We are all a product of our circumstances. While some are endowed upon us, the others we create. Is there free will when it comes to defining the conditions that will eventually define you? Not only do these circumstances connote towards being of material welfare, but they may also comprise of factors that go beyond our control. They could be innate in nature (race, gender, culture) or something we acquire later in life (career, social status, education). But, what does one do when these supposed circumstances influence the earnestness of our knowledge? Encompassed amass the question one spots an assumption, that being about our personal circumstances influencing how seriously our knowledge is taken. To analyse whether or not this matters one must look at how we measure ‘seriousness’ and make decisions on whether or not something matters. The term matter can be examined in a variety of contexts and yield contrasting results each time dependant upon its audience. This makes reception heavily dependant on our individual perspectives. ‘Seriousness’, again, renders to be a quality we judge based on established standards. It is important to look at reception when personal knowledge becomes shared in nature or stands on the verge of being so. Reception at this stage puts knowledge to trial against its select audience, who help shape how seriously it might be taken through the examination of its application, its truth, and its inherent value. Alongside our perception, we use our intuition and reasoning to establish credibility within claims. To eradicate the blurred lines that exist between an individual’s value and his knowledge, one must evaluate the extent to which credibility is an active factor when it comes to establishing reliability within knowledge. Knowledge’s value is oftentimes measured by its implications, in a similar manner, we can establish whether or not it this assumption is of significance— by looking at its implications. The two areas that this essay aims to examine when determining if the statement matters is the implications it proposes upon knowledge production and its inherent reception. We can observe these implications in a plethora of areas we study, The Arts and Human Sciences being two vital examples of the same.
In the Human Sciences, it starts to ‘matter’ when it impacts the production process of knowledge in a manner that makes the knowledge uncertain. This uncertainty can have serious consequences in the today’s world. Everything is inherently biased, for even the desire to explore a certain aspect stems from a connection we have with the subject matter. Confirmation bias is an active concern in the field of Psychology. It refers to “when a researcher searches for or interprets information in a way that confirms a preexisting belief or hypothesis” (InThinking). It is especially harmful when it leads to the formation of objective evaluations based on subjective observations. Not only can this lead to the creation of biased knowledge, it can extend towards festering false knowledge. For instance, in a research, confirmation bias may present itself in the researcher as a tendency to only pick information which confirms his hypothesis. This can heavily taint the research process and give birth to knowledge that is incorrect. Even when we don’t intend for our biases to interfere, they are omnipresent. The fact that confirmation bias is a subconscious process relays towards establishing relevance in the claim. Thus, only when we acknowledge that it matters can we become aware of this bias and step closer towards achieving the absolute certainty. Here, psychological studies, have often used triangulation to increase certainty and minimise these errors.
Au contraire, it may not matter when it doesn’t impact the production process in a negative manner, and instead helps provide certainty. Psychological diagnosis calls for cohesion of knowledge through exploration and production of circumstances. Patients and doctors work together using their respective personal circumstances to create, develop on, and unearth knowledge. There are no discrepancies within this production, both sources of knowledge, although influenced by their personal circumstances, are to be evaluated equally seriously. Here, there subjectivity helps them to establish objectivity. Take the case of Henry Molaison, better known as Patient HM. During the performance of bilateral medial temporal lobe resection, that was conducted to treat HM’s epilepsy, a strange event followed. HM woke up from his surgery the following day, and his memory impairment noted as he was diagnosed with severe anterograde amnesia. After connecting with a research team, around 2-3 people with a similar case as HM’s were reported, and further research was conducted on these different memory regions in the brain. This medical revelation helped yield an imperative psychological discovery pertaining to the role of the hippocampus and amygdala in memory consolidation. In this case, personal circumstances of both the researcher (pre-existing knowledge) and HM (medical condition) helped provide grounds towards establishing a new variant of knowledge. Thus, making knowledge more certain through cohesion of ideas between two groups.
On the other spectrum, we have The Arts. In regard to reception of knowledge, it does matter when this notion inhibits the reception of our knowledge. One might look at the notion of prestige that exists within Literature. Here a lack of prestige (which stems from our personal circumstances) influence how our knowledge is received in a community. Due to the lack of establishment in an author’s profession, it may be an unconscious act for the knowledge to be neglected. An example could be drawn from the life of J.K. Rowling. Prior to the fame that is now prominent within the Harry Potter franchise, Rowling got her pitch rejected approximately a total of 12 times. Nevertheless, she eventually managed to score a six-figure deal and turn into a success. In this prevalent argument, it is important to note in that seriousness does not equate to the value of knowledge. In a nutshell, when the audience and creator’s interaction is inhibited by circumstances such as impact prestige, it matters. For only by understanding this process can we better understand the way knowledge is accepted and consolidated in communities.
To counter this, it would not matter if it did not inhibit the reception, but rather refined it. The ‘prestige’, in this case being a native, can be beneficial towards catering to the reception of knowledge. It is no lie that some sources are taken more seriously by others, but why might this be the case? We can understand this by exploring translations within literary works. Translations require specific, specialised cultural knowledge. This personalised knowledge about the culture helps add value to the work. In this case, the value does indeed dictate how seriously knowledge is taken. While this knowledge can often be littered with biases and be largely dependant on our intuition, this form of bias can play out positively, carrying out the process of translation. A native’s translation is seen to be worth more value than a non-native’s. Why is that this factor is present and how do we use this when we evaluate the seriousness of one piece of knowledge? “The Native Speaker Principle” is a well-respected rule within the translation community suggesting that only natives ought to translate works within their language. It can be argued that a native provides a more authentic, concrete translation. They are guaranteed to be more sensitive to their cultural dialects and references, having a vocabulary much more extensive than what traditionally might be known. Here these translations ladened with biases can add value by avoiding insults, showing respect, and utilising euphemisms within a piece of work. Therefore, through this perspective where our personal circumstances contribute in an advantageous towards the development of knowledge, it shouldn’t matter.
When we admit something matters, we become aware of the role its implications play towards the formation and utilisation of knowledge within our system. When we do not have sufficient knowledge, we attempt to fill the gaps based on our beliefs and dispositions. While this may cause casualties within the completion of knowledge, this method of interpretation is what makes our perspectives unique and necessary. We cannot attain the absolute truth. All we can do is broaden our perspectives and widen our horizons by taking many ideas into account when formulating an informed and well-rounded opinion. This acknowledgement of these flaws allows us to construct newer systems that present us with an opportunity to eliminate defects within our knowledge systems. To draw this argument to a conclusion, yes, our personal circumstances certainly do matter to a certain extent, yet what matters much more is the impact this knowledge has on the society. The notion, again, is subjective to each individual and their views on the matter, but it is safe to say that this entire process does affect the evaluation of knowledge. However, it should matter regardless of its implications being negative or positive, because it is an issue worth examining. Understanding the roots of our knowledge and its treatment may help us understand the ways in which we process it; production and reception. Thus, helping us maximise the potential of our knowledge. On a similar note, it is important to be privy of the fact that personal circumstances alone don’t affect our knowledge— a plethora of complementary factors dictate the seriousness of our knowledge. It is with the inclusion of these factors and circumstances that we can define the limitations and implications of our knowledge.