Candidate # 002203-069

Asharib Syed

DOUBT IS THE KEY TO KNOWLEDGE. (PERSIAN PROVERB) TO WHAT EXTENT IS THIS TRUE IN TWO AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE?

The world around me could be a matrix giving the illusion of reality; and in truth, I could be a brain1 floating in an incubator, imagining... In a situation like that, some may argue that doubt is the key to neurosis. Others however, from Benjamin Franklin to Shakespeare have all expressed their unique feelings about doubt. While the Buddha stated that There is nothing more dreadful than doubt...it is a sword that kills, others like Ren Descartes claimed that to be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that ... you doubt as far as possible, all things. This brings us to our first point, interpretation of the prescribed title and the subject of doubt is relative to the life, experiences and thinking of individual knowers. As Nietzsche said, all things are subject to interpretation. Being a knower who is emotionally inclined towards established truths, rather than hypothetic radical doubt, makes my approach to this journey inevitably biased. Besides the relative interpretations of every knower; it is necessary to first understand the meaning of the words knowledge and doubtbefore analyzing the validity of the proverb with regards to the areas of knowledge of science and history. Knowledge can be defined as the acquaintance with facts, truths or principals from study or investigation. Doubt means to be uncertain about, question or be sceptical with regards to a matter. Deeper linguistic implications of the proverb can now be analyzed. The proverb in the prescribed title claims knowledge to be a per accidens of doubtthat knowledge is locked without the key that opens it, which is doubt. Who says that knowledge is contained or locked, needing a key to open it? Perhaps mankind is swimming in an ocean of knowledge, but can only take limited gulps of it at a time. Additionally, we in our modern Western mindsets may never fully understand the proverbs meaning as intended by the Persian thinker; considering our inability to fully understand his life or personal situations, let alone inner thoughts and feelings. Moreover, the Persian thinker who made the proverb seems to be lacking intellectual humility by creating an axiom that is void of all doubtwhich is rather hypocritical. He claims without a doubt, that doubt is THE key to knowledge. Why is it the key to knowledge...perhaps it is just a key to knowledge. Additionally, if I were to accept the proverb as truth and try to extract knowledge from it, (by its very instruction) I would have to doubt the axiom. In other words I would have to doubt that doubt is the key to knowledge. Therefore, doubting doubts ability to lead to knowledge, all in the pursuit for knowledge, seems like circular reasoningthe conclusion is essentially the same as the arguments initial premise. Furthermore, what one may derive through doubt and consider being knowledge; others may doubt that same fact and either reject it completely, or extract something else through their personal doubts. Hence, one persons knowledge could be another persons doubt. My brother may know with certainty Manchester Uniteds imminent success in the Premier League; I however, would often doubt his knowledge claim with rational scepticism (to his discontent). Additionally, because the proverb is written in language, the limitations of language
1

(A creative adaptation of Putnams Brain in a vat argument)

Candidate # 002203-069

Asharib Syed

as a way of knowing (its subjective interpretations, the inability of words to perfectly represent human thoughts, and possible translation gaps) entertain limitations in understanding. Having discussed preliminary details with regards to the proverb, we can now voyage into evaluating the validity of the prescribed title in two areas of knowledge, science and history. The causes and effects of doubt are adequate grounds of comparison between the areas of knowledge of history and science. In science, doubt is often caused by reason or sense perception. Scientists doubt the dubious claims of individuals predicting earthquakes based on the aches and feeling of their knee bones. As uranium decays it creates radon gas which collects in underground pockets; these trapped gasses are released by tremors that occur days before earthquakes. Hence, scientists used deductive reasoning and concluded that wherever released radon gas can be detected, an earthquake would soon follow2. In this situation, seismologists doubted the knowledge claims of individuals basing earthquake prediction on intuition. Using objective doubt, they sought to discover a more scientific approach in predicting earthquakes. Hence, objective doubts and curiosity led to the discovery of a new technique which now gives locals knowledge of impending earthquakes. In this case, objective doubts led to a pursuit of discovery, which in turn produced knowledge. In the area of knowledge of science, cases where objective doubt leads to knowledge are ubiquitous. Subatomic particles known as neutrinos are a product of radioactive decay. They emerge from cosmic events and regularly bombard the Earth. However, magnetic fields in space make the discovery of these neutral particles (and physical proof, beyond theory) impossible. Scientists have set out to prove the physical existence of neutrinos beyond doubt by using sense perception. When neutrinos hit arctic ice they create a muon particle which gives a flash of blue lightthis light when captured by photo sensors set in the ice (visual observation, sense perception) gives physical proof that neutrinos exist3. Hence, the pursuit of objective doubt often creates an inquisitive curiousness that when seeking proofs, leads to knowledge. Conversely, if doubt arises questions for which answers are not sought, than doubt creates only questions and not answers, or knowledge. In science when doubt creates questions, those questions create a pursuit for answers, hence these answers lead to knowledge.

