Personal code: jgc880
Prompt: Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in “bubbles” where some
information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Prompt number: 3
Knowledge bubbles, whether self-imposed or created by others, are like locked libraries: where
knowers only have access to limited information. The bubble can be considered either a restriction
of knowledge, or that of a community of knowers who are acquiring the knowledge. This essay will
consider the natural sciences and human sciences to explore whether knowledge acquisition in these
bubbles where certain voices are left out matters, insofar as the bubbles impede or favour the
function of knowledge as the pursuit of the full truth, assuming that is our moral obligation, and
ultimate goal, as knowers (Plato).
The impact of knowledge acquisition in bubbles is based on the nature of the knowledge acquired.
Natural Sciences rely on positivism, wherein objective knowledge is pursued and a shared
understanding of scientific phenomena is developed. Objective knowledge, which is uniformly
understood, is not impacted if its acquisition takes place in bubbles since the bubble of neither the
knowledge acquirers nor givers will determine the knowledge. In natural sciences, the acquisition of
knowledge in bubbles, therefore, does not matter in most cases. E.g., the chemical polymer Nylon is
a portmanteau of New York and London because of its concurrent discovery in both countries.
Although the knowledge was acquired in mutual exclusion, the characteristics of the element
discovered were the same due to its measurability. Likewise, commonalities have been observed in
biological medical research such as Egypt’s ‘Ebers Papyrus’ from the 34th century B.C.E.,
Mesopotamia’s ‘Assyrian Herbal’ from the 18th century B.C.E., and Greek's ‘The Hippocratic
Corpus’ from 5th century B.C.E., despite there being no record of interaction between these
spatially and temporally isolated bubbles. Evidently, knowers can arrive at knowledge eventually
due to the inherent pursuit of objective knowledge, irrespective of the bubbles they acquire the
1
Personal code: jgc880
knowledge from. Arrival at the same knowledge despite the exclusion of information about
scientific discoveries made elsewhere, although not deliberate, showcases that in the natural
sciences, knowledge acquisition in bubbles does not seem to matter.
On the contrary, knowledge acquisition in bubbles can matter if the credibility of a bubble
accelerates knowledge development due to the deliberate exclusion of voices that are considered
irrelevant. This can occur in knowledge communities such as selective research institutes which
bring together specialists. For example, the discovery of CMBR radiations took place in 1964 in
New Jersey, the hub for scientific development. Physicist Arno Penzias and radio-astronomer
Robert Wilson accidentally found this radiation while exploring neutral Hydrogen (Evans). Since
this research occurred in the vicinity of other scientists, they were put in contact with Bob Dicke—
who was pursuing similar research in a previously unconnected entity— at Princeton University
only fifteen minutes away. The union of these researchers led to the collective knowledge of the
CMBR radiations, with the exclusion of potentially irrelevant voices as key to the quick
development. Thus, bubbles can accelerate knowledge acquisition in the natural sciences.
Conversely, the exclusion of voices in bubbles can also delay knowledge development. For
instance, Barbara McClintock, a revolutionary female scientist studying chromosomes, faced
gender discrimination: a testimonial epistemic injustice wherein a knower’s credentials are doubted
due to factors irrelevant to the knowledge produced. She was excluded from male scientists’
knowledge bubbles by not being allowed to enter rooms where they discussed her experimental
results. In fact, her ground-breaking discovery of transposition in the 1940s was widely disregarded
until a molecular basis for it was discovered by her male counterparts in the 1970s. Evidently, this
bubble of knowledge both delayed the development of knowledge and had ethical implications. In
both cases of acceleration and deceleration, bubbles impacted the pursuit of knowledge, therefore
they matter in the natural sciences.
2
Personal code: jgc880
While the natural sciences are objective and developed, the human sciences are centred around
interpretivism, with varying perspectives of knowers even upon acquiring the same knowledge.
Therefore, in this case, knowledge acquisition in bubbles can result in extremely different views due
to the subjectivity of knowledge and varying abilities to assimilate the truth. Firstly, knowledge
acquisition in bubbles can result in different interpretations of knowledge, and thus the development
of distinct, and possibly even incompatible, perceptions of truth. Considering social media through
the lens of psychological theories substantiates the view that knowledge acquisition in bubbles
matters because of the proclivity of human knowers to form biases, and therefore compromise their
pursuit of knowledge, especially in bubbles with high hermiticity and homogeneity. For instance,
‘filter bubbles’ are difficult to burst out of, as they feed on knowers’ psychological weaknesses to
limit their knowledge acquisition from outside their established bubbles. The principle of Least
Effort explains how knowers have the propensity to opt for the path with the least resistance to
knowledge and are influenced more by acquaintances than by dialectical reasoning. Social media
uses these views of the users and their acquaintances, also called redistributive rhetorics, to fortify
biases including dogmatism, mimesis, and confirmation bias– effectively impairing the knower’s
ability to consider perspectives outside their established bubble, consequently obstructing their
pursuit of knowledge. Although it could be argued whether new knowledge can change established
beliefs or not, access to new knowledge certainly challenges knowers’ beliefs and thus imbibes a
more conscious pursuit of knowledge. By knowledge acquisition in bubbles, this pursuit is
obstructed.
