Here one is faced with a discussion for which one must consider the utility of knowledge. The epistemological claim portrayed is that knowledge in and for itself is pointless. There must be possibility of the knowledge claim being integrated into the world through education, research, industry etc. for it to be a valuable knowledge claim. The statement above is pragmatist; the approach evaluates theories and knowledge claims in terms of the success of their practical application. Insofar as knowledge cannot provide further implications or lead to further knowledge, it is not valuable knowledge for the pragmatist. Thus, the statement holds that value of a knowledge claim is equal to the possibilities of the knowledge claim’s function in the world. I agree with this. In this essay, I will argue that valuable knowledge must be practically useful knowledge. I will argue this by exploring the utility of psychological knowledge claims in human science, and of knowledge claims in natural science, with specific reference to the human science discovery of the bystander effect, and the discovery of the use of penicillin in modern medicine, and the way of knowing of imagination.
Human science knowledge claims often claim some underlying phenomenon present in human nature. The human science method of experimentation includes forming an inductive hypothesis, confirming the hypothesis using reason, supported by observational data from human experimentation, and then application of the social theory. In order for a human science knowledge claim to be tentatively accepted, it must be evidently true in the vast majority of human behaviour. In the knowledge area of psychology, for example, the Bystander Apathy Experiment, in which university students were observed to see how being in a large group of people may affect their decision to help someone having an epileptic fit, reveals the bystander effect phenomenon that may affect a human’s decision-making. Researchers (namely John Darley and Bibb Latané in the Bystander Apathy example) have shown that individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are around. The more people who witness someone needing help, the less likely people are to help.
Human science knowledge claims may subsequently have little value when we judge it pragmatically because of the methodological issues surrounding its claims. One methodological issue that many knowledge claims of human science have is that they are acultural, and so there is no possibility of global application. The bystander effect, for example, has been extracted from human experiments where the participants are Western-educated, young university students living in a democratic society. Thus, the knowledge claim does not account for differences that may be present in different cultures and societies. Additionally, human sciences study complex social situations in which it is difficult to run controlled experiments. This means you cannot generate laws because there are no definitive constants channelling the results the experimenter will interpret through reason and sense perception. Because of this, human sciences usually uncover trends rather than laws and they are probabilistic in nature. It is arguable that this knowledge has little utility, and so little value, because psychological phenomena, if true, are out of the human’s control. This is evident in the bystander effect example in particular, mainly because although bystander effect gives us insights into a type of weakness we have as a species, it does not detract from the fact that we are susceptible to this weakness in relevant situations. Knowledge of the bystander effect does not help one to stop yielding to it necessarily. This means the descriptive theory in isolation may be useless, as it has no practicality.
However, it is possible to see the way in which psychology has helped encourage upright behaviour within human societies. Because psychology gives an understanding of how humans are manipulated, it can furthermore be valuable knowledge to bodies of power who want humans to behave in a certain way that is beneficial to them. An example would be the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team, or commonly known as “Nudge Unit”. Knowledge of the bystander-effect here has been utilised to encourage humans to make better social decisions. A famous example is that of psychologist Sustein, who when informing late-taxpayers that most of their neighbours pay taxes when due, increased the likelihood of the late-taxpayer paying theirs on time also. Had there been non-application of the bystander-effect knowledge, this positive economic change may not have been met. Therefore, we see that when the ways of knowing of reason, and imagination are used when approaching human science knowledge claims, they can be technically applied to the social world, and can therefore be valuable knowledge.
Similarly, scientific discoveries in the realm of natural science could be seen as wholly valuable because of their implications on human health and medicine. This links to the claim because it shows why we ultimately care about certain knowledge. Without the knowledge claims on natural science, our ability to stay healthy, understand natural phenomena, or develop new technology, would be greatly diminished. Thus, we place the importance of knowledge from natural science in its application that affects our everyday lives. My example is the discovery of penicillin, which is the key component in modern antibiotics, discovered by Alexander Fleming. This is valuable knowledge from a pragmatic perspective because the discovery and further development of penicillin has become revolutionary in modern medicine and healthcare. Referring to the way of knowing of imagination, this example illustrates imagination’s importance in applying natural science knowledge in a way that makes it a highly applicable and valuable knowledge discovery. An understanding of a certain chemical’s utility may be of little value in the abstract theory, but when applied to pharmaceutical research is of immense value. Thus, the faculty or action of forming new ideas is what makes scientific research and discovery valuable to the world.
However, a different perspective to consider that is relevant to the discussion is that the value of specific scientific discoveries may diminish over time; it is not a constant thing. If we refer back to natural science, we find that penicillin now is no longer a powerful enough antibiotic to fight the dangers of antibiotic resistance that many strains of bacteria are developing. What this shows is that although the discovery of penicillin has direct application in pharmaceutics, it has nonetheless diminished in value in the modern world due to its inability to fulfil its purpose to the same extent it did in the 1940s. This provides a different dimension governing knowledge’s value. It may be both, 1) the application of knowledge, and, 2) its success in fulfilling the purpose to which it is applied, that dictates value of knowledge claims, and the magnitude of these two factors can change over time.
In conclusion, I would slightly alter the claim, and say: “Without highly successful application in the world the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Additionally, I conclude the way of knowing of imagination is vital in proper application of scientific discoveries. From the consideration of the essay, the implications for the realm of knowledge are vast. The claim is important to consider because it causes us to shed light on how knowledge can reshape the world around us, as opposed to simply learning in isolation. To understand the possible applications of knowledge is to work towards properly channelling the knowledge we have, which, through reason and imagination, may lead to creativity and advancement of technology.
A limitation of my essay thus far is that I have considered the claim exclusively in the realm of shared knowledge. It is important and interesting to view it from the angle of personal knowledge also. This is because we must consider if application in one’s own conscious experience counts as application of knowledge claims in the world, and what insight this perspective arrive at in relation to the claim:
Personal knowledge can be defined as knowledge dependent on the experiences of the individual. An example would be the knowledge one gains through emotional experience, such as a fear of flying. A possible counter-argument to the argument esteeming shared knowledge is that the value of knowledge with only personal application is not diminished because it is enriching to our personal knowledge and is applicable in inner decision-making. Through the use of reason and memory, personal knowledge may be anchors to one making decisions, and so they are valuable in that way. For example, the knowledge of fearing flying may cause one to travel by car or by boat instead, in order to avoid an unpleasant emotional feeling. However, this example works to only confirm my claim further; it is in applying personal knowledge that it is personally valuable, and so lies in accordance with the above claim. Overall, inapplicable knowledge is of no value whatsoever, both in the conversation of shared and personal knowledge.