You are on page 1of 5

In various areas of knowledge, the truth behind a particular knowledge is generally derived from view of the world or human

s beliefs. Beliefs are something that is acceptable as long as it is seen to be sensible and fits into one s logical thinking. Beliefs become convincing when proven by observable occurrences in which term as evidences. The results of observations provide potential certainty to human s belief system as it is supported with an amount of evidences. Thus, this will result in one making justification to form a component of knowledge, justified true belief. These may include physical evidences, abstract knowledge, coherent and corresponding truth or different ways of knowing. For instance, justifications can be made from the abstract kn owledge of the existence of God to the empirical evidences obtained in observable ecosystem around us. Hence, justifications may strengthen beliefs and make them valid in the minds of the people. The knowledge formed will be recognised, accepted and referred by the society if the justifications are convincing enough to support them. In addition, beliefs are defined by what is significant to any one individual making them individualistic in nature. However, individuals are motivated by their emotions, culture and societies. Thus, beliefs are characterised as something that is collective within a specific belief system. Now, evidences are necessary in determining truth values of anyone s beliefs. However, the ways to obtain the evidence and the significance level of the evidence itself varies according to the areas of knowledge across the classification spectra. Different areas of knowledge will demand for different degree of evidences to support the belief formed. They can be represented in any sorts of physical observable output from empirical evidence, a result from an experiment in natural science to axiomatic processes in Mathematics. In this essay, I will evaluate the significance of evidences in supporting beliefs in mathematics, natural science and history.

In Mathematics, beliefs are initially derived from a posteriori towards problems. The problems create mathematical ideas in which can be analysed and solved through mathematical means. Mathematical idea or expression originates from a set of reasoning that was initiated by relevant set of axioms. The ideas seem logical when they found a consistency in the premises made on the axioms. Hence, the justification made will result in mathematicians forming a conjecture that potentially generalise a new theorem. However, the conjecture made is not entirely true as all related theorems are not yet solved. Hence, mathematicians belief system is forced to apply mathematical proof in order to support the conjecture. Generally, axioms used in the mathematical proof provide a foundation of certainty. Because axioms are self evident and theoretically true in nature, hence all extended ideas that developed from it will automatically be true in a mathematical sense. However, mathematical proof in Mathematics does not act as a source of evidence in Mathematics but contradictory provide a medium for evidence to take place. The evidence that makes a mathematical idea to be certain is determined by the logical reasoning that took place. A priori knowledge is applied by the mathematicians deductively in proving the conjecture constructed. This means that the mathematicians solve the problems without reference to reality.1 Therefore, when mathematical problems are said to be solved through valid reasoning, the conclusion that follows is true, and hence is believable. The belief that the conclusion is true is supported by the reasoning of a priori knowledge, which acts as the evidence in mathematics. However, the conclusion can only form a concrete mathematical claim if the mathematics society accepts the reasoning made on the sets of axioms and able to justify them through their existing a priori knowledge. For instance, the fifth Euclid s axiom called the parallel postulate that was used to verify his 29th theorem 2of geometry was falsified by Riemann s through reasoning on

1 2

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html Weisstein, E.W. Euclid s Postulates . MathWorld-A Wolfram Web. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html

his geometrical axiom. Riemann falsified Euclid s claim by using surface of a sphere instead of an infinite plane to explain deductively that lines cannot be extended indefinitely.3
4