Another example of hampered epistemological practice due to knowledge acquisition in bubbles is
Partisan Epistemology: the phenomenon of knowers regarding certain knowledge with higher
validity (or the epistemic injustice of ‘credibility excess’) due to their shared partisan affiliation
with those they receive the information, leading to very distinct partisanship bubbles. A sociological
experiment conducted across six countries in 2018 (Brader & Tucker) demonstrates this: knowers
3
Personal code: jgc880
more often built a policy preference based on the partisanship of the political party than the other
way around, clearly showing that when in bubbles of like-minded knowers, knowers tend to base
their knowledge based on partisanship rather than reasoning. This has serious implications for
knowers’ perception of credibility and consequently, that of knowledge acquired, which is biased
and incomplete. Consequently, it can be inferred that their pursuit of truth is impeded. Clearly,
knowledge acquisition in bubbles in the human sciences matters.
The existence of bubbles that exclude certain voices and information appears to matter because it
impedes arriving at the “full truth”, considered the ultimate goal of knowledge. However, theories
that study human behaviour argue that due to their cognitive limitations, humans cannot compute all
knowledge available to them regardless of its acquisition in or outside a bubble. Challengers of
Homo Economicus, the idea of a person who consistently behaves rationally and according to what
is in their self-interest, question the assumption of completeness (having all knowledge about
available choices), cognition (the ability to compute available knowledge) and consistency
(complete knowledge through dynamic contexts). Irrespective of the bubble, knowers are likely to
be flawed in their pursuit of the “full truth” due to their bounded rationality; therefore, acquiring
knowledge in a bubble is redundant in the pursuit of knowledge. E.g, a market is considered
informationally efficient if prices always incorporate all available information. In such markets,
consumers’ knowledge acquisition does not happen in a bubble since there is perfect availability of
information. Yet, consumers are still unable to maximise their utility; consumer rationality is limited
by incompleteness, lack of cognitive ability, and inconsistency. For example, studies show that
customers are likely to purchase energy-using durables that have lower initial costs but higher
energy costs which cost them more through their lifespan than those which will cost less. Despite
complete information about the products, consumers’ inability to compute their benefits prevents
them from making the most economic/rational decision. The ‘Greater Fool Hypothesis,
demonstrates the large-scale implication of a similar bubble of aggregate consumers. In a market
4
Personal code: jgc880
bubble, agents can profit by purchasing assets that have been valued at a higher level, and then sell
them later on because there is always the possibility of finding a greater fool: someone willing to
buy at a higher price. Even if knowledge is not acquired in a bubble, due to knowers’ irrationality,
knowers are likely to make poor decisions– resulting in undesired allocative inefficiency, as seen in
the market bubbles of The Tulipmania crash in 1637 and the Housing Bubble crash in 2007. Thus,
since knowers do not take all available knowledge to them into consideration regardless of the
presence of a bubble, knowledge acquisition in a bubble does not matter– in the case of all human
sciences involving decision-making such as Business, Economics and Psychology.
Knowers are parts of several knowledge bubbles throughout their life. Although whether or not
knowledge acquisition in these bubbles matters is arguable, evidence largely suggests that
knowledge acquisition differs as per the nature of the knowledge and the community of knowers
that the bubble is based on. In a world that increasingly relies on technology, knowledge acquisition
in bubbles is becoming more complicated than ever, and the extent to which bubbles matter
depends on assorted factors. In the natural sciences, new knowledge is now shared online in more
transparent bubbles, whereas in the human sciences, the increasing political polarisation of knowers
is resulting in the development of bubbles that are stronger to break out of. Moving forward, it is
imperative to determine where these bubbles are inevitable, intentional, designed to impact the
pursuit of truth, and/or a hindrance to our pursuit of truth.
Word count: 1557
Works Cited:
Blumenthal, Henry J. “Platonism | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2020,
www.britannica.com/topic/Platonism. Accessed 8 Oct. 2022.
