“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” –Isaac Asimov
Isaac Asimov was a brilliant novelist and biochemist. He wrote mostly about science fiction (due to his advanced knowledge in the subject of science). If science is gathering knowledge faster than society is gathering wisdom—but first, what is wisdom, what is knowledge, and what is science? Wisdom here is referring to the understanding gained by a society’s experiences, which work their ways into individual lives, by which means they remain in the society as it grows and years later becomes wisdom; and knowledge is defined as solid facts or scientific evidence whereby science is inferring to the discovery and increased knowledge of how the physical world works. The question now becomes: if we must rely on our own experiences and culture to understand something, where is scientific knowledge placed, or does it even matter? Scientific knowledge is the only true source of objective knowledge because culture has no place in the laboratory; experience on the other hand is a major factor in reaching a scientific conclusion: if it has happened every time, it must happen all the time, therefore it is now scientific knowledge—which is objective in nature.
Before continuing, we must first analyze the question to fully understand what we are trying to prove or disprove. This question asks that if we must rely on our own experiences and culture, is it impossible to have objective knowledge? The question assumes that objective knowledge is fully independent of culture and knowledge, or that culture and experiences act as biases and only get in the way of objective knowledge. Now that the assumptions have been stated, we must take a closer look and assess the validity in the claims.
Is objective knowledge totally independent of culture and experiences? As previously mentioned, objective knowledge usually comes forth through some form of science, which is based upon theories that come about through multiple trials and tests, which involves much understanding of what happened the first 50 times and seeing whether it will again happen the next 50 times. If so, scientists are able to conclude that since it happens every single time, it must be fact and always happens; therefore making it objective knowledge, unaffected by culture, but experience is what has lead to the conclusion; for example if an iPod is dropped, it will fall, no matter whether it is dropped in the United States or in Pakistan, the iPod will fall. If the assumptions made by the question are disproved, will not the follow- up statement be false as well? Let’s take a look.
Now that we have established that people can have understanding and knowledge that does not necessarily stem directly from their cultural upbringing or past experiences, are these people able to know things that are just true because that’s just how they work? Are they not allowed to believe that gravity is pulling the iPod to the ground, rather than that God is making it fall, or that it falls because that’s what happened last time? That last statement is what science is all about, since it happened last time, and the time before that, there must be a reason; ‘science’ is finding out what those reasons are, in a logical reasonable explanation, which is easy to understand.
As further investigation, it may be wise to include other areas of knowledge and assess how ‘objective’ knowledge is found or if it exists. Mathematics is a very close relative of science, if not the umbrella under which science stands; therefore much of the same principles of objectivity in science are shared with mathematics. For example, every time you add 2 apples to 2 other apples, you are left with 4 apples; similarly every time you drop your iPod, it falls. A person’s reasons as to why this happens may be different, but the fact that it happens is the objective part. But then again, mathematics and science are the epitome of what is thought to be ‘objective’ knowledge; made entirely of reason and logic. This requires us to evaluate other areas such as history, art, and the social sciences (which deal with people rather than just the physical world). The social sciences differ from that of the natural sciences because the human sciences (as they are often referred to as) deal with the understanding of how people interact with themselves, others, and their environments. This understanding must rely on culture and the person’s experiences to explain why he or she acts the way they do. In almost all cases, people have specific reasons as to why they do the things they do. For this reason, I believe that in this aspect of human action there is no such thing as ‘objective’ knowledge, but that people are acting in accordance with what they have been taught through experiences and their cultural upbringing. Similarly in art and history, there are no definite answers or definitions of things. As Winston Churchill once said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”; history is written by the victors and the powerhouses of the world; therefore leaving out the accomplishments or the happenings of the losing countries and the smaller, less significant countries of he world. For these reasons, the same historical event is recorded so differently in different places of the world. For example, the early Crusades of Richard the Lionheart and Salah ad-Din Ayyub were told as almost opposites depending whether it was heard in Syria or England. The only thing we do know is that the Crusades happened; we do not know who won, who lost, or the exact details of what happened or how it happened. Just simply knowing that something did take place is the only form of objective knowledge in history. Our knowledge of the details is understood through our culture and what were taught. Even historical events that we, ourselves witness are subjective because we interpret them in accordance with our cultural point of view; for example, when the “terrorist” attacks of September 11th, 2001 took place in New York and Washington, many were told that it was done by Muslims and they believed it, but the Muslims took the stand that it wasn’t the Muslims; when this event is taught to future generations, there will be so many differing viewpoints that it, like everything else, will be turned into subjective knowledge based on how people are taught to think. Art in a similar way is subject, though based on experience and perception more than culture and emotion. There is no single definition for what ‘art’ is. As Princeton Wordnet defines it: the products of human creativity, art can be…anything; a poem, a song, a painting, a sculpture, a movie, a dance, a speech, a lecture, etc. Since art can be so many different things, it can be seen as art to one person, but not another. For example, is sex in a movie considered art? Many people would disagree and say that there is absolutely no artistic value in showing sex in a movie; while others might say that the scene is meant to express the feelings of the characters or to further explore the characters. In the same way there are separate opinions on whether early paintings that showed nude women are art; some say that it would not change the meaning of the painting if the women were wearing a dress instead of nothing. The biggest factors in how people define art are their culture and perception. Their perception is often a result of previously experienced art. The different areas of knowledge have distinct forms of “objective” and subjective knowledge.
As we have thoroughly examined the question of whether objective knowledge exists in spite of relying on one’s own culture and experiences for understanding, it can be said that although cultural influences and individual experiences are vital in life, objective knowledge is out there. Objective knowledge is discovered through science, which is the embodiment of cold hard facts.
