The limit that separates truth from speculation

One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence “strong” enough and how can this limit be established?

Things that are apparent can be deceiving since every belief can be doubted. Then at what extent does doubt become unreasonable? Is the atom the smallest particle in the universe? Absolute certainty in knowledge does not really exist; therefore knowledge will be defined in this essay as true and justified belief based on strong evidence. Consequently, strong evidence is required for the validation of a belief. Justification plays a key role in establishing the strength of evidence through different fields of knowledge such as science and history. Other factors that influence the search of this limit will be discussed in this essay, as well as different knowledge issues that can make the result of finding this limit biased. The definition of knowledge will also be explored and an attempt at identifying the limit that separates truth from speculation will be made.

To begin with, I am going to explore in depth the definition of knowledge and true belief. Knowledge is to perceive something true and to have justified evidence to support it. Let me explain: if my parents told me I was actually adopted, then the belief that I was their child by birth would not be knowledge because it wasn’t true. This belief would lack strong evidence, an element that separates truth from speculation. So, if belief is backed up with strong evidence, it may be considered as knowledge. However, if one predicts he will get into a car crash because he saw a black cat, and does get into an accident; would his first belief of the black cat causing the accident be considered knowledge? Obviously, his belief turned out to be true; he saw a black cat and then had an accident. However, he wasn’t aware of his own assumption, meaning it was only a coincidence. Hence, his assumption should have been justified for his belief to be considered knowledge. He should have had a satisfying reason to support his belief that linked the cat to the accident. But when is evidence considered satisfactory? It depends on the Area of knowledge where the belief which we are trying to justify is aimed because evidence is different from one Area to another. For instance, science may use mathematical proof; history refers to archives or manuscripts and for law, witnesses and material evidence. Subsequently, the sets of methods that collect evidence and the limit that sets the strength of evidence will also be different in each of these domains. By approaching the issue from different Areas of knowledge, we will be able to define what poor and strong evidence is.

In the domain of science, observations and experimentations are used as justification tools and as evidence. For instance, throughout many years, palaeontologists were interested about what happened before the first appearance of homo sapiens. They discovered fossils on and below the earth surface. From their observations and experiments using tools to measure the presence of Carbon-14, they determined that the dinosaurs existed over 65 millions years ago. Thus, the past existence of dinosaurs is considered as knowledge because enough strong evidence was collected to make it a true and justified belief. This evidence is built upon an element that is used for scientific justification: observation of the results. We can as well use experimentation to justify. We can repeatedly measure the age of the fossils and the results will still be the same. This proves that in the domain of science, strong evidence can be founded using proper observation and experimentation. This evidence is what separates truth from speculation. Moreover, in the domain of history, research, selection and interpretation of the recorded events are used. These recorded elements of the past are dug up by historians. They then analyze these items of the past and interpret their potential history in a selective way to get closer to an objective truth as possible. For example, Louis XIV was considered the Sun King of France, who had the longest reign in European history (1643-1715). The historian conducts research to find out about Louis XIV: Louis XIV was crowned and consecrated in 1654; he established an impressive court at Versailles. Because of that, France was stabilized and became one of the strongest powers in Europe. The historian then has to select which information is most relevant to him and then interpret a scenario with his own imagination, as reasonably as possible. Of course, not every case involves absolute objectivity. The historian’s interpretation may be biased because of his personality, but it is an approach to get closer to a factual truth by using the proper methodology and having strong evidence. This is why the scenario that Louis XIV is called France’s Sun King (the source of light for all of his people) will be considered as knowledge in the field of history.

As you notice, the methods to collect information for each different field of knowledge vary from one form to another. However, there are also some issues that are common no matter which field of knowledge you are studying. For instance, whether it is in science, history, law or any other fields of knowledge, the evidence should have a connecting link between its available information and the belief in the order to be strong. Evidence that contains irrelevant information must be avoided; like a car without wheels, it would simply be static, without venturing further. Meaning, evidence that is irrelevant to the belief will be considered weak. For example, the supporting reason for euthanasia, that people should not be forced to live, is justified and true but does not have any significance on whether abortion is morally right or wrong. The belief that abortion is immoral remains a statement of belief only, as it is not yet backed up by relevant evidence. However, the scientific proof that a foetus is not sentient will possibly be considered as a relevant evidence for abortion debates because there are some relations between the evidence and the belief. Additionally, justified evidence should support other evidence in order to be strong. Meaning, if two justified pieces of evidence were to contradict one another, then logically, the weaker one would be considered false. This applies to any Area of knowledge since logic is universal. In fact, according to Nicholas Alchin’s book theory of knowledge, evidence is strong when it expands the foundation of another piece of evidence.

The next point which I will discuss is how knowledge is communicated to the common population. Authority figures propagate newfound knowledge by word of mouth, media and teaching. It is with the use of testimony that the students of life acquire new knowledge. Because these authority figures are known as specialists (scientist, historian, lawyer, artist), we assume that they have done their job accurately and honestly. For this reason, there are hardly any reasons of why we should not listen and agree with them. In life, we experience only a few things; some things cannot be experienced because of the boundaries of the physics’ laws of our world, and others that cannot yet be experienced because of a lack of education. So to be able to acquire more knowledge that we cannot or yet experience, we use testimony to learn. To trust authority figures may not be the safest way to acquire true and justified beliefs, but it is one of the most efficient ways to learn. Nonetheless, there are fallacies, which can preconceive the justification of a belief: evidence is likely to be taken as “strong” if it was stated by authority figures. This is because a person with a strong background shows us that this person is capable of objective and appropriate justification. For instance, it would be reasonable to believe what a chemistry teacher says in class. After all, the teacher does have a PhD in chemistry and has taught many students for almost 20 years. However, what if this same chemistry teacher was to lie in every lecture; who would have known? Problems occur when people abuse their powers of authority. In today’s society, this abuse of authority is present. This causes difficulties when it comes to setting a limit for strong evidence, since “weak” can be disguised as “strong”. Thus, the limit that separates truth from speculation no longer subsists. Take World War II for example; Hitler faked a Polish attack on a German border post. Although this attack was staged, thus false and unjustified, the Nazis managed to use this as an excuse to invade Poland, which led to the start of the Second World War. Although knowledge is testified by groups of authority, reviews should be imposed due to the possibilities of finding misleading information.

Ultimately, I believe that truth can be separated from speculation when the proper methods of justifying strong evidence are used, despite the fact that the abuse of authority and power can make evidence and justifications biased, hence unreliable. This limit as we call it will likely vary with globalization and the introduction of new technologies. For instance, we have recently discovered with the help of quantum technology that neutrinos and quarks are actually smaller than subatomic particles. The limit that separates truth from speculation will probably reach a higher level of strictness for highly educated people since now a greater accuracy of evidence can be achieved, and at the same time help avoid falsification of knowledge. On the other hand, with marketers increasingly using media to sublimate the less-educated people, speculation will no longer be distinct from truth for the less informed. Ironically, as Oscar Wilde states, the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.


Reference:

Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of knowledge. John Murray Publishers: Oxford, great Britain. Copyright 2003.
Steingrad, Elena. Louis XIV. 2000-2004. 11 May 2004 .