Knowledge is a buzzword in the modern world. To say that we have knowledge in some area is to say that we have a good firm grasp on what is actually going on. We are going beyond mere opinion, and seemingly, our knowledge allows us to do certain things that would be impossible if we didn’t have it. In epistemological terms, knowledge is traditionally defined as justified true belief. The tricky question, then, is what do we mean by justified, not to mention what constitutes sufficient evidence for truth.
Many scientists have tended to take the view that only the methods and techniques of the West could yield real knowledge. This perspective was deeply affirmed by the tradition of logical positivism, which advanced key doctrines like the value-free nature of science and the notion that only experimentation could legitimately verify a claim. Because of this influential school of thought, we are left with a narrow definition of knowledge, at least when it comes to scientific truth about the real world.
Personally, it was not until I began to study the philosophy of science that I even thought to question the notion that science provides objective, value free information about the world as it really is. This notion of truth-as-correspondence with the world, or simply correspondence truth, is a keystone of science’s claim to be the sole source of knowledge concerning the world as it is. This claim is occasionally advanced in the wake of imperialism and subtly racist undertones, as non-Western knowledge is either reduced to the status of mythology and witchcraft or required to meet the Western standard of verification before it can be called “real” knowledge.
At first glance, this demarcation makes some sense. For example, there is a great deal of empirical data and explanatory value in evolutionary theory. It’s a plausible account of how life came to be as it is (this is debatable, of course), and it coheres with other beliefs that we have and the data that we ought to be able to explain. A Hopi creation story, in contrast, does not have these features. Hopi tradition claims that the Hopi emerged, fully formed, from the Grand Canyon. Thus, this geological wonder is a source of divinity and spiritual centeredness for the Hopi. Western science quickly dismisses this as mythology and superstition, comparable to voodoo and the Homeric gods of ancient Greece.
While its significant to note the features of evolutionary theory that the Hopi account lacks, it is perhaps unwise to dismiss the Hopi version of creation in its entirety. Although evolution certainly helps explain data that the Hopi cannot account for, it also supports a “might, makes right” version of creation that is potentially problematic to human flourishing. If, after all, we are merely the product of a natural process whereby the better-adapted members of species survive, while the lesser fit perish, what reason is there for things like social programs or genuine caring? Why help others at all? Isn’t struggle to survive the natural order?
More to the point, if the earth is simply the terrain upon which we live, what reason might we have for preserving it? If survival is the only real value, as evolutionary theory can be made to support, then everything we do should be assessed in virtue of this criterion. Value is simply that which helps us survive, and disvalue is that which does not.
Hopefully you find something deeply wrong with placing survival as the center of our value system, and it is at this point that we may begin to see the knowledge inherent in the Hopi account. The Hopi creation anecdote places humans in a dependent relationship with the Earth. The Earth is the source of our existence, and should be treated as a divine entity on this version of creation. Although it lacks the depth of explanation that evolution offers, it also has features that evolution lacks, namely an attitude toward nature that is more conducive to sustainable use and the absence of values that support exploitation and lack of caring for other humans.
Clearly, there is something of value in Western science. The knowledge provided has explanatory power and predictive capability that is sorely lacking in other knowledge systems. However, to rule out all other epistemological frameworks as simply incapable of producing real knowledge is a grave mistake. Whether all knowledge is equally good remains an open question, but the value and significance of alternative frameworks is denied at incredible costs to our pursuit of the highest goods.
Comments
One Response to “Is All Knowledge Good?”
Leave a Reply
[...] Go to the author’s original blog: Is All Knowledge Good? [...]