Scribd
Upload
16K views

Sources of Knowledge

The document discusses five major sources of knowledge: experience, authority, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and the scientific approach. It provides details on each: experience involves learning from personal events, authority relies on experts, deductive reasoning uses logic to conclude specifics from generals, inductive reasoning infers generals from specifics observed, and the scientific approach integrates deduction and induction by forming hypotheses to test against gathered data. The scientific method is highlighted as the most effective modern process for advancing knowledge.

Uploaded by

Dr. Nisanth.P.M
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
16K views

Sources of Knowledge

The document discusses five major sources of knowledge: experience, authority, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and the scientific approach. It provides details on each: experience involves learning from personal events, authority relies on experts, deductive reasoning uses logic to conclude specifics from generals, inductive reasoning infers generals from specifics observed, and the scientific approach integrates deduction and induction by forming hypotheses to test against gathered data. The scientific method is highlighted as the most effective modern process for advancing knowledge.

Uploaded by

Dr. Nisanth.P.M
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
You are on page 1/ 4

SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE

The major sources of knowledge can be categorized under five headings: (1)
experience, (2) authority, (3) deductive reasoning, (4) inductive reasoning, and (5) the
scientific approach.

EXPERIENCE

Experience is a familiar and well-used source of knowledge. After trying several


routes from home to work, you learn which route takes the least time or is the most free of
traffic or is the most scenic. By personal experience, you can find the answers to many of
the questions you face. Much wisdom passed from generation to generation is the result
of experience. If people were not able to profit from experience, progress would be
severely retarded. In fact, this ability to learn from experience is a prime characteristic of
intelligent behaviour.

Yet for all its usefulness, experience has limitations as a source of knowledge. How
you are affected by an event depends on who you are. Two people will have very different
experiences in the same situation. The same forest that is a delightful sanctuary to one
person may be a menacing wilderness to another. Two supervisors observing the same
classroom at the same time could truthfully compile very different reports if one focused
on and reported the things that went right and the other focused on and reported the things
that went wrong.

Another shortcoming of experience is that you so frequently need to know things


that you as an individual cannot learn by experience. A child turned loose to discover
arithmetic alone might figure out how to add but would be unlikely to find an efficient
way to compute square roots. A teacher could learn through experience the population of
a classroom on a particular day but could not personally count the population of the
country.

AUTHORITY

For things difficult or impossible to know by personal experience, people


frequently turn to an authority; that is, they seek knowledge from someone who has had
experience with the problem or has some other source of expertise. People accept as truth
the word of recognized authorities. We go to a physician with health questions or to a
stockbroker with questions about investments. A superintendent can consult a lawyer
about a legal problem at school. A beginning teacher asks an experienced one for
suggestions and may try a certain technique for teaching reading because the teacher with
experience suggests that it is effective.

Throughout history you can find examples of reliance on authority for knowledge,
particularly during the Middle Ages when people preferred ancient scholars, such as Plato
and Aristotle, and the early Fathers of the Church as sources of information—even over
direct observation or experience. Although authority is a very useful source of knowledge,
you must always ask, How does authority know? In earlier days, people assumed an
authority was correct simply because of the position he or she held, such as king, chief, or
high priest. Today, people are reluctant to rely on an individual as an authority merely
because of position or rank. They are inclined to accept the assertions of an authority only
when that authority is indeed a recognized expert in the area.

Closely related to authority are custom and tradition, on which people depend for
answers to many questions related to professional as well as everyday problems. In other
words, people often ask, “How has this been done in the past?” and then use the answer as
a guide for action. Custom and tradition have been prominent influences in the school
setting, where educators often rely on past practices as a dependable guide. However, an
examination of the history of education reveals that many traditions that prevailed for
years were later found to be erroneous and had to be rejected. For generations, it was
considered good practice to humiliate students who made mistakes with dunce caps and
the like. It is wise to appraise custom and tradition carefully before you accept them as
reliable sources.

