#philosophyofknowledge | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pandemicblog · 3 years

Text

The Relationship Between Present and Past Knowledge (Selin)

Written by Selin Üçsel

“Present knowledge is wholly dependent on past knowledge.” In this essay, I explore this claim through the lens of Natural and Human Sciences.

“The only use of knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present,” said Alfred North Whitehead, British mathematician and philosopher. At first glance it is conspicuous that past knowledge, or knowledge which has already been produced by others, is instrumental in producing present knowledge, or that which tries to explain a previously unexplained phenomenon. Nonetheless, when one further investigates the issue, it becomes clear that there may be cases where the production of a new knowledge can be independent of any previous knowledge, either in terms of the methodology used in producing knowledge or in the sense of not benefiting from any past knowledge. That’s why, a more nuanced approach which takes into consideration the differing degrees and roles of past knowledge in the production of present knowledge may be necessary as the interaction between the two can have important impacts on the validity and accuracy of the knowledge produced. Moving from this point, the knowledge question of “To what extent new knowledge can break away from the past knowledge,” becomes an important one to answer as this could allow us to understand the intrinsic relation between past and present knowledge, especially when the multiplicity of differing relations is considered. In order to further analyze this question, this essay will examine the Areas of Knowledge of Human Sciences and Natural Sciences.

To begin with, the production of present knowledge is based on the past knowledge of the individual. As humans gain experiences and learn new information, they strengthen the way we interpret a new input from the outer world. If prior knowledge and experiences weren’t present, there wouldn’t be any assurance of the reliability of present knowledge. Despite there are a few theories about this claim, psychology in Human Sciences is one of the best areas to explore the truth of this claim. In psychology, “schema theory” refers to a mental representation that organizes our knowledge, beliefs and expectations. It is believed that interpretation of new information is derived from our prior knowledge and experiences. “Schema is a generalized description or a conceptual system for understanding knowledge, how knowledge is represented and how it is used.” For instance, the researchers Martin and Halverson aimed to investigate if gender schemas have an effect on recall in 5 and 6 year old children. Each child was shown 16 pictures. Half of them were a picture of a child performing gender consistent activities (boy playing with a truck) and the other half were a child performing gender inconsistent activities (a girl chopping wood). After one week, children were tested to see how many photos they do recall accurately. According to the results, children recalled the sex of the actor that was performing a gender consistent activity accurately but couldn’t remember the sex of the actor that was performing a gender inconsistent activity accurately and distorted the scene. As can be seen, the previously acquired gender roles and schemas, even at such a young age, influence the way children’s memories are shaped, having a dramatic impact on how a new knowledge is perceived and retained. That’s why, it can be said that under any circumstance the past knowledge will have an impact, positive or negative, on the production and retention of new knowledge.

However, a new approach to knowledge production may allow the knowledge producer to break away from past knowledge and create authentic knowledge. New theories and movements could be produced uniquely, without getting affected by the previous theories and movements in the past. Specifically, this counterclaim can be explored once again in Human Sciences with examples from history. As we all know, Karl Marx is the pioneer of the ”marxism” movement. “Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx, which examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism.” Marx developed this ideology in contrast to capitalism, which is a past knowledge, by negating it and producing a totally new ideology. Therefore, marxism is not a production of the past knowledge; instead, a new approach to economy, politics and society. In this sense, it can be said that certain knowledge can adopt an entirely new approach to knowledge production and benefit from a different set of assumptions that define the process. As such, the knowledge produced breaks away from past knowledge and does not benefit in any way from the past knowledge while producing a new knowledge. In other words, by working against the past knowledge, Marx’s new knowledge alters the way knowledge is produced, causing an epistemological break from the past knowledge that increases the originality and applicability of the new knowledge. That’s why it can be said that it becomes possible to break away from past knowledge in Human Sciences when producing knowledge, especially when attempting to produce new knowledge by altering the underlying assumptions of the past knowledge; however, this does not necessarily cause the past knowledge to be completely eliminated.

On the other hand, when we investigate the relation between past knowledge and new knowledge in another AOK, such as Natural Sciences, it becomes possible to claim that a new knowledge can completely alter the way past knowledge is produced, making past knowledge invalid. A suitable example to demonstrate such cases could be the adoption of the Heliocentric model. Until then, people used to benefit from their faiths and Holy Scriptures to gain an understanding into the universe, and as such, the common belief was that the entire universe revolves around the Earth. In other words, the geocentric model, supported by the Church was the dominant theory, or knowledge, regarding the structure of the universe. However, Copernicus, using his reason and sense perception to observe and analyze the movements of the stars, or more so those of our own planet, determined that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the other way around. This new theory was widely criticized at that time, since it directly contradicted the past knowledge which was defended by one of the strongest institutions of that era: the Church. Nonetheless, despite significant resistance, the Heliocentric model which places the Sun at the center of the Solar System, gained popularity as it was further backed by calculations, observations, and evidences by other scholars such as Galileo Galilei, which eventually led the theory to be widely accepted by the general population. As seen in this case, the spread of the Heliocentric model, with all the mounting evidence to support the theory, eventually led to its success against the Geocentric model and erased it from our common understanding of the Cosmos. In short, the new knowledge produced based on reason and sense-perception gained prevalence over knowledge produced by faith, causing the latter, the past knowledge, to be dropped altogether in favor of the new knowledge.

On the contrary, since knowledge production in Natural Sciences is a cumulative process, new knowledge is either wholly or partially dependent on past knowledge. In order to develop and explore the present information on a particular area, a prior knowledge is required. Specifically, this counter claim can be revealed in Natural Sciences with examples from nowadays’ news. Currently, there is a pandemic going on all around the world due to the large spread of Covid-19. For instance, Li Wenliang is the Chinese man who revealed the existence of the Coronavirus. In Wuhan, he investigated several samples, worked on the genetic of this virus and finally came up with the release of Coronavirus’ presence. Although Li Wenliang explored the truth and the genetics of this virus, he benefited from the previous foundations of viruses and prior research based on genetics of viruses such as another pandemic hit, Influenza in 1918. This example manifests that without any prior scientific researches and investigations of pandemic hits, Li Wenliang wouldn’t be able to study the genetic and the underlying knowledge about the virus. It further accentuates that the knowledge is an accretiveprocess that depends on the previous knowledge and foundations. In short, the past knowledge produced by other knowledge producers allows new knowledge to be produced much more easily as the producer of new knowledge can benefit from the proven knowledge of past producers while trying to uncover the mysteries of the new case at hand.

Consequently it can be said that the relation between past and new knowledge seems delicate. In certain cases, such as the schema theory, the past knowledge can influence our present knowledge, knowingly or unknowingly, whereas in other cases, such as in Marxism, the new knowledge can break away entirely from the past knowledge to gain legitimacy and acceptance while developing a critique of the former. Nonetheless, in other cases, as seen in Natural Sciences, while this pattern of severance from past knowledge seems prevalent, in other cases, such as in the Covid-19 crisis, the past knowledge can create the foundation of present, or new knowledge, making its production impossible without benefiting from the past knowledge. Hence, it is more logical to evaluate the relation between past and present knowledge on a case to case basis in order to determine its impact more precisely, and this approach can be applied to Art where certain artists may benefit from past movements when producing new works, whereas others, such as Jackson Pollock, may break away from the past knowledge and tradition to create authentic knowledge.

#philosophy #philosophyofknowledge

0 notes