Journals on Oral Presentations and the Ethics of Knowledge

Journals on Oral Presentations and the Ethics of Knowledge By Mariko Norika Oral Presentations: The oral presentations completed this session focused on the idea of paradigms and paradigm shifts, particularly in reference to Kuhn’s understanding of them in the field of science. The philosopher and historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, thought that paradigms are systems of thought through which we understand phenomena of the world. He said that most scientists work within periods of ‘normal science’, through which they merely ‘solve puzzles’ strictly within their given paradigm, instead of constantly questioning the restrictions given in this system of thought. Kuhn also said that occasionally enough problems are found in the accepted paradigm that its esteemed validity is questioned. However, the basis for transitioning to a new paradigm is not always purely rational, the popularity of a particular theory instead based much on societal values and even the personal ambition of a scientist Lagemaat, R. 2015, ‘Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma’, CUP. A defining feature of Kuhn’s theory is also his assertion that a paradigm shift must be incommensurable with the previously held paradigm, an idea that was rigorously contested by some oral presentations. As the oral presentations focused on a diverse range of knowledge disciplines aside from science, some did conflict with elements of Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm shift. However, many were consistent with his view that paradigms (or filters of knowledge) are indeed a significant part in the knowledge we possess. Although paradigms are useful in organising our knowledge in functional ways, they also present the danger of restricting our thought from other legitimate perspectives. This was particularly evident in the presentations on Copernicus, where the previous paradigm of a geocentric universe was held in such high esteem that the possibility of a heliocentric universe seemed inconceivable in comparison, and even unfaithful in such a pious society. As well as demonstrating how a paradigm can restrict perspective, this example also revealed how societal values and authority are significant in the treatment of knowledge. The faith in religion as a primary source of all value in society allowed the theory to be treated as a politically meaningful action, rather than one of scientific objectivity as was intended. This example of a paradigm shift therefore demonstrated how knowledge is never treated as neutral and objective, always subject to the discourse of society. Kuhn’s idea that paradigms are ‘incommensurable’ with previous paradigms was particularly scrutinised by the presentation on Charlie Parker, a jazz musician. It was argued that because the arts are more subjective, previous paradigms should not be treated as ‘problems’ to be overcome. No art should be treated as inferior as art is an emotional medium used to express ideas, meaning some art is not necessarily more legitimate than other art. However, one way in which I personally think art can be seen as having ‘anomalies’ is the way in which new forms of art arise parallel to changes in society. Although no art is ever superior as it depends upon the subjective judgement of a society or individual, art can become untruthful when it does not serve the purpose of reflecting the attitude of the people in question. Thus a new paradigm of art is necessary such as Parker’s new ‘Bebop’ style as opposed to the previous swing style. However, the paradigm shifter I found most thought provoking was my own study of Derrida. Derrida developed the theory of Deconstruction, the idea that knowledge is never certain as it is inevitably found with a biased perspective. As other paradigm shifts studied asserted that one paradigm was favoured as opposed to a previous paradigm, Derrida’s theory proposed that no paradigm should ever be more significant than the other as any judgement made can never be determined as objectively superior. Through learning of this idea, I was struck by how a paradigm will never be completely objective or impartial, meaning that paradigm shifts will always be subject to society and the broad (not exclusively rational) human condition. As repeated throughout the unit: “There is no view from nowhere.” The phrase “There is no view from nowhere” comes from Thomas Nagel’s book The View From Nowhere, in which he meant that a completely objective viewpoint is unattainable. Nagel, T. ‘The View From Nowhere’, Oxford University Press Ethics of Knowledge: While studying the ethical implications of knowledge, there has been particular focus on the ideas of philosopher Miranda Fricker. Fricker said that there are two types of injustice that arise from the treatment of knowledge in society: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Testimonial injustice addresses the injustice one feels when their credibility as a knower is treated as inferior as a result of a feature such as race or gender, whereas hermeneutical injustice is when one is unable to contest against injustice because there is no concept that allows them to express this injustice. Fricker explains hermeneutical injustice specifically as a ‘hermeneutical lacuna’ in which there is a complete gap in understanding, restricting a society from even conceiving of, or noticing an injustices’ existence. This idea is also closely connected with how legitimate or rational an idea seems. Commonly recognised concepts within society are so widely understood that they often become assumed as true, meaning that they remain legitimate and unquestioned. This foundation of belief causes one facing an injustice within a hermeneutical lacuna to be forced into rigorously justifying the validity of their injustice. While learning about hermeneutical injustice, it also became apparent to me that authority has the power to reinterpret concepts so that they cannot be used to defend injustice. For example, in George Orwell’s 1984 The Party reinterprets the words ‘war’, ‘freedom’, and ‘slavery’ through the slogan: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Orwell, G. ‘1984’, Penguin, London, p.19 The words are stripped of their original meaning and are instead controlled by authority in order to manipulate concepts the oppressed may use to rationally defend injustice. It then becomes evident that authority has significant control over the ethical paradigm (how actions are deemed justified) in a society. An important point that Fricker introduces is how our status as valuable beings is deeply connected to the capacity for knowledge we are granted as having. When our capacity for knowledge and rationality are discredited, our very identity is brought into question as our thoughts on the meaning of our lives are dependent on our ability to think in an accurate way. If our very ability to react to the world in a legitimate way is questioned, the validity of the judgements we make are challenged, thus making us question not only our value as a human being, but also our very ability to have valid opinions about anything. Amongst the insights Fricker makes on the deeply ethical implications of knowledge, this is perhaps her most profound idea: that society can have the power to question the very truth of our most intimate thoughts. Word Count: 1,094 Bibliography: Lagemaat, R. 2015, ‘Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma’, CUP Nagel, T. ‘The View From Nowhere’, Oxford University Press Orwell, G. ‘1984’, Penguin, London, p.19