In such cases,

mathematicians will falsify the theorems created and altogether abandoned the initial mathematical ideas. Thus, logic and reasoning would probably be seen as a reliable method to verify mathematical ideas. In natural science, the study on the environment around us involves scientific progress. Observation from the natural occurrences allows scientists to create a scientific notion. It is developed cognitively within scientists belief system as a result of justifications made on the discovery. In this case, a notion in science does not only exist because of logical reasoning made on the presence physical evidence but some are also fuelled by coherent area of studies. This will make the notion seems more sensible and valid to the scientists. The foundation of a belief becomes more grounded when it is able to predict the outcome of the experiments. However, these beliefs stated in the form of theories and hypotheses being made are true based on the condition that they have been developed upon. Hence, the belief system only stands when empirical evidences are able to support the theories being made. For example, de Broglie hypothesis of duality of matter which suggested that particle has wave-like properties was supported by Davisson-Germer through his experiment. The separation of crystal atoms caused by accelerating electrons passing through them has allowed him to determine the wavelength of the electron, thus supporting de Broglie s hypothesis.5 In science, evidences may only support the scientific notion if they meet the confidence level placed by scientists. Different scientists will determine and decide on different degrees of confidence level that will support their beliefs based on the repetition of the experiments. For

Loy, J. 1998. Non-Euclidean Geometries. http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/parallel.htm 4 Eileen Dombrowski, Lena Rotenberg, Mimi Bick. 2007. Oxford University Press, New York USA. pg 139 & 140. 5. Areas of Knowledge. Mathematics , IB Diploma Programme: Theory of Knowledge Course Companion.
5

instance, I regularly conduct a few attempts during the IB physics experiments until I feel confident that the consistent results obtained allow me to conclude and support the hypothesis claim. Thus, the consistent results from the experiment are used by scientists to justify and evaluate the concrete reliability of the scientific notion. The conclusion that supports the theory will be published to the society as a scientific claim. Conversely, the scientists are challenge when the expected empirical evidences do not occur to support their beliefs. This may result in one continue to publish their notion by providing a pragmatic conclusion if their strong sense of belief is able to support them. Some may also publish their notion in the sense that they belief the errors and limitations during the experiments have hindered expected results. In this case, the pragmatic conclusions published are taken by the scientists in the future for further investigation regarding the scientific notion. Beliefs in history are created in historians belief system when they observe and discover historical evidences such as artefacts. Empirical evidences allow historians to create suggestions about the occurrences that had happened in the past. The imaginative interpretation on the evidences may involve reasoning or coherent its discovery with other areas of study. Hence, these justifications will make the suggestions more sensible and valid in the minds of the historians. However, a weak judgement made on the discovery due to insufficient evidences will create debate in history. Thus, justified true belief in history demands for more empirical evidences to resolve the missing facts and able to provide a foundation for further interpretations. Empirical evidences in history may be represented in observable selective facts. The variety of facts that coherent with the suggestions may provide clearer imaginative interpretation from different angle of view. Historians to an extent, will have a gut feeling when deciding whether the evidences collected are sufficient to support their suggestions. Meanwhile, some may feel confident that the consistency of discovery with other existed historical facts is able to support their claim. However, evidences in history do not always act as a primary source to support historians

suggestions. For an example, in the eyes of Malaysian historians, the discovery of tin mine in North Malaysia is being interpreted to be an evidence of the exploitation of British towards Malaysia s minerals during 1850s but for British historians, they suggested differently where it was actually symbolizing the intention of British in bringing development towards Malaysia. In most cases, evidences only act as a tool to assist historians in making judgement through analytical reasoning and logical deduction. They may not provide accurate references but will give the historians a prior knowledge to the historical facts. Thus, historians essentially judge the evidences through strong reasoning on different variables to support their suggestions. The solid result from strong analytical reasoning is used by the historians to convince the history society regarding their claim on the historical facts. Besides, the claims can only be accepted by the history society if the historians are able to present them impressively by using proper and clear language throughout the analytical presentation. Otherwise, the suggestion may seem weak to the audience and allow them to question the certainty of the historical facts. This is because society that originates from different background will have different perspective towards the historical facts and thus, creating debate regarding the claim. In conclusion, evidences are crucial as an indicator to further approve, disapprove and explore the validity of a knowledge claim which is universally accepted as belief. Standard belief system can be contributed by personal truth, unified truth or combination of both based on specific areas of knowledge. Therefore, evidences will bring us closer to truth if they support a certa in belief. Although this is so, evidences are not significant in certain cases where ways of knowing are considered more important. With the development of technology, would the role of evidences still be the same in the future?

You might also like