5
Personal code: jgc880
Bogan, Vicki. “The Greater Fool Theory: What Is It?” Hartford Funds, 22 Mar. 2021,
www.hartfordfunds.com/insights/investor-insight/the-greater-fool-theory-what-is-it.html. Accessed
29 Nov. 2022.
Brader, Ted, and Joshua A. Tucker. “Unreflective Partisans? Policy Information and Evaluation in
the Development of Partisanship.” Political Psychology, vol. 39, Feb. 2018, pp. 137–157,
10.1111/pops.12480. Accessed 16 Nov. 2022.
Brazier, Yvette. “Ancient Egyptian Medicine: Influences, Practice, Magic, and Religion.”
Www.medicalnewstoday.com, 16 Nov. 2018,
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323633#influences. Accessed 21 Oct. 2022.
Burke, Liam. Accelerated Epistemic Harm: Understanding the Role of Social Media Engagement
Algorithms in Online Radicalization. 2022,
curve.carleton.ca/system/files/etd/8c947d66-6331-410d-a97b-1c04488baed9/etd_pdf/758c0bba413
91c3d51cd1a4ab8e178e2/burke-acceleratedepistemicharmunderstandingtherole.pdf. Accessed 1
Dec. 2022.
Dintino, Theresa C. “Barbara McClintock: Breaking “Illogical Barriers,” American Woman
Biologist (1902-1992).” Nasty Women Writers, 27 Feb. 2019,
www.nastywomenwriters.com/barbara-mcclintock-breaking-illogical-barriers-american-1902-1992/
. Accessed 27 Oct. 2022.
Evans, Rhodri. “The CMB: How an Accidental Discovery Became the Key to Understanding the
Universe.” The Conversation, 24 July 2015,
theconversation.com/the-cmb-how-an-accidental-discovery-became-the-key-to-understanding-the-u
niverse-45126. Accessed 16 Oct. 2022.
Fama, Eugene F. “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work.” The
Journal of Finance, vol. 25, no. 2, May 1970, pp. 383–417, www.jstor.org/stable/2325486,
https://doi.org/10.2307/2325486. Accessed 23 Nov. 2022.
6
Personal code: jgc880
Frederick, Shane, et al. “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review.” Journal of
Economic Literature, vol. 40, no. 2, 2002, pp. 351–401, www.jstor.org/stable/2698382. Accessed 27
Nov. 2022.
“Greek Medicine - Rationality and Medicine.” Www.nlm.nih.gov, 16 Sept. 2002,
www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_rationality.html. Accessed 29 Oct. 2022.
Hausman, Jerry A. “Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using
Durables.” The Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, 1979, p. 33, 10.2307/3003318. Accessed
10 Dec. 2022.
Kelly, Thomas. “Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization.” Journal of Philosophy, vol.
105, no. 10, 2008, pp. 611–633, www.princeton.edu/~tkelly/ddabp.pdf, 10.5840/jphil20081051024.
Accessed 2 Nov. 2022.
Rini, Regina. “Fake News and Partisan Epistemology - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal.”
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20 July 2017,
kiej.georgetown.edu/fake-news-partisan-epistemology/. Accessed 10 Nov. 2022.
Sabina Cisek. Filter Bubble and Information Behaviour, ISIC 2018, Keynote Speech. 10 Oct. 2018,
www.slideshare.net/sabinacisek/filter-bubble-and-information-behaviour-isic-2018-keynote-speech.
Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.
Strait, L. Paul. Epistemic Bubbles: A Communication Theory of Collective Valuation Errors.
https://www.lpaulstrait.net/, pp. 1–12,
www.lpaulstrait.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Strait-2012-Epistemic-bubbles-A-communication-
theory-of-collective-valuation-errors-nca.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov. 2022.
The Decision Lab. “Bounded Rationality - Biases & Heuristics | the Decision Lab.” The Decision
Lab, 2022, thedecisionlab.com/biases/bounded-rationality. Accessed 3 Dec. 2022.
Tragakes, Ellie. Economics for the Ib Diploma Coursebook with Cambridge Elevate Edition. 2009.
3rd ed., Cambridge Univ Press, 2020, pp. 72–75.Accessed 20 Nov. 2022.
Wee, John Z. “Medicine, Mesopotamia.” Oxford Classical Dictionary, oxfordre.com, 26
7
Personal code: jgc880
May 2021,
oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199
381135-e-8632;jsessionid=3EF9DDCA3885CB7806E090E4746E884B. Accessed 26 Oct.
2022.
