“The knower’s perspective is essential in the pursuit of knowledge.” To what extent do you agree? On a hot Saturday afternoon, I was walking around downtown in desperate search of a place to buy a birthday card when I came across a small, shabby looking ice cream shop. You could hardly see it from the street, but the inside was nearly packed with people. Curious and exhausted, I decided to enter in order to escape the heat of the sun. When I tasted the homemade ice cream, I immediately understood why it was so busy. The discovery of a delicious treat, while completely unintentional, altered my perspective on how my day was going and the ability to discover things without using the internet to locate the best new dessert place. This new knowledge was not what I set out to find. I originally wanted to find a greeting card shop, but I ended up with a different knowledge – the location of an amazing ice cream shop. I later shared this personal knowledge with friends and family to spread the news of this quaint shop, and it turned into shared knowledge as word spread not only from me and who I told, but as other people discovered it on their own. However, this makes me fallible to cognitive biases, like the confirmation bias. Ignoring anyone who says the ice cream shop I found was only “alright” or “not the best ice cream ever” and only listening to those who told me it was “outstanding” strengthens my preconceived notions about the store. My accidental discovery in the pursuit of a different knowledge highlights the importance of perspective in the quest for knowledge. Therefore, I agree that perspective of the knower is important to the pursuit of knowledge, which is most obviously shown in art, as perspective is very crucial in the creation and understanding of art and is also important in the pursuit of knowledge in the methodology and application of natural sciences. It is also selectively significant in history, specifically in the investigation and examination of historical facts and artifacts that have been unearthed by archaeologists. While they cannot alter what they have found, humans inherently make mistakes and bring biases, a form of perspective, into any work done, even if accidently. First, to understand how perspectives can assist the pursuit of knowledge, how can we define “pursuit”? Can one only be in the pursuit of knowledge deliberately? Can it be possible to accidently pursue knowledge or stumble upon knowledge? For example, two radio astronomers stumbled upon the discovery of background radiation left over from the Big Bang, a key piece of evidence in demonstrating the Big Bang theory, while researchers only 37 miles away at Princeton University who devoted their time to finding it proved unsuccessful. However, the verb “pursue” connotes a sense of following with purpose and intention, which suggests that it is not possible. The word “perspective” can be interpreted in many ways. For example, it can refer to self and group identity, or personal knowledge. There are also many things that influence perspectives such as evolutionary and survival needs, emotional drive and so much more that influence any one person’s perception or values.
“ To what extent can we allow An example of stumbling upon knowledge from a new perspective without pursuing it can be found in the natural sciences. Before Jane Goodall and many others became role models for women who wanted to study primates, the field was dauntingly full of men. Now, primatology is an area of study dominated by females (Addressi, et al.). Before women stepped onto the scene, the research on bonobos and lemurs was unintentionally “male-minded.” It was originally believed that males competed for access to females, and the winning male had his pick. However, as women fieldworkers began observing their behavior, they found that this theory did not always hold true. Anthropologist Sarah Hrdy explains that the disparity is not specifically in the way women and men study the primates or because they have different ways of thinking. Instead, she explains, because men tended to watch the males and view any strange behavior from females as insignificant, while the women fieldworkers “might be more likely to follow, watch and wonder than dismiss such behavior as a fluke” (Vandermassen). These women were not seeking out instances of female primates defying the Darwinian theory of male competition, but they still stumbled upon this knowledge inadvertently. Their methodology in observing the monkeys’ behaviors and application of what they learned in school compared to their male counterparts allowed them to find something that the men had overlooked. This new perspective from a different gender led to the realization that female bonobos and lemurs had a more active role in choosing their partners than initially believed. “To what extent can perspective from different gender affect natural science in the area of knowledge In the arts, perspective is arguably the single most important piece. Its technical definition ranges from the point of view of a painting to what the artist decides to draw or sculpt or create and so many other factors. Perspective can mean a lot of things in this area of knowledge. The knower’s perspective, however, in art is the audience trying to decipher the mystery of the work. Whoever views a work of art has their own perspective of it, and their own knowledge about it. A song can hold many different meanings to each listener, but mean something completely different to the songwriter. One famous painting, Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh, looks like an idealized village with rolling hills and stars lighting up the swirling, turbulent night sky. The knower might look into van Gogh’s life and realize he was a troubled man, who cut off his ear and voluntarily admitted himself into a lunatic asylum and learn that Starry Night is actually the view from the window in his room at the asylum. The knower might then come to their own conclusions about this painting, what they believe were van Gogh’s purposes and viewpoint on the work. The fact that van Gogh left out the iron bars of the asylum’s window suggests that he was trying to hide his location, and therefore alter the audience’s perspective and