“Accepting Knowledge claims always involves an element of

trust.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge

When I was young, I had pretty good scores. This made some of my friends
always ask me questions that they did not know. However, I was not right all the
time. I sometimes made mistakes in answering the question, but my friends kept
asking me and believed in the answers I gave them. This personal experience
proves that accepting knowledge claims involves an element of trust. Nevertheless,
everyone has their own interpretation when they receive a claim. Some people may
be skeptical and do not accept the knowledge claim that is easier. These kinds of
people need strong evidence that they can see by their own eyes, so that they can
believe it. It can be seen that trust plays a role in determining whether we can
accept knowledge claims or not. But, how far does trust involve our decision-
making process in accepting such claims? 
Knowledge claims are statements that the knower believes to be true yet is
up to debate as to assess the veracity of the statement or can be widely accepted.
Knowledge claims are always present around us and to accept a knowledge
question is influenced by several factors and things. One of the factors is trust. So,
what is trust? Does knowledge claim affect our trust or instead trust will affect our
perspective when accepting a knowledge claim? 
Trust is influenced by emotion, reason, memory, imagination, faith, reason,
language, and sense perception. While it cannot be denied that they play an
impacting role in establishing trust, the degree to which they influence trust or
make of trust varies. Without some element of trust, we could not function. We
sometimes call this trust “common sense”. Is this the only factor to accept facts or
are there any other things that involve when we accept knowledge? 
 This raises the question: Does accepting knowledge claims always involve
an element of trust? Accepting a knowledge claim varies in each person and the
result is supposed to be that accepting knowledge claims does not always involve
an element of trust. To provide more explanations, in this essay I have investigated
cases of trust in Natural and Human science to discuss the title claim and answer
the knowledge question.
Firstly, in natural science AOK, people do not involve trust when gaining
knowledge. That is because in natural science if someone makes a claim, the claim
should be tested scientifically and it must have strong evidence so that the theory/
claim can be accepted. If the theory cannot be proven then it is included in
pseudoscience. One example of pseudoscience is Flat Earth Theory. This theory
states that since Earth looks and feels flat, it must be flat and disc-shaped. At first it
seems justifiable, but the scientist who claims this theory cannot prove the claim
with evidence and methodology. People who initially believed in the claim would
have a second thought towards it because of the missing evidence. They would
question why we can see much farther from the greater height than you would on
the ground or why we cannot see the same shadow in different places. The facts
that can answer these questions is that the earth is simply not flat. If the earth is flat
then elevation doesn't make a difference (Moriel Schottlender). Also, we will see
the same shadow even though things are in different places. Even there is a photo
proving that earth is spherical. These facts contradict their beliefs and will affect
their stance towards the existing claims which eventually make them realize that
the earth is not flat. From this example, we can say that in accepting knowledge, an
element of trust is not involved.
However, there is also some trust in science. One example is the anti-
vaccination movement that has grown in social media. This started with the claim
from Andrew Wakefield who believed that her son’s getting measles was the result
of MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination. As what happened in 1998, a
doctor wrote a paper which described the effect that would happen if MMR
vaccine was injected towards a 10-months-old baby with autism. The result was
out of the expectation; the baby got measles. This made people skeptical with the
safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. People believed that the MMR vaccine
could cause their child to get measles. Later that year, doctors investigated this and
found out that the reason was not because of the vaccine but rather the younger age
of the vaccine recipient. Doctors suggested that children should receive the first
dose at the age of one and the second at the age three years and four months to get
the best result. Because of this earlier time, doctors believed that the baby could
get measles. Moreover, the doctor claiming that Andrew Wakefield's research
paper was wrong had discussed it with medics at the British Medical Association’s
(BMA). This means that the doctor's claim is reliable. However, there are many
people who do not believe this doctor’s claim and still believe in Andrew
Wakefield’s claim. Furthermore, these people spread the news through social
media and they made a community called the anti-vaxxer movement. The
consequences of this movement is that there were 2,016 cases of Measles
appearing, compared to 100 cases before Andrew Wakefield's claim came up. This
proves that accepting knowledge claims involves an element of trust. These two
evidences show that when people want to accept a knowledge claim, they need to
see the claim to be tested scientifically then they will accept the knowledge claim.
It also proves that relying on trust only is not enough to accept a knowledge claim.
In contrast, in the human science area of knowledge people are more likely
to use trust when accepting a knowledge claim. This is because in human science
AOK it’s hard to know the facts and usually people put their feelings first.
However, in the modern era right now people start to be skeptical and need a
reason when accepting a knowledge claim. For example, there is a christian film
called “God’s Not Death” whose story is adopted from a book with the same title.
This film is about a university student who takes philosophy class in his university.
In this class, he meets with his lecturer who is very skeptical. The lecturer does not
believe that there is God because he thinks that the existence of God has no
evidence and reasons. However, after several times the lecturer has a debate with
one of the university students that believes that there is God. The lecturer starts to
accept that God exists because one of his students who has debated with him
explains a lot of theories logically with some evidence. This film can prove that
even though sometimes there is bias when accepting a knowledge claim, there are
still people who are skeptical and would not accept a knowledge claim that is
easier. They usually need some evidence and reasons to be able to accept a
knowledge claim. 
However, in everyday life people would rather rely on trust, hence there are
less skeptical people. Unfortunately, relying on trust only is not enough for us to
accept knowledge. This is because trust is not always true. One example of where
trust is not 100% true is the wine counterfeiting case that was done by Rudy
Kurniawan. He is a Indonesian citizen who works in America. At first he liked to
attend a wine auction and spent $1,000,000/ month to buy a rare wine. He then
started to host tastings of rare wines with other collectors which showed so much
affinity for the ultra luxury Burgundy producer, Domaine de la Romanée-Conti. At
these events, where he was known as "Dr. Conti'', many of the prospective wine
buyers believed in him because they thought Rudy was an expert in choosing a rare
wine and eventually started to buy the expensive wine from him. Rudy got a lot of
benefit from the wine auction which was held by him. However, in April 2007
Rudy was arrested by the FBI because he was caught using fake wine bottles. Rudy
managed to make his clients trust his claim that he was selling a high quality and
 limited stock of luxurious wine. He then was prosecuted and jailed. This case
proves that trust is not enough to make us accept a knowledge claim. 
These two examples show that trust is not always true and would not be
enough to become the basis to accept a knowledge claim. Therefore, there are
several people who do not put their emotions first and are skeptical. Skeptical
people need some evidence and reasons before they accept a knowledge claim. In
conclusion, both natural science and human science have different ways when
accepting a knowledge claim. In natural science, knowledge claims need to be
tested scientifically while in human science accepting a knowledge claim is based
on the character of each person, whether the person is skeptical or not. Also, from
the examples we can see that people preferred to rely on trust more because
knowledge was not yet developed. However, the knowledge claim is not always
true. We can look back at the example of flat earth theory and Rudy Kurniawan's
cases. Therefore, evidence and reasons are needed and accepting a knowledge
claim does not always involve an element of trust.

