Knowing something true, November 16, 2003

Many wise people ask themselves questions but each has their own answer and perceptions about life. These insightful men are known as philosophers who are searching for an answer for the fundamental question “What is life?” They then move on to other specific questions that are related to the previous question, like “Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?” In this essay, we will look at the answer of one of the many wise men for the following question: “Can we know something that has not yet been proven true?”

It all depends on the way we interpret the meaning of “knowing”. If knowing has the meaning of “without doubts”, then there is no truth. This is due to the fact that the “lens” of each person is unique, because of the different perceptions and language systems each individual has. Lenses are like filters that interpret all what you perceive into information which your brain can understand. For instance, you analogize what you perceived with your past memories and experiences). Thus, there are an infinite number of facts for each human being. This also means that nothing can be proven true, because someone’s truth can be false to someone else. Humankind must agree on this “truth” without experiencing any doubts. For example, you can never be sure that 1+1 = 2 or that you are sitting here reading someone’s midterm paper, because it can all be within the context of a dream. Therefore, we know nothing because nothing is definite. Based on Descartes’ philosophy, he found one that can be claimed as true knowledge, which is: “I think, therefore I am.” For the simple reason that we need a certain consciousness to be able to think; therefore, we must exist to have such consciousness. Despite this single truth, we cannot prove anything else, therefore we know nothing.

Language also plays a big role in this statement. The word “know” can have a different semantic meaning than “without doubts”, such as “believe”, “perceive”, “understand”, etc. As a matter of fact, “Webster’s New World” English dictionary defines knowledge by defining some major points such as information, awareness, and things we learned. In contrast, “Le Robert & Collins” French dictionary defines knowledge by going through memories, learnt facts, science, experience and understanding. These two examples perfectly show how two languages can be different when it comes to defining knowledge. There are also the perceptual and the pragmatic meanings that come into play. However, these two meanings shouldn’t be analyzed because we do not know who claimed this “truth” or what the person was thinking about. Maybe this guy is tired because he has rewritten a midterm paper for school and thinks that humans cannot know something that is false (or not yet true); or perhaps he is some sort of a god who knows everything and can prove something true, but I doubt it. As you can see, this statement has a wide range of meanings. So I suppose that there is only one possibility of knowing something before it has been proven true. First of all, knowing something means having the feeling or belief that such a thing is happening. Secondly, the semantic meaning of “proven true” means “logical reasoning that has been accepted by a majority”. For example, in the early age, people knew that there was something that drags objects down. It was only after when Newton was able to prove the theory of gravitation. Thus, they knew something before it had been proven true. If and only if the first two premises mentioned are respected, then it is possible to conclude a fact that has not yet been proven true. However, the first two premises have ambiguous terms, which cannot result in a true conclusion.

So how can we know something anyway? In order to know, everyone must agree, without anyone disagreeing. However, it is impossible to have everyone agree with a fact, because not everyone has the same opinion. Also, we will never know if everyone who agreed consists of every human being on earth, because there is a possibility of people being left out. That is why we tend to follow the majority even if not everyone agrees (as long as it consists of more than the half). In fact, most things we learn are usually by logic reasoning, authority and consensus, since the area of knowledge has become wider (instead of the single truth of existence) by unrestricting the real definition of knowing (without doubts). Humans also have a bad habit to claim that they know something only by listening to other people’s gossip. Absurdly, they have no idea if these gossips they heard will be true or false. What if something is proven true after believing it so hard? I personally think it is a coincidence because you cannot actually know something not yet proven true. If you do know it, then it is already true. So when someone states they know something before it is proven true, then they are only predicting or believing a statement. Truth comes before knowing. Here is an example: a human that has never looked into a mirror (or any other things that reflect its image) cannot know how he looks like, but he can predict by touching the shape of his face. His predictions can be right or wrong, but he definitely cannot know how his face looks like until he sees it.

To sum it up, we cannot know something that has not yet been proven true, unless we play with the semantic and syntactic meanings of the statement. The different cultures, languages, perceptions and religions also influence the way we interpret the meaning of knowledge. Descartes’ followers might say that they know nothing but their own existence. Okham’s followers might choose the simplest meaning: they just know it, no explanations required. Others might say they only know God and it is Him that gave them knowledge and truth. While the cockiest like me might say we know everything until it is proven false.