knowledge of the vista. The cypress tree may be viewed as a symbol of the bridge between life and death, with the ground as life and the sky, namely the heavens, as death (Temkin). Even the artist’s perspective may not be completely “correct,” if it is possible for an artist to be right or wrong about what they have created. For example, the town of Saint-Rémy, where the asylum was located, would not be visible from his window. Many people have theorized what village he did paint, whether it was a French town like Saint-Rémy or his birthplace in the Netherlands. While Starry Night is one of not only his most famous paintings, but one of the most famous works of art in the world, van Gogh thought some of his other works were better, going so far as to list a few of his favorites and then say, “the rest says nothing to me.” This leads to the knowledge question: to what extent can one’s interpretation or knowledge be valid in the arts as an area of knowledge when it opposes the artist’s own meaning of their art? On the other hand, in history as an area of knowledge the knower's perspective is essential only to a certain extent. A major part of history comes from primary sources which are in the form of interviews, letters, speeches, and many more that are solely based on people’s first hand experiences. The importance of primary source is when someone recalls their experiences which carries their perspectives, other people indirectly empathize the event and understand the seriousness. Also, different perspectives from different people with the same event could also provide further information why the event happened and help understand the cause of the event. For example, if one’s perspective towards the Holocaust was that it was justifiable, their perspectives might change after they hear a testimony from Holocaust survivor and a former Nazi who shares their opinion. After listening to a terrifying, emotional testimony of the Holocaust from a Jewish person who survived the internment camp and another testimony from a former Nazi who actively participated in the genocide, one would use emotion, reason, and ethics as an area of knowledge and their new knower’s perspective and pursuit a different knowledge. However, from a historian's point of view, there are limitations on how much their perspective can be involved. Historians have to read numerous primary sources and analyze them. They have to use the ways of knowing to the best of their ability to judge how they would interpret and analyze the artifacts and the events in the past. However, historians cannot just simply ignore the facts of history that really happened and interpret history with their close minded perspectives. This overlaps with ethics as an area of knowledge when historians have the ethical obligation to not lie about the history for someone or a nation’s benefit and publish biased history writings and manipulate historical fact for their advantage. An example of this are Japanese history textbooks that are very controversial for including very little if any Japanese war crimes and any wrongdoings they did to their neighboring countries like Korea and China. According to BBC, one of the history textbooks had “one line in footnote of Japanese invasion of Nanjing- the massacre (rape) of Nanjing” and this is when the knower’s perspective was used for selfish benefit for the country and manipulated the pursuit of knowledge which in the long run affects the shared knowledge incorrectly. Therefore, while the knower’s perspective is beneficial to a certain extent, it can act extremely negatively when pursuing new knowledge in history in area of knowledge. This begs the question: to what extent does the knower have to consider the historian’s perspective when approaching new knowledge in history as an area of knowledge? Important cognitive biases to consider in determining the influence of perspective are confirmation bias, anchoring bias and blind spot bias. Simply searching out what you already perceive to be true will only strengthen that notion and will not change or alter your perspective or give you a new perspective for new knowledge. For example, if you grew up hearing that the Holocaust did not actually occur, you might spend your life only paying attention to evidence supporting your claim, and dismiss any other evidence as false propaganda. Anchoring yourself to the first piece of information you hear or read gives you the same results as the confirmation bias, but stem from a different cause. Where confirmation bias seeks out information it already knew, anchoring bias ignores all further information entirely. While trying to find perspective on a certain topic or issue, you may fail to realize your own biases that may skew your pursuit of knowledge. Looking further into the perspective in art and the methodology and application of natural sciences as an area of knowledge, and specific pieces of history demonstrates the importance of perspective on pursuing knowledge. While it is important to take into consideration cognitive biases, it can be realized that knowledge stems from perspective, and having perspective is essential to searching for and discovering knowledge, whether in a painting, in the laboratory, or in an ancient ruin.
Works Cited
Addessi, Elsa, Marta Borgi, and Elisabetta Palagi. "Is Primatology an Equal-Opportunity
Discipline?" PLOS One 7.1 (2012). Web. 12 May 2016.
Medin, Douglas, Carol D. Lee, and Megan Bang. "Point of View Affects How Science Is Done."
Scientific American. Nature America, Inc, 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 12 May 2016.
Oi, Mariko. "What Japanese History Lessons Leave out." BBC News. British Broadcasting
Corporation, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 May 2016.
Temkin, Ann. "Vincent Van Gogh: Emotion, Vision, and A Singular Style." MoMA Learning.
Museum of Modern Art. Web. 11 May 2016.
Van Gogh, Vincent. "To Theo Van Gogh. Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, on or about Friday, 20
September 1889." Vincent Van Gogh: The Letters. Van Gogh Museum, 1990. Web. 12 May 2016.
Vandermassen, Griet. Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin?: Debating Feminism and Evolutionary
Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Print.