Justifying Justification of Justifying Justification of Justification

Welcome to the Agglomeration.

Today's post is a journal entry I had to write for Theory of Knowledge class in the International Baccalaureate. It deals with justification. For more information, refer to the title of this post. Better yet, read the entry. Then vote on my poll which you'll find to the right ------------->
and let me know why you think i'm wrong. Non-agreement will not have fatal repercussions. I'd have to justify those, and i have no intention to.

TOK Journal Entry 1 – Justification of Knowledge

The concept of knowledge is actually a very interesting one. In our lives, we claim to know things and we need to know things to survive, but very rarely do we ever stop to question what it is we know, and how we know it. Enter the International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge course, the only course that challenges the way you think by making you justify everything you know and develop astonishing conspiracy theories involving covert government organizations and rogue businessmen with vaults of money. Seriously though, knowing why we know what we know is an important element for discussion and it doesn’t hurt to occasionally consider the nature of our knowledge. It is amazing how much we take for granted because we have to.

Therefore the first justification of knowledge is other knowledge. But for this other knowledge to be apt, then surely that other knowledge must be justified somehow too, as this other knowledge cannot be justified by other other knowledge because this other other knowledge but then have to be justified by some other other other other knowledge and we find ourselves trapped in a vicious cycle. So it follows by reason that there must be other way of justifying our knowledge, and by a grand stroke of luck we have found it.

The second justification of knowledge is reason. Using logical proof and deduction, we can formulate some new knowledge from existing knowledge. This method of justification relies on existing foundations from which we establish links and implied truths due to the nature of reasoning. However, this reasoning would not work without the third justification of knowledge, which is sense perception and observation. We notice things in the world, we notice the way things tend to work, we find patterns, we associate patterns and conventional with truth, and we do all this because it is not pragmatic or necessary to have absolute truth. The truth for our experiences in this world and a mere guideline of experience in this world is itself. But what happens when we can’t trust our senses? It means that we get fooled sometimes. It’s been known to happen, but that doesn’t disqualify the validity or usefulness of such a method of knowledge justification. In fact, it emphasises the fact that we can never know everything.
The base of common knowledge from which we draw every day like a well in the middle of a medieval town is crucial to our survival in this world.

The fourth justification of knowledge is trust of this base of common knowledge. Yes, it does sound very similar to the first justification but the process of labeling and differentiating methods of justification is in itself and pointless and redundant task since all the justifications are inter-related and it is impossible to describe one without referencing the others, meaning that the linear structure of an essay is disrupted, meaning that it would probably have been better to make this a mindmap. Oh well, too late now.

Moving on, the fifth justification is more a technique than a different category altogether. The scientific method is a valuable mechanism through which the other forms of justification are applied. However, this form of justification, through the nature of falsification can eventually build itself upon false principles or assumptions. For example, people thought the world was flat for thousands of years, and while conspiracy theorists among us still believe it is, it is obvious that a faulty knowledge base can be detrimental to all information we use it to derive, like building a brick house on a foundation of marshmallow and banana skins.

Finally, the sixth form of knowledge justification is belief or faith, religious and non-religious. In some cases, this is unreliable, unproven or unproveable or merely biased due to the personal nature of this justification. However, it is a strong indicator of indeed what we know, and since we can never really know that others exist and aren’t simply droids or brains sitting in damp paper sacks in a laboratory in Nicaragua anyway, that consideration isn’t too important.

Furthermore, it seems that tangible observations can be proven wrong too easily, and at least with this form of justification, you don’t need a method of combating philosophical skepticism raised to the nth degree.

The concept of knowledge is actually a very interesting one. In our lives, we claim to know things and we need to know things to survive, but very rarely do we ever stop to question what it is we know, and how we know it. Judging by the quality and nature of the argument in this reflection, it’s probably a good thing that we don’t. I look forward to many more TOK lessons through which we can discover the nature of knowledge in much more depth and detail and much more pedanticism. TOK lessons provide an environment where other’s ideas can be openly and viciously attacked and torn to shreds without fear of retribution or ill will, while also picking up on the slightest differential errors or logical fallacies. I know I’m going to enjoy it, and the best part is, I don’t need to justify THAT claim.

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your premeditated contemplations.