While objective doubt in the area of science may inspire discovery and curiosity, leading to knowledge; subjective doubt in History, contrastingly, may not lead to knowledge. Emotion and language are two subjective ways of knowing which play significant roles in the area of knowledge of history. At the end of WWI, article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles known as the war guilt clause, put the entire wars blame solely on Germany4. European nations that lost millions of lives and were suffering from war debt, found it emotionally suitable to put unilateral blame on Germanys aggressions. Within a decade as emotions cooled, Sydney Bradshaw Fay doubted the earlier opinion and presented a theory that explained the cause of World War 1 as being more complex than just its Germanys fault. He argued that WWI was caused by an intricate combination of balance of power diplomacy, alliances, nationalism and economic reasons. However, historians and nations around the world did not suddenly
2 3

Popular Science, December 2010, pg 25 Ibid, pg 17-19 4 http://www.johndclare.net/causesWWI_Answer1.htm

Candidate # 002203-069

Asharib Syed

bow to this new idea as being concrete knowledge, it was just labelled as his opinionhe was considered a revisionist historian while the classical historians who put all blame on Germany were called traditionalist historians. This illustrates how although doubt may lead to knowledge in science, in history however, doubt and the subjectivity of interpretation and emotion, leads only to the foundation of a new viewpointnot necessarily credited truths or knowledge.

Besides emotion as a way of knowing, language plays an integral role in history. The problem with language however is the ample room for not only readers subjectivity, but manipulation and distortion on the writers behalf. Politicians frequently manipulate language to stir pathos in citizens and muster support for an otherwise dubious cause. I myself often manipulate language when talking to my parents about my marks, either by hyperbolising my accomplishments or euphemizing my failures, using phrases like the test went okay. Documents in Chinas imperial archives portray Mao as a national hero. Although civilian causalities were documented, historians have recently discovered that Maos records were heavily distorted. When historians doubt drove them into evaluating the distorted figures in Imperial archives, it was discovered that Mao was responsible for the death of 70 million people5--more than Hitler and Stalins totals. Although an unassuming onlooker may deem doubt as successful in finding true knowledge; in this case although the knowledge is considered fact by some, others consider this to be either a revisionist opinion; or an external attempt to undermine Chinas glorious past. Hence in history, although doubt may serve as an impetus for true knowledge; when found, it is often considered merely a new viewpointa historians subjective approach, instead of knowledge. In contrast, many aspects in the field of science due to their objectivity, when intertwined with doubt that leads to knowledge, are widely recognized as knowledge. Moreover, the inherent subjectivity of emotions and language as a way of knowing are transferred into the area of knowledge of history. Contrastingly, the universal and objective methods of reasoning and methodical observation (sense perception) as instructed through impartial scientific methods, make the area of knowledge of science, more susceptible grounds for doubt to produce knowledge.

Nonetheless, in both areas of knowledge doubt creates questions. Hence the pursuit of discovery in finding answers to those questions may eventually lead to knowledge. Although considered as knowledge in science, doubt and its fruit of knowledge is often considered merely another viewpoint in historyand not knowledge. In the field of science doubt ignites curiosity, which in turn acts as an impetus for finding true knowledge. Finally, objective doubt with the intent of uncovering true knowledge may lead to truth, while subjective doubt (manipulated results and distortions) does not lead to true knowledge. Nonetheless, if doubt leads to knowledge, than I suppose you as a reader must begin by doubting my entire essay...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jun/04/featuresreviews.guardianreview10