Theory of Knowledge Essay

Marks awarded: 32 Grade: A

This work remains the intellectual property of the original author and it cannot
be replicated in any manner and submitted to the IB Organization for
assessment.
This would be regarded as plagiarism and result in the cancellation of your
diploma.
 Theory of Knowledge Essay

Question #2:

Only seeing general patterns can give us

knowledge. Only seeing particular examples
can give us understanding.
To what extent do you agree with these
assertions?

Name:

Candidate number:

Word count: 1478

Examination session: May 2013

 Humans as pattern-seeking primates are inclined to find the causes of inexplicable
phenomena. The ability to form visual and auditory patterns of recognition helped our
ancestors to survive, consequently making us the descendants of those the most successful
at recognizing patterns. As pattern-seeking species, we connect the dots and create
meaning out of the pattern that we think we see in nature.1 This begs the question whether
seeing general patterns and specific examples is associated with either knowledge or
understanding respectively?
A knowledge issue that this question arises is how the knowledge is created. In various
fields of science, induction and deduction are used as one of the types of reasoning to help
in reaching conclusion about the nature of the universe. Inductive reasoning is used to
assess general patterns, which are derived from particular examples 2 . However, in
deductive reasoning particular examples are derived from general patterns3. Using various
examples of the scientific methods and geometric theories in mathematics as a framework
for general patterns giving us knowledge by means of induction and particular examples
giving us understanding by means of deduction, I am going to assess how the knowledge is
created.
At the outset, I would like to clarify some of the key terms that are inherent in the
further discussion. The difference between knowledge and understanding is indistinct, but
crucial. According to Oxford Dictionary, knowledge is information gained by a person
through education or experience of a situation4, while understanding is the ability to
understand something and an individuals perception or judgment of a situation 5 .
Understanding is the combination of knowledge with context through association thinking.
Whereas knowledge is obtained empirically, the context is gained via organizing
information. While acquiring knowledge, we can develop connections to what we already
know, thus improving our understanding. However, as far as general pattern and particular
examples are concerned, a pattern is defined as a regular and intelligible arrangement or

1
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/12/patternicity/, accessed on 29.12.2012, 20:15.
2
Van de Lagemaat, Richard. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma Full Colour Edition. Cambridge
University Press, 2011, page 121.
3
Ibid., page 121.
4
Hornby A.S., Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English [7th Edition edited by Sally
Wehmeier], Oxford University Press 2005, page 854.
5
Ibid., page 1667.

3
 sequence perceptible in particular situations6, whereas an example is described as a thing
characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule7.
My knowledge claim is that in natural sciences, seeing general patterns leads to creation
of knowledge. An example of evaluating general propositions from particular examples
through inductive reasoning is Charles Darwin's experience on the Galapagos Islands in
1835, where his observations on the variations in different species, led him to develop the
basis of Origin of the Species. Darwin used sense perspection to observe that population of
finches in the Galapagos Islands was geographically isolated from each other,
consequently, he reasoned that a species shared a common ancestor and then changed and
adapted to the new environment. Darwin was highly dependent on observation and
inductive reasoning because having specific piece of information, he managed to expand it
to extensive hypothesis.
The counterclaim to this knowledge issue is Karl Popper's philosophical problem of
induction. According to him, scientific theory cannot be proven by evidence, therefore
induction cannot be convincing evidence of scientific theory or knowledge. He claimed
that there is no such thing as evaulating general patterns, hence science does not rely on
inductive reasoning but on deduction. Furthermore, Popper stated that Darwinism is not a
testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme8. In the origins debate,
his criterion of falsifiability is often invoked. He used reason to state that a theory can be
considered to be a true scientific idea if it is falsifiable. It also means that no hypothesis,
proposition or theory can be proven correct, only hesitantly validated. Therefore, science
never comes to a point of absolute clarity, because there is always a possibility of black
swan to be discovered.
For this knowledge issue, both claims are partially valid. Although assessing general
patterns from particular examples by means of inductive reasoning cannot ensure true
conclusions even if their premises are true, it must be concluded that all general facts are
based upon inductive reasoning.
Another knowledge claim is that in mathematics, seeing particular examples leads us to
understanding, rather than knowledge. As I have mentioned before, understanding is the
combination of knowledge with context through association thinking and deductive
reasoning is the process through which conclusion is derived from previously known facts

6
Hornby, Albert Sydney. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English [7th Edition edited by Sally
Wehmeier]. Oxford University Press 2005, page 1111.
7
Ibid., page 526.
8
Yuri Balashov, Alex Rosenberg. Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. Routledge 2012, page 302.

