What counts as knowledge

In this exhibition, I will explore the prompt, “What counts as Knowledge?” Specifically, analyze the different types of ways that knowledge is obtained from the realms of sciences, religion and history. Knowledge can be obtained from vast sources that allow humans to create an understanding of the universe. The pursuit of knowledge may direct people to broaden their perspective of the world. This exhibition will discuss the definition of knowledge from the perspective of the pathway an understanding is obtained.

The First object I chose is my drawing of a Sea Nettle Jellyfish that I did as an answer in one of my classes. I had been in awe of this species and have developed skills to draw and knowledge about the jellyfish that I didn’t don’t initially possess.

 

This drawing of the jellyfish shows my personal knowledge towards the physical attributes of a jellyfish. In real life, the scope of the Jellyfish’s appearance widely depends on its species, living conditions and the stage of its life. The comparison of my drawing with an actual jellyfish, my drawing of jellyfish may be deemed inaccurate due to the number of tentacles or physical details that I have not covered. Yet, this personal knowledge of mine allows me to create a similar manifestation of the jellyfish on paper through cognitive tools such as imagination and the memory of the jellyfish.

 

The process of drawing the jellyfish might be swayed by my understanding and belief of a jellyfish’s appearance. Often, people accept a fact as knowledge when it is certain and factual. However, using a scientific scope to measure the accuracy of this representation, it is not 100% factual and certain representations of the jellyfish’s physical characteristics lead my drawing to be false. But upon looking at the drawing, my peers and teachers could tell it is a jellyfish even when the drawing is not scientifically factual and accurate leading to the result that my drawing is an accurate representation of the jellyfish.

 

Hence, personal knowledge derived from memory and imagination is a tool to attain and understand real-world knowledge. Therefore, although when personal knowledge is an inaccurate representation of the real world, it allows us to understand factual knowledge and concepts. It also depicts that when measuring the validity of knowledge, we should account for the personal biases that may arise from memory.

The second object I chose is my photograph of the Four-faced Buddha at a local amulet shop. The Four-faced Buddha is believed to answer the prayers of believers where it provides luck and fortune in terms of career, romance, money and health. People have testified that they had released more luck and ease in their lives after praying to the four-faced Buddha. However, the effect and results of the four-faced Buddha or any spiritual religious beliefs phenomena phenomenons have not been proven by scientific justification; which is one of the justifications for the presence of knowledge that people have used usen for evidence of a phenomenon.

 

I learned that some people practice the prayer to the Four-faced Buddha upon a conversation with some friends leading me to be interested in the spiritual aspect of Buddhism. At first, I thought the causation for people’s testimonies of the prayer to work is based on one's faith and hope within a religious belief. The more I enquired regarding this area of knowledge, I realised that it is further than one's belief but rather indigenous knowledge shaped from other scopes of understanding.

 

The four-faced Buddha is an example of religious and indigenous knowledge that contradicts the scientific method and belief. The scientific method has been used to prove the existence of a phenomenon in the world through rationalism and observable processes since the 1700s. Testimonies of people after praying to the four-faced Buddha have shown a positive result in their lives. The existence of Gods or the protection against evil spirits by praying has not been proven by scientific justification to show the validity of this knowledge. However, the belief in religious practices is based on one’s faith and intuition which contradicts rationalism where logical reasoning is used to deduce a statement. The method of obtaining religious and indigenous knowledge is through personal experiences and empirical knowledge. Science is unable to prove the existence of religious phenomenon but it is also unable to disprove the existence of it.

 

Therefore the validity of knowledge does not solely depend on rationalism but rather extends to a larger scope of ways to understand the world. Indigenous knowledge is limited to and may only be accessed by practitioners, but it is another way to justify the phenomena of the world. Therefore indigenous knowledge should not be dismissed.

The third object I chose is a picture of the Cover of “The Report of A” detailing the Japanese Unit 731 Anthrax Tests on Humans featured in the article “Fort Detrick and COVID-19: Why do the Chinese want an investigation?”. The Japanese Unit 731 conducted many unethical experiments on humans during the 1930s in the second world war. Up to 10,000 people were used as experimental targets for biological experiments. One of the infamous experiments was one where they discovered that humans are made of 70% water. This experiment was conducted by measuring the initial weight of a person, and then continuously dehydrating the person with heat and a large fan. They then measured the percentage of mass loss when the person has become a dried corpse.

 

I came across a TikTok video about the 70% water experiment and the Japanese Unit 731 atrocities. I recalled back to my MYP biology classes and remembered that humans are made out of 70% water was a key point that students had to remember. I took an interest in discussing the validity of unethically sourced knowledge in the scope of science.

 

This report of unit 731 is an example of unethically sourced knowledge being continuously used in the present. The knowledge that humans are made of 70% water had great applications in the scientific community to understand homeostasis and body nutrition. This introduction of new evidence refined scientific understandings. The method of obtaining this evidence through means of unethical human experimentation raises the issue of whether this knowledge should still be used in scientific research. Scientific knowledge is valuable to the community to improve upon past technologies. Hence, knowledge attained through unethical means is still valid in the area of proving the truth even though it contradicts ethical values and beliefs. It should still be taken into account that we should not condone, recognise and validate the practices of unit 731, and we should recognise the faults of past experiments and not repeat the same mistake. Therefore, the validity and value of knowledge are not defined by the path it took to attain as it is beneficial towards improvement upon past beliefs.