways of knowing (WOKs), while observation and experimentation are merely methods of checking whether that knowledge is true. I believe that

WOKs can serve as catalysts for the production of knowledge – that they can produce ideas and theories – and, as such, are closely tied to and dependent on observation and experimentation.

Ultimately, however, the actual discovery of new knowledge relies on passive observation and/or active experiment. To demonstrate this, I will examine several WOKs and analyze how each can be traced back to what I believe are the only two methods of producing knowledge.

The first WOK that can be connected to the statement is sense perception - the use of our senses to examine the world around us. Passive observation is a method of noticing and understanding what our senses tell us without interfering or making judgments. It allows us to witness events and the existence of things in order to gather the information necessary for any discovery. Observation is also the first step in the scientific method. For example, when Charles

Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he noticed that the beaks of the several species of finches were different according to their environment and diet. This observation later formed the basis for his Theory of Evolution.

The second way of knowing that can be connected back to the statement is reason.

Reason, the use of logic to make inferences about or deduce something, is involved with passive observation and active experiment. Active experiment is manipulating our surroundings to determine what the result will be. When we observe something, we can then use reason to determine a probable explanation. Observing the same thing multiple times can lead to the formation of a hypothesis – if a, then b.

Once a hypothesis is formed, there are two ways that hypothesis can be tested. The first method is through trial and error, a primitive form of experimentation. When humans still lived as hunter-gatherers, before the scientific method had been developed, they did not always know which plants were safe to eat. Reason was essential to survival. For example, certain types of almonds contained cyanide, a poison, while others did not. Over time, humans learned through observation and experience which trees produced almonds that were deadly and which ones were safe. Then, they made sure to only eat from those that were safe.

The second method is through designing an experiment specifically to test the hypothesis.

Thanks to modern technology, we can now explore topics that go beyond simple survival skills and are far more complex, such as quantum theory. We still cannot completely escape trial and error, as we often have to test, for example, whether or not some product is safe. However, we have learned to run tests on animals to minimize the risk of humans being harmed. This shows that over time, reason has not only helped mankind in the production of knowledge, but has also been useful in helping to improve the safety and accuracy of our methods for producing knowledge. Again, however, while WOKs and methodologies are inextricably linked, the production of new knowledge and discovery is dependent on passive observation and active experiment.

In my own experience, I used active experimentation in a science project. I burned several types of vegetable oils and compared their energy outputs to that of petroleum. While petroleum produced the most energy, some of the vegetable oils came very close to petroleum’s energy levels. Had this been an original experiment, it would have become new knowledge, although I would have had to run more verification trials. Even though my experiment had already been performed before, it further confirmed the previous experiment’s results.

Not everyone would agree that observation and experimentation are the only ways to produce knowledge. As such a statement is a knowledge claim rather than a fact, it is open to debate. Some would argue that WOKs produce knowledge, while observation and experimentation are only used to check whether that knowledge is reliable or true. A justification for this is that sense perception and reason, the two WOKs with which the methodologies of observation and experimentation are most closely connected, are subjective.

Senses can be fooled – a notable example being optical illusions, in which our mind is tricked into seeing things that don’t actually exist, into not seeing things that do exist, or seeing more than one image. Observation is also selective. Our minds see what they want to see. Memories can be distorted according to our personal biases. For example, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Often, they turn out to be false. People who witness the same thing can have different observations. Reason, too, can be subjective. Right now, there are two leading theories that describe how the universe works: Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity.

The former works on the atomic level and the latter works on larger bodies of mass. Both have decades’ worth of research and evidence behind them, but they cannot both be correct. In response, I would say this: other WOKs can serve as catalysts for producing knowledge but cannot produce new knowledge or discovery without observation and/or experimentation. Imagination, for example, can stimulate curiosity and lead to discovery, but our imaginations are based on the present world we see. Intuition may give us a gut or instinctual sense, but our subconscious thinking, the ability to process information quickly without evidence, is based on past observations. Language is a method for communicating new knowledge, but does not produce knowledge on its own. It is true that we must have a word for something in order to express it, and that the presence or absence of a certain expression in a language can affect one’s thinking, but languages are also adaptable. Every year, numerous words are added to the dictionary to express new terms and concepts. As society and technology progresses, so, too, does language.

WOKs can create ideas and theories, but we can’t produce new knowledge or discovery without passive observation and active experiment. It is only through passive observation and active experiment that those ideas and theories from the WOKs are transformed into new knowledge or discovery. If a knowledge claim is made that cannot be tested - for example, “The universe has a creator” - then it is more of a belief or faith rather than knowledge.

With regard to sense perception and reason being subjective, it’s true that they can be, but there are explanations. Just because they’re not always right does not mean we should conclude that they can never be relied on. Senses can be fooled; that has been established. However, the cases in which they can be fooled are generally very specific or isolated. It’s doubtful that most people would say that we could never rely on our senses. If our senses are inaccurate, how could we as a species have survived for so long? Moving on to reason, again, it is true that two people can make two of the same observations and come to two different conclusions. Does this mean reason has failed us? No. It merely suggests that further research or evidence is needed. In the case of how the universe works, we still don’t have all the data necessary to make a proper conclusion.

“There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment.” I believe this statement to be true when the definition of the word “produce” is limited to discovery and the production of new knowledge. As it is somewhat ambiguous, I cannot completely prove that this statement is true, but I can interpret it.

Producing knowledge or discovery means adding to the shared knowledge of mankind as a whole, and I conclude that we only can produce new knowledge by either passive observation by active experiment. Ways of Knowing provide us with ideas and theories; observation and experimentation determine whether they are added to the shared knowledge of humanity.

Word Count: 1,434

Bibliography

Diamond, Jared M. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998. Print.