"THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS IN WHICH HUMANKIND CAN PRODUCE KNOWLEDGE: THROUGH PASSIVE OBSERVATION OR THROUGH ACTIVE EXPERIMENT." TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?
We discussed this in class quite a bit. We came up with the conclusion that almost everything fits under the category of experiment of observation. If one were to take an area of knowledge such as history, one observes history and passes it down so people of the world learn from it. In math, people experimented with theorems and now others observe them and learn from them. Creation comes from experiment and more people learn from the creation or observe it. The question of emotion and intuition came up as a way that humans gain knowledge. I believe that emotion come from observing others and watching how people react to certain situations. Although both emotion and intuition are more personal to the individual, the individual learns to develop their own intuition and emotion through observing others. In conclusion, I do agree with the statement and believe that it can be stretched to apply to a lot of areas of knowing and ways of knowledge.
I agree with the statement as well, but only to an extend. This reason is because of the way the question is formed. The statement claims all new knowledge is produced via passive observation, OR active experiment. I personally believe there is not big difference between those two. In my response to this question, I argued everything is a type of observation, even an active experiment involves observation. The only difference is the way be observe things. For instance, when we are only passively observing we have no intention and we might not may close attention. Whereas if we are carrying out an active experiment we are intentionally changing factors, thus paying more attention...making us a better observer. Therefore I believe all knowledge is gained only through observations, and the only thing that changes in different situations is the quality of us as observers.
ReplyDelete