Doubt_Is_a_Key_to_Knowledge

Doubt is the key to knowledge Doubt is a status of belief where one is unsure or uncertain of the factuality that makes of this world. Belief without doubt is faith, while belief subjected to doubt becomes knowledge. Without doubt empiricism in any area of knowledge cannot be inherited. Therefore for areas of knowledge such as history and science, doubt is needed to form knowledge. For area of knowledge such as science, a method of gaining this knowledge is through doubt, however from bias confirmation and denial of doubt and both does not employ doubt yet knowledge can be founded. Similarly to area of knowledge such as history, bias source analogy, denial of sources and lack of sources which again does not employ doubt can discover knowledge in history. Scientific methods of manifesting knowledge are driven by the force of doubt. In science, scientists hypothesize then test, experiment and observe the hypothesis. However in order to gain an empirical based evidence a scientist must approach creating a hypothesis in a skeptical manner and thus doubt is employed in the formula to manifest knowledge. For instance Aristotle stated that a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter object, in direct proportion to the weight. However, Galileo Galilei doubted this and tested the fact with an experiment where he dropped two materials and they fell at the same time showing that the time it takes to fall is independent of the weight. This scientific method that utilized doubt had disproved a fact that has been accepted for over 2000 years 1 and given knowledge with empirical based evidence. As time goes on technology improves and in area of knowledge of science, scientists will consistently doubt the same fact either to disprove the original theory or to strengthen the empirical based evidence in order to leave less room for doubt. Galileo’s experiment has been revisited by modern scientists that have access to technology such as vacuum pumps to minimize the amount of air in a chamber and dropping two identical materials of different masses to demonstrate that mass is independent to the time taken for the objects to fall when you neglect air resistance. Some scientists are obligated to test, experiment and observe hypothesis in a bias confirmation which then creates a conclusion based on empirical methods but not from the use of doubt. Scientists are forced to conclude with empirical methods that are central to a bias confirmation mainly due to the fact that scientific challenges are funded by powerful interests invested on methods that will give a specific conclusion, often a conclusion that the scientist aims to obtain even before creating a hypothesis. For example, GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was first adopted in 1981 when numerous cases of an aggressive form of KS (Kaposi’s Sarcoma) was present in homosexual individuals in San Francisco and New York, when KS is usually present in older people. Scientists hypothesized from observation of these patients that they had an immune deficiency and even as GRID (now commonly known as AIDS) started being present in drug users during early 90s scientists still accepted that GRID was the cause and later to find out that HIV was the source of AIDS.3 These scientists obeyed the motion of scientific empirical methods in order to find this knowledge, however no doubt was incorporated with the empirical method. In a hypothetical situation if there were four colored bags, two of which are black and the other two white, each with a colored ball in them and the hypothesis stated that in every black bag there is a red ball then by revealing the color of the ball in each bag would determine the conclusion of the experiment. But if you were told to reveal the color of as few balls as possible due to powerful interests invested, it would be logical to reveal the color of the ball of the two black bags. Even if the two red balls were in the two black bags the white bag may have a red ball but due to bias confirmation the hypothesis is concluded to be true and a controversial knowledge is acquired. In the aforementioned hypothetical situation of the four black and white bags and the red ball, those scientists that take a skeptical approach to the source of AIDS are being silenced. The argument that HIV is not the cause of AIDS has been dismissed by the government, suppressed in the media and disputed by the political-economic powers of the AIDS industry. This skeptical approach with doubt has been silenced and stigmatized even when experts such as Dr. Peter Duesberg (first scientist to map the genetic structure of retroviruses), Dr. Charles Thomas, Dr. Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize winner) and Dr. David Rasnick (expert on protease inhibitors)4 is supporting this approach. This is due to the powerful interest invested since with AIDS being proved as the truth, it will define incurable deaths and a lot of money will be involved for research and for patients trying to survive. This show how even in area of knowledge such as science that follows an empirical method based on doubt to acquire knowledge can deny doubters due to bias confirmation. In the area of knowledge of history, analogical method is used to discover knowledge. A source is analyzed and the validity and reliability is determined through an analogical method. Doubt is the key to knowledge in history as doubt is used as a scale to determine a rank in the sources provided about a historical event. Take the Holocaust as an example; there are many sources such as pictures from the concentration camp in Auschwitz, or a mountain of hair from the prisoners as an artwork, or a diary of a boy about his life in a concentration camp. A historian will assess all these sources but with doubt to see which one is reliable or valid and then since all of these sources are proof of the Holocaust, the knowledge that the Holocaust is an actual historical event can be determined. Bias confirmation can also be applied in history, where powerful interest is invested on a source to be valid and reliable. This most often concludes with a knowledge that is recorded as a historical event. These bias confirmation and influenced by the powerful interests and are therefore neglecting the doubt of sources. For a historian to lead a skeptical approach to determine a historical event, a historian should have freedom and variety in the sources selected to claim a knowledge. For instance, the assassination of J.F. Kennedy on November 22nd 1963 in Dealey Plaza, the powerful interests of the government has provided sources such as photos, films, autopsy reports and investigation reports stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was the murderer of President Kennedy. This is a bias confirmation as many historians were fed sources and these sources were powerful evidences that make the sources valid and reliable. However, the historians are not following a skeptical approach and are rather given the sources to analyze and are therefore disregarding the doubt of sources. Some historians believe that Cuban exiles, mob figures, virulent racists, CIA or Pentagon hardliners are responsible for the assassination of Kennedy since the Kennedy era was seen as an era of tension and crisis from racists, Cubans, mobs and the government. However these historians are all silenced by the government through lack of media access, job loss and the hard evidence acting as sources to prove Lee Harvey Oswald as the murderer. This just shows how doubt can be abandoned in the area of knowledge of history in order to claim knowledge and determine a historical event. Each area of knowledge, whether science which follows an empirical method or history which follows an analogical method are both ways of employing doubt to claim knowledge in those areas of knowledge. However, in both cases, due to bias confirmation and denial of doubt, doubt is neglected yet knowledge is claimed. I personally believe that doubt is needed to claim knowledge and the knowledge claimed without doubt are opinions or theories rather than actual facts and will therefore be disproven later on in the future just as Galileo disproved Aristotle’s claim of knowledge. Vincent Deprat Word Count: 1383 -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/1np/ch03/ch03.html [ 2 ]. Standard Level Physics – Chris Hamper and Keith Ord – Pearson Baccalaureate – Published 2007 [ 3 ]. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv2.htm [ 4 ]. http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/ [ 5 ]. http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/November-22-1963-Death-of-the-President.aspx [ 6 ]. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination