As a classic illustration of authoritarianism we might cite the scholastic thinkers

of the middle ages who dared not deviate from the teachings of the church and
the writings of Aristotle. Space does not permit a discussion of the groups and
institutions which are their modern counterpant, but the reader might well make
his own list.

Many persons welcome authority because they have little confidence in

themselves and because they are intellectually lazy. To accept the word of
someone else is to take the casy way to gain comfort and assurance, provided
that one believes the authority can be relied upon absolutely. Persons in general
trend to be imitative, credulous, and suggcstibble. To hear or to read is to
believe, and so they accept the idea or ’’get on the band wagon’’ or ’’toe the
party line. ’’to follow the crowd and to fall in line with public opinion is th
refuge of confused and weary minds. Such tendenciesmin human beings to
conform create fertile soil for modern high-pressure advcrtising and
propaganda.

The pressure of public opinion, prejudice, propaganda,and the blind acceptance

of authority are not the only abstacles to thingking. We are all creatures of
impulse and habit. While habits take care of the routine details of life and are
very useful, they do not help and sometimes they hinder us when we are faced
with new and unfamiliar situations.

There are also a wide range of fallacies in thingking or violations of the

principles of logic and consistency, these are sometimes divided into three
groups. The semantical fallacies have to do with the careless or impoper use of
words, words, for example, may shift in meaning as we proceed with our
discussion. The formal fallacies cause us to draw invalid conclusions from our
premesis. We may make an assertion about all the members of a group when the
premises permit us to speak of some only. The empirical fallacies arise due to
our hasty generalizations. Because one event came after another, we may
wrongly insist that there is a direct causal relationship, for a score or more of
these pitfalls that may lead thingking astray, the reader is advised to consult the
books on logic.

The sources considered

IN HIS WELL-KNOWN Essay concerning human understanding, john locke

points out how this problem of knowledge is the first and fundamental question
to be settled. He says:
Were it fit to trouble thee with the history of this essay. I should tell thee, that
five or six friend meeting at my chamber, and discoursing on a subject very
remote from this, found themselves quickly at a stand, by the difficulties that
rose on every side,after we had whille puzzled ourselves, without corning any
nearer a resolution of those doubts which perplexed us, it came into my thought,
that we took a wron course; and that before we set ourselves upon inquiries of
that nature, it was necessary to examine our own abilities, and see what objects
our understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with. This proposed to the
company, who all readily assented; and there upon it was agreed, that this
should be our first inquiry.

Immanuel kant also placed this issue first among the central questions of lifence
the time of locke and of kant, the problem of knowledge has occupied a
prominent place in philosophical discussions.

The techinal term for the theory of knowledge is epistemology, which comes
from the greak word episteme, meaning ’’knowledge.’’ There are three central
questions or problems in this field: (1) What are the sources of knowledge?
where does genuine knowledge come from, or how do we know? This is the
question of origins. (2) what is the nature of knowledge? is there a real world
outside the mind, and if so, what is its nature? This is the question of
appearance versus reality. (3) what is the validilty of knowledge? How do we
distinguish truth from error? This is the question of the tests of truth. These
questions are considered in this and the next two chapters.

Where did we get the beliefs we now hold? Is there some one source of
knowledge or are there many sources of knowledge? If there are many sources,
are some more important than others? The sources of knowledge recognized in
modern discussions are usually four in number. Let us consider these sources in
order.

TESTIMONY AS A SOURCE: AUTHORITY

How do we know that soctrates ans Julius caeser ever lived? Are they perhaps
fictitious characters, like many others about whom we read in ancient
mythology and in modern novels? We know that Socrates and Julius Caesar
lived because of the testimony of their contemporaries and of the historians. In
fact, the commonest way of gaining knowledge about the past is to rely upon
the testimony of others-that is, upon authority. Much of the knowledge we use
in everyday living has been gained in that way. It is the way in which most of us
have gained what knowledge we have of the thoughts of others men and the
facts in the special field of the various sciences.we have gained this knowledge
neither by intuition, nor by thingking it out for ourselves, nor by personal
experience.