4
 or knowledge. Mathematics is all about understanding the rules behind numbers or
geometry, however, in order to understand the laws behind the theorem, we need to
incorporate knowledge. An example of deductive reasoning in geometry is the situation
when a particular quadrilateral is a rectangle and since all rectangles have equal diagonals,
we can deduce that the diagonals of this particular quadrilateral are equal9. General pattern
that all rectangles have equal diagonals led to the solution of a particular example.
Deductive reasoning leads us to understanding because a person is thinking analytically
before making decision. Therefore, deduction is about examining things precisely and
making a decision that is supported by valid information.
The counterclaim to this knowledge issue is deductive fallacy. When deductive
reasoning arrives at false conclusion, the most frequent reason for this is that premises
were incorrect. The premises in deductive reasoning are the most significant part of the
whole reasoning and in order for the argument to be valid, it must be impossible for both
its premises to be true and its conclusion to be incorrect10. Taking into account the
previously mentioned example, it was logical that the diagonals of a particular
quadrilateral were equal. However, if the quadrilateral was a parallelogram or rhombus
and not rectangle, the deductive reasoning could not be used in this situation. The rule that
all rectangles have equal diagonals would not bring anything useful about the diagonals of
a rhombus. Therefore, if the premises are wrong, the whole process of reasoning is faulty
and nothing can be credibly determined.
For this knowledge issue, both claims seem to be valid. Seeing particular examples does
not create new knowledge, but instead clarifies it and is effective, only if all of the
premises are valid and each step in reasoning is logically followed from the previous one.
Science allows us to purse knowledge through impartial observations and methodical
experimentation. Knowledge that we have acquired through those scientific methods is
widely available in numerous textbooks. However, are those textbooks capable of
providing us with understanding of this knowledge? Many times I have found myself in a
situation when a textbook could not precisely convey the idea behind a particular theorem,
and only empirical experiments gave me a clear understanding of a topic. During the IB
chemistry course I have came across various topics, of which the most challenging was
chemical kinetics, which concerns the rates of chemical reactions. Only after I carried out

9
Netz, Reviel. The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Vol. 51. Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
10
Yanal, Robert J. "Dependent and independent reasons." Informal Logic 13.3 (1991).

5
 an experiment on the influence of different factors on the reaction rate, I finally learned
how to determine the speed of a chemical reaction. In this way, I have acquired knowledge
by means of induction; observation of a particular example has led me to assess general
pattern, and then having combined acquired knowledge with context that I gained from a
textbook, I improved my understanding of the chemical kinetics.
The conclusions are open for discussion: as far as I am concerned, seeing general
patterns is valuable for creating new knowledge through understanding patterns.
Nonetheless, it is essential to remember that inductive reasoning does not aim at producing
valid conclusions and that sense observation continues to be the only relevant source of
synthetic knowledge that leads to the creation of universal theories. As far as deductive
reasoning is concerned, although it aspires to arrive at valid conclusion, it does so only
based on previously known facts of the truth of its premises. Returning to the statment that
only seeing a general pattern can give us knowledge and only seeing particular examples
can give us understanding, in my opinion it cannot be stated that only inductive reasoning
gives knowledge and only deductive reasoning gives us understanding, because general
patterns are generated through inductive reasoning and tested and refined through
deductive reasoning. Moreover, since induction leads to knowledge and knowledge is the
basis for the understanding that derives from deduction, therefore inductive and deductive
reasoning are mutually reinforcing.

6
 Bibliography
1. Van de Lagemaat, Richard. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma Full Colour Edition.
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
2. Hornby A.S., Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English [7th Edition
edited by Sally Wehmeier], Oxford University Press 2005.
3. Yuri Balashov, Alex Rosenberg, Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings,
Routledge 2012.
4. http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/12/patternicity/, accessed 29.12.2012, 20:15.
5. Netz, Reviel. The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history.
Vol. 51. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
6. Greenland, Sander. "Induction versus Popper: substance versus semantics." International
journal of epidemiology 27.4 (1998): 543-548.
7. Hansen, Hans Vilhelm. "The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition
of'Fallacy'." Argumentation 16.2 (2002): 133-155.
8. Yanal, Robert J. "Dependent and independent reasons." Informal Logic 13.3 (1991).