Authority is a quick and easy source of knowledge. However, as a source of


knowledge, authority has shortcomings that you must consider. First, authorities can be
wrong. People often claim to be experts in a field when they do not really have the
knowledge to back up the claim. Second, you may find that authorities disagree among
themselves on issues, indicating that their authoritative statements are often more
personal opinion than fact.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Ancient Greek philosophers made perhaps the first significant contribution to the
development of a systematic approach for gaining knowledge. Aristotle and his followers
introduced the use of deductive reasoning, which can be described as a thinking process
in which one proceeds from general to specific knowledge through logical argument. An
argument consists of a number of statements standing in relation to one another. The final
statement is the conclusion, and the rest, called premises, offer supporting evidence. A
major kind of deductive reasoning is the syllogism. A syllogism consists of a major
premise and a minor premise followed by a conclusion. For example, “All men are
mortal” (major premise); “The king is a man” (minor premise); “Therefore, the king is
mortal” (conclusion). In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion is
necessarily true. Deductive reasoning lets you organize premises into patterns that provide
conclusive evidence for a conclusion’s validity. Mystery fans will recall that Sherlock
Holmes frequently would say, “I deduce ...” as he combined previously unconnected facts
in such a way as to imply a previously unsuspected conclusion.

Deductive reasoning has its limitations. To arrive at true conclusions, you must
begin with true premises. The conclusion of a syllogism can never exceed the content of
the premises. Because deductive conclusions are necessarily elaborations on previously
existing knowledge, you cannot conduct scientific inquiry through deductive reasoning
alone because it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing
with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organize what people already know
and can point out new relationships as you proceed from the general to the specific, but it
is not sufficient as a source of new knowledge. Despite its limitations, deductive
reasoning is useful in research because it provides a way to link theory and observation. It
lets researchers deduce from existing theory what phenomena they should observe.
Deductions from theory can help build hypotheses, which are a vital part of scientific
inquiry.

INDUCTIVE REASONING

In the Middle Ages, people often substituted dogma for true premises, so they
reached invalid conclusions. It was Francis Bacon (1561–1626) who first called for a new
approach to knowing. He held that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting
premises handed down by authority as absolute truth. He believed that an investigator
should establish general conclusions on the basis of facts gathered through direct
observation. Bacon advised the seeker of truth to observe nature directly and to rid his or
her mind of prejudice and preconceived ideas, which Bacon called “idols.” For him,
obtaining knowledge required that the thinker observe nature itself, gather particular facts,
and formulate generalisations from these findings.

In Bacon’s system, the investigator made observations on particular events in a


class (or category) and then, on the basis of the observed events, made inferences about
the whole class. This approach, known as inductive reasoning, is the reverse of the
deductive method. See the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning in the
following examples:

Deductive: Every mammal has lungs. All rabbits are mammals.

Therefore, every rabbit has lungs.

Inductive: Every rabbit that has ever been observed has lungs. Therefore, every rabbit has
lungs.

THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

Exclusive use of induction often resulted in the accumulation of isolated


knowledge and information that made little contribution to the advancement of
knowledge. Furthermore, people found that many problems could not be solved by
induction alone. In the 19th century, scholars began to integrate the most important
aspects of the inductive and deductive methods into a new technique, namely the
inductive–deductive method, or the scientific approach. This approach differs from
inductive reasoning in that it uses hypotheses. A hypothesis is a statement describing
relationships among variables that is tentatively assumed to be true. It identifies
observations to be made to investigate a question.
Charles Darwin, in developing his theory of evolution, is generally recognized as
the first to apply this method in the pursuit of knowledge. Darwin reported that he spent a
long time making biological observations, hoping to establish some generalizations
concerning evolution. Darwin’s procedure, involving only observation, was unproductive
until read- ing and further thought led him to formulate a tentative hypothesis to explain
the facts that he had gathered through observation. He then proceeded to test this
hypothesis by making deductions from it and gathering additional data to determine
whether these data would support the hypothesis. From this method of inquiry, Darwin
was able to develop his theory of evolution. This use of both inductive and deductive
reasoning is characteristic of modern scientific inquiry.

The scientific approach is generally described as a method of acquiring knowledge


in which investigators move inductively from their observations to hypotheses and then
deductively from the hypotheses to the logical implications of the hypotheses. They
deduce the consequences that would follow if a hypothesized relationship were valid. If
the deduced implications are compatible with the organized body of accepted knowledge,
researchers then further test them by gathering empirical data. On the basis of the
evidence, they accept or reject the hypotheses.

You might also like