Authority as a source of knowledge has its values as well as its dangers.

Testimony or authority that is open to free and honest inquiry as to its validity is
a legitimate source of knowledge. We need toaccept such testimony in areas
which we cannot investage adequately for ourselves. We need, however, to be
reasonably certain that the persons we accept as authorities are persons of
integrity who have had more opportunity than we to gain the information
desired. We need to know that these persons have used the best methods
available at the time. We must leave the solution of some questions to experts in
whose knowledge and skill we have reasonable confidence. The testimony of
others may be valuable in bringing us a summary of the conclusions to which
they have been led by their experiences. Such testimony may suggest to us
where how to look for evidence and so direct out attention to what might
otherwise be overlooked.

Testimony or authority, it must be kept clearly in mind, is not an original source

of knowledge. It is a secondary source, not a primary one, when we ask, ’’from
what source did our authority gain his knowledge?’’ we are not satisfied to be
given merely additional authorities. We want to know whetherhe gained his
information by experience or reason or in some other way, and whether we can
examina the steps by which the conlusions were reached.

We need to keep in mind both the values and the dangers of the appeal to
authority. Authority as a source of knowledge is dangerous only when the
person surrenders his independent judgment and makes no effort to discover
what is true or false. In the previous section we considered some of the main
dangers of the blind acceptance of tradition and authority.

THE SENSES AS A SOURCE: SENSE PERPEPTION

How do we know that water will freeze or that it will revive the drooping p
lant? We may say that we know by means of our selse organs or by our past
experience alone.

What we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste-that is, our concrete experiences-
constitute the realm of knowledge, according to the empiricists. Empiricism
places stress upon man’s power of perception, or observation, or upon what the
mind receives from the environment. Knowledge is obtained by forning ideas in
accordance with the observed facts. States briefly, empiricism maintains chat we
know what senses.

Empiricism may take a number of forms. As a narrow sensationalism, it assers

that knowledge is essentially sensation and that there is no other knowledge. In
the eighteenth century. John locke regarded the mind as similar to a piece of
wax which registers impressions as they come from the world outside. More
recent empiricism abandons this theory of knowledge. Pragmatism, as a form
of ’’radical empiricism,’’ view the mind as active in selecting and molding its
experience in accordance with the interest and purposes of the organism. It
einphasizes the changing world of experience. Pragmatism is considered separa
tely as a type of philosophy in part four.

Modern science, which is ispecially interested in particular facts and relations,

is empirical. Scientists are interested in controlled observations and
experiments, not just in general sense perceptions and experiences, and they
strive to keep irrelevant factors from disturbing the examination of some special
problem or isolated event. Items can be changed or manipulated, and the effects
can be recorded. Furthermore, if the conditions are controlled and definite, the
experiment can be repeated by other observers; thus more accurate and
objective information can be obtained. Speciai instruments can be used to aid
observation, to help eliminate errors, and to measure result. The conclusions,
however, are always tentative and are set forth in the form of hypotheses,
theories, or possibly laws which, after further observation and research, may
need to be modified or changed. The process of building up the great body of
scientific knowledge is a slow one which involves the labor of countless
thousands of persons in many parts of the world. This knowledge enables us to
exercise considerable control over our world, and it is of constant service in our
daily lives.

While we depend upon empirical knowledge for our acquaintance with the
particular facts and relations of our everday world, we do need to exercise
caution and to realize that we can be led astray even in this field. Prejudices and
emotions may distort our view so that we select our ’’facts’’ to support our
expectations. We tend to see what we expect to see or are trained to see. Our
human knowledge is infected with a personal and subjective coloration. The
ease with which some philosophers and scientist have cast doubt upon just what
it is that is outside or beyond us, or even whether there is an external world at
all, should keep us humble. If there were ho study of possible human experience
under varying conditions and, as such, would continue to be useful. To what
extent the world is appearance or reality is considered in the next chapter.

THINGKING AS A SOURCE: REASON

How do me know that of two contradictory statements both canaor be true at the
same time-that if two things each auel a third thing, they are