References:
1.) “Examples of Pseudoscience in Different

Fields.” Https://Examples.Yourdictionary.com/Examples-of-Pseudoscience.Html,

examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pseudoscience.html. Accessed 2020 Nov. 17AD.

2.) Forster, Katie. “Doctor Blames Anti-Vaccination Campaigner for Her Baby Catching

Measles.” The Independent, 28 June 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/health/doctor-blames-

andrew-wakefield-son-catching-measles-vaccine-mmr-autism-anti-vaxxers-measles-a7813001.html.

Accessed 17 Nov. 2020.

3.) Posthuma-Coelho, Amanda. “Knowledge Claims.” Medium, 25 Nov. 2016,

medium.com/@amandaposthuma/knowledge-claims 5f4ae54871c6#:~:text=A%20knowledge

%20claim%20is%20a.

4.) “Rudy Kurniawan.” Wikipedia, 9 Nov. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Kurniawan. Accessed

17 Nov. 2020.

5.) Schottlender, Moriel. “Consent Form | Popular Science.” Popsci.com, 2018,

www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/.

6.) SEV7N. “Title 1- Accepting Knowledge Claims Always Involves an Element of Trust.” Theory

of Knowledge, theoryofknowledge.online/accepting-knowledge-claims-always-involves-an-element-

of-trust/.

7.) “Theory of Knowledge: An Alternative Approach.” Theory of Knowledge: An Alternative

Approach, mytok.blog/.