<TITLE: Knowledge and Democracy
ACADEMIC DOMAIN: humanities
DISCIPLINE: philosophy
EVENT TYPE: seminar presentation
FILE ID: USEMP050
NOTES: continuation of and continued in USEMD130

RECORDING DURATION: 34 min 40 sec

RECORDING DATE: 16.3.2005

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 14

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS: 2

S1: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: senior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

S3: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Hindi; ACADEMIC ROLE: other; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50>


<S3> thanks , we have a similar group er in the place er i'm working in centre for the study of the (xx) societies so have been meeting for er last five six months we meet once every month , and er , we have not sort of er arrived at any kind of er idea or any coherent conception of how to relate knowledge and democracy and it's an entirely open erm thing and we have been sort of drifting but erm this is the same format and er some some people have found it quite interesting to be a part of er this and somehow each of these meetings which we have had they've turned out to be quite different from each other in character . so today what i er , intend to present erm , one way of er perhaps addressing this question of knowledge and democracy and er , then we can sort of discuss and see what happens . there is a some sense of unreality like sneaks in when we start talking about knowledge meaning it's a kind of er second-order talk and er . and if we er if we look at the (xx) their own knowledge it's er it's quite forbidding like if you just i just went to the library today there was still librarian and er she had to (xx) us quite fast and er . and the that's really you you cannot hope to sort of find your way it seems quite impossible to find your way to it and sort of arrive at some kind conception of knowledge for yourself of of whatever , okay i find it erm a good starting point to be that erm . that we have a lot of knowledge all of us have knowledge whether you can call it a gift that we have or whatever it is and erm we do lot of things er we act on the basis of our knowledge , sometimes we are proved wrong sometimes we are proved right sometimes we go towards er more certainty kno- knowledge sometimes our certainties are broken and the but , i cannot deny that each of us work with er substantial body of knowledge which we have otherwise er even living itself would be quite difficult , and erm , s- er , when you think of a more in terms of in the context of the whole society then erm i i find it more useful erm we have a new as it exists we have knowledge of society which is supposed to be from the social sciences then we have knowledge of nietzsche which is er supposed to be the natural sciences and so on so i like to think in a framework which we can call knowledge in society so we are trying to think about erm , knowle- how knowledge exists in society how it is organised how it is institutionalised and what are the , philosophical foundations or law-making foundations of knowledge that we work with . and in thinking about knowledge in society , i find it er , we are thinking about er , my knowledge and then there are other people's knowledge then there are , knowledge systems that exist there is science in there is other kinds of knowledge systems so what are the relationships among erm this knowledge what is the relationship of my relationship and then the relationship of my knowledge with what is considered scientific knowledge , or what is its relationship with your knowledge and erm , so to understand these relationships er , you can think of er a normative framework of knowledge which we use in our er , in our activity in our life . normative framework of knowledge is like er it's a like it's it's a kind of guide in matters concerning knowledge it tells you like er wh- what is the nature of knowledge what is the purpose of knowledge what kinds of knowledge is reliable what kind of knowledge is not reliable what are the sources of true knowledge , where you have to be suspicious how you go about acquiring new knowledge so i'm calling this the whole er er jumble of things as a normative framework of knowledge and i found it quite useful to sort of understand this whole question of knowledge in society and presumably because of that knowledge and democracy <P:07> so to illustrate it maybe er let's take science as a , er as an example of er , as a normative framework of knowledge because if , if we think what is science then it's we find it quite difficult to answer this question because , there are various sciences which are there each there's physics chemistry biology and all of the (new) sciences they're pursuing a certain er certain ideal and there are , acquiring knowledge there in a cooperating fashion and er , what do we call science well mainly what do we understand when we say science what does science mean as such , so science er means many things one of the to begin with we can call all this science it's a collective name for all the all the sciences which are there . but er but but the scien- science (xx) but so we can think of it as a divide of er sorry as a instrument of inclusion and exclusion of bodies of knowledge so there's certain disciplines and certain bodies of knowledge which are scientific and there are certain kinds of knowledge which are not scientific of course the science will claim that erm there's something intrinsic to these disciplines which make them scientific and er for quite some time the idea was that with the scientific method which er makes a discipline scientific and er so , it's a collective name then scientific method that there is something like scientific method which makes a discipline or any kind of quest of knowledge scientific it is second element of science , (xx) , even despite er lot of efforts no-one has been sort of able to pinpoint what is scientific method there are certain general kind of er ideas that it's it's er knowledge which is verified it's knowledge which is publicly verified which is open to public scrutiny and er it's objective but none of these criteria suffice to sort of mark out scientific fields from what is not considered science . various sciences have their own methodologies like when i er study physics or when you go and study biology i never i studied physics but i never learned scientific method in my study of physics i learned methods of physics and er various methodologies and techniques which i erm used in studying physics , so and each of the sciences have er developing kind of set of methodologies and techniques and it's very difficult to find any common method . but the idea of science has this er principle that there is a method which will sort of unravel all of the universe so we can call it as another element of the normative framework of science <COUGH> , we talked about the collection of disciplines but er the collection is a it's hierarchically organised collection of disciplines at least at some time ago (it's) physics is considered to be the most fundamental of sciences and er there's a hierarchy of physics then you have biology chemistry they are in the borderline and finally social sciences are like science that qua- need a qualification i mean is it's scientific because it is contested so you have a hierarchy within natural sciences and social sciences is on the borderline with contested er authority , so i'll say that this hierarchy is another element of this normative framework of science , behind this lies the idea that everything should ultimately find the physical explanation in terms of physical principles and laws and even though in actual practice it may not be done but theoretically it's considered to be possible desirable and . yeah desirable and possible that everything has an ultimately a physical explanation in terms of the entities of physics which er er work according to the laws of physics <P:07> so <P:11> of course then there are some er , some general norms which er scientists are supposed to follow that your explanation should be not teleological meaning it should not be in terms of final causes as er it is known not in terms of purpose and so on all purposes and all teleology has to be explained in terms of er causal laws and an- an- another norm is that er anthropomorphic explanations are not acceptable er which means that er , it's really related to the teleological thing but i mean like some communities see er they personify er nature in various ways so that is an anthropomorphic tendency to see what is er unique to human beings in nature or in other means so such explanations are not acceptable so basically er , i'm saying all this constitute a kind of normative framework which provide for everybody er er sort of a guide towards er a kind of knowledge you should trust and what is the kind of knowledge you should not trust and but it's not just that it's also er a way of organising various certain systems of knowledge which exist in society and sciences of postmodern (xx) it is also an institution which er organises er all the research that is done at least all the researcher (seats) considered authoritative has to be scientific and it is and comes under the rubric of science and scientists think of themselves as scientists primarily especially when they are talking to other people among themselves they think of themselves as physicists biologists and er various other practitioners and er , to a certain (fight) like when galileo and darwin they are writing and (xx) new arguments about what they are er writing and er what up to a certain point in 19th century when science became very institutionalised and this kind of normative framework emerged er up to that er , scientists sort of hide behind the authority of science which has been created in this because they do not see the need to sort of er provide you with the arguments for their statements they do that (xx) among er the (core) specialists and so on <P:13> so what is the relationship of the knowledge that i have my knowledge to the knowledge that is created by this er enterprise of science under the rