subject: Possibility Of Knowledge [print this page] Possibility Of Knowledge Possibility Of Knowledge
The issue of the possibility of knowledge is one that has concerned many philosophers for a very long time. Questions as to whether it is possible to know anything have been raised with varying answers being attracted. Perhaps it might seem very easy for some, but this is a very complex issue. To something as it really is becomes difficult as soon as one realizes what it is involved. One thing that many agree on is that certain things must be present before anyone can claim knowledge of anything. Knowledge presupposes belief. That is to say that one must believe something before even claiming or talking about something. Knowledge also presupposes truth. In other words it is not possible to know something that is not true. This means that to say that someone knows something; it means that what is known is also true. One cannot know something that is not true; falsity cannot be admitted as knowledge. It is important therefore that, when one analyses knowledge of something this be put into consideration. The other important thing that must be present in order to claim knowledge is justification. This means that one must be in a position to show that what makes them to claim to know that particular thing is sufficiently explained. As will be demonstrated later, however, there is more o knowledge than these three conditions. This is because these three conditions lead us to subjective kind of knowledge. If knowledge is subjective, then it cannot be knowledge at all, because it cannot be acceptable to everyone as such. Many thinkers have held knowledge to means the agreement of what is thought with reality. However reality in itself is as complex as the mind that attempts to study it. This would create a serious problem regarding the so many elaborate kinds of knowledge systems. Against this background then, this study will assess a case of self proclaimed psychic who claims to know what will happen long before it does. It will assess the possibility of pre-knowledge, if you may, based on these three important parameters.
Accurate Prediction-Is it really knowledge?
As it has already been shown, there are certain conditions to be fulfilled before something can be admitted as knowledge. John Hospers in his book 'Introduction to Philosophical Analysis' says that knowledge is admitted as such in as long as it meets the three elements criteria; belief, truth, and justification (Hospers, 1996:39). These he considered as the backbone of any knowledge. Based on these three, can anyone be justified in saying that someone who predicts accurately certain events before they happen is really aware of the reality? To be able to sufficiently establish this, an example will do. A certain lady after observing the way doves behave concluded that when doves moan, it is going to rain. For a number of days during the rainy season, the dove moans and the rains come shortly after. The lady explained to her friend that every time the dove moaned the rains always came. This was her justification of her belief. It seemed that for quite sometime, that belief was quite true. Up to this point, the three conditions are duly satisfied. However, one day the dove moans but the rains do not come. What then becomes of what she has always held to be knowledge? Did she really know about these things? In discussing these issues, one must be very modest in their claims. One cannot really claim to fully understand the metaphysical. However, based on the three conditions one can sufficiently argue that the lady 'knew' that it would rain every time the dove moaned. However, as soon as the dove moans and the rains fail, it becomes clear that she did not really know. In the case involving the self proclaimed psychic, the fact that every time she accurately predicts about international events cannot be admitted as sufficiently consisting of knowledge. Perhaps just like in the example above, the psychic believes herself to know what will happen. It could be that certain trends in the occurrence of the international events lead the psychic to unerringly predict the occurrence of future events. However the fundamental question that one could ask is; the fact that something consistently happens for a number of times, does it mean that it will always happen in the future and therefore be claimed as knowledge? The fact that water always boils at certain temperature at sea level does not necessarily mean that it will always do so in the future. Supposing that those who hold it as knowledge were to realize that one day it does not boil at that same temperature what are they to conceive of this condition? In other words how many accurate predictions are sufficient in the case of the psychic to admit as knowledge what she predicts? If for the first one thousand predictions she happens to be accurate, and that due to the accuracy of these predictions people hold that she actually knows about the future, what then happens if in the thousand and one time her predictions fail? Everyone who held her as a master of the future will have to change their thought regarding her. A very good example, which is somehow similar to the psychic case, is that of the geocentricity theory. For a very long time, several people held as knowledge the fact that the earth was at the centre of the universe, and everything moved relative to it. It was later on in the medieval period discovered that it was not really the case. People had a very difficult time believing something else. Common sense had taught them that because every morning they would see the sun come up and set later on in the evening, it must have been the sun that was moving. In real sense, it was actually the earth that was moving, and depending on where one was in relation to the sun determined whether it was day or night. These people always said that the sun will rise tomorrow or the sun will not rise tomorrow, and for several years they saw it as true. But in reality the sun has never really moved. These people would have been acclaimed by others as being very knowledgeable. Today science indicates that this kind of 'knowledge' was in actual fact not knowledge at all. John Hospers argues, and rightly so, that knowledge can only be true. It is not possible to know something wrongly, one simply didn't know at all. One would ask; how come then that every prediction by this psychic has always proven to be true? Based on John Hospers, it may suffice to briefly discuss two kinds of knowledge.
Subjective and Objective Knowledge
Subjective kind of knowledge leads to relativism. The psychic in this case could be said to have known and could predict the future events with great accuracy. This is because she believed it; she held it as true and the fact that her predictions were always true attest to this. She therefore must have had knowledge. However, subjective knowledge is subject to error. It is often arrived at after successive occurrences relative to each other, which tend to point to a certain conclusion (Nozick, 1981:132). In other words, common sense, and in this are included memory and imagination, plays a great role in as far as the conclusion is concerned. Common sense has always led to knowledge but not all knowledge that ensues from this faculty can be claimed to be knowledge. The psychic could hold believe that her predictions to be true, but that if her predictions are true simply because of the past lucky predictions, this can not be claimed to be knowledge. In any case the justification that can possibly be given would be that she has always accurately predicted the events. However this justification is not really justifiable in itself. This is because it does not have any foundation on reality. The other position is that of Objectivity. For any knowledge to be acceptable within a wider scope, it must be true not only in the knower's sense, but also independent of the knower, and in this case it may not turn out to be false in the future. Objectivity has a universal nature. It means that it is acceptable in all areas as such. In the case of the psychic, there is no way that her predictions can gain acceptability across the globe as being knowledge. Questions will definitely be raised, and as soon as there is doubt by John Hospers standards that is not knowledge. This therefore means that the psychic does not really know. The justification that is offer does not meet the objective criteria. It is very well possible that in the future her predictions be falsified. If this happens the objectivity of her knowledge will be questioned. It can only be interpreted as luck that she accurately predicts events before they happen.
However, belief plays a very critical role in the direction of knowledge (Lite, 2004:238). This is because unless people strongly believe that something is what they conceive it to be, the various bodies of knowledge cannot be held as true. This is to say that the progress that has been made in science for instance would be rendered useless. Objective knowledge also demands of belief as well. This kind of belief is however a collective kind of belief, one in which several people believe with justifications that can be shown to really be somehow justifiably justified (Hospers, 1996:39).
