CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE

Objectives
You should be able to:
a. Define and explain knowledge
b. Distinguish between believing & knowing something
c. Evaluate your own beliefs by thinking critically about the reasons and evidence
that support them
d. Illustrate the significance of critical thinking when constructing knowledge

Nawa Stephen
 Knowledge & Truth
• Socialisation makes us believe that knowledge and truth are absolute and
unchanging – (deeply held belief, uncritical)
• We absorb information from social institutions (family, religion) passively
• But critical thinking requires us to engage actively in the learning process
& develop a holistic understanding of reality
• Active approach is important because authorities often disagree about
topical issues,
– e.g., doctors disagreeing about diagnosis, economists on economy, religions
on various conflicting approaches to eternal life.
• What do you do when experts disagree? (Go tlaa siama, Re tlaa reng)
• Critical thinker a. Analyse & evaluate all information
b. Develop well reasoned beliefs
c. Recognise when information is insufficient to reach justified
beliefs
Recognise that your beliefs may evolve over time with new information
 Cont’
• However, many resist this approach to knowledge & truth
• Often there are two options we assume;
1. We take beliefs, knowledge & truth from authorities as absolute & unchanging
2. We conclude that there is no knowledge or truth & that their search is a futile exercise
• We should determine the accuracy of our beliefs not on the basis of who
said them, but on the following criteria;
i. How effectively do your beliefs fully explain what is taking place? Beliefs
have various purposes; help us make our experiences sensible
(experience of love and relationships), to relate & communicate clearly,
to inform our decisions & help reach our goals. So, a criteria assists in
generating beliefs that provide the fullest and most accurate
explanations
ii. To what extent are our beliefs consistent with other beliefs I have about
the reality? If our newly formed beliefs conflict with our established
beliefs, then we need to evaluate them for accuracy. (Personal Identity)
 Cont’
• Are our beliefs supported by sound reasons & compelling evidence from
reliable sources? Accuracy of our beliefs is determined by the strength &
relevance of the reasons & evidence. Ask yourself, why do you have the
beliefs you do? If you have grounded beliefs, you should be able to give
compelling justification for holding such beliefs. Failure to do so means
you need to think more critically about your beliefs
• To what extent are beliefs falsifiable? You can state conditions under
which your beliefs could be disproved & the beliefs nevertheless pass.
– e.g., I believe I can create ice cubes by with water on trays in the freezer; this is
easy to determine the accuracy of the belief
– I believe my destiny is related to positions of the planets; such a belief is hard
to test
• For critical thinkers, knowledge and truth are goals to achieve, processes
that help construct a holistic understanding of reality
 Stages of Knowing

• Becoming a Critical Thinker is challenging – there are different milestones

to pass through to understand the complex nature of knowledge
• William Perry, Harvard psychologist formulated a framework that shows
these stages;
a. The Garden of Eden
b. Anything Goes
c. Thinking Critically

• One may be at different stages simultaneously depending of the area of

experience. e.g., you may be at an advanced stage in academic work but
behind in romantic relationships.
• Tendency is to operate predominantly in within one stage
 Cont’
The Garden of Eden
• Many see the world in black and white, right and wrong
• Knowledge is absolute, unchanging & in the sole possession of authorities
• Who are the authorities?
– Parents: oral tradition, so we should follow suit
– Teachers: spoon feeding, lecturer focused classroom, counter intuitive
• There is no possibility of compromise or negotiation
• Anyone who disagrees with the authorities must be wrong.
• How do they determine what is right, what to believe? The “authorities”
tell them.
• Ordinary people can never determine the truth for themselves; they must
rely on the experts. If someone disagrees with what they have been told
by the authorities, then that person must be wrong. There is no possibility
of compromise or negotiation.
 Cont’

• There is dissatisfaction when one realises that they can’t fully rely on
authorities because of disagreements (medicine, religion, economics,
psychology, education, science, law, raising children)
– e.g., authorities on the economy amid covid19: alcohol ban? Taxes? Levies, etc
• If authorities disagree, then how do we acquire knowledge?
– e.g., who should be in the forefront in decision making concerning covid19,
medical professionals or policy makers?
• Many deal with this challenge by maintaining that my authorities no more
than your authorities.
• But this explanation is unreasonable: we need to explain why we choose
to believe one authority over another
• By seeking this explanation, we emerge out of stage 1 thinking, for we
recognise its inadequacies in trying to explain reality
Anything Goes
• If you reject the dogmatic, authoritarian approach of stage 1, the
inclination is towards the extreme where anything goes.
• Why? If authorities are unreliable & deceitful then there is no single view
that is ultimately better than the other.
• We refer to this as relativism: truth is dependant on an individual or
situation, there is no objectivity, universal standards for determining the
accuracy of our beliefs.
– e.g., adultery is acceptable as long as you really love the other person, stealing
is tolerable if you are hungry, you can lie as long as you are helping someone.
• What if you’re the spouse being cheated on or you were the one being
stolen from? The lie could help someone yes, but what if that caused harm
to you?
• Although Stage 2 is slightly advanced, it leads to absurd conclusions
denying the idea that some beliefs are better than others.
Thinking Critically
• At this level, you recognise that some views are better than others
because of the standards/criteria we can use to evaluate the accuracy of
our beliefs, not because the authority said so.
• Earlier we highlighted some questions one may use as the criteria for
determining the accuracy of one’s beliefs.
• As a critical thinker, the challenge is not only to learn subject content that
helps us make sense of reality; you’re responsible for evaluating the
strengths & weaknesses of whatever content you’re receiving.
• By developing informed perspectives about reality, you locate yourself in a
position where you can justify your beliefs.
• At this this stage, you’re open-minded, you revise your former beliefs in
the light of new reasons & evidence, e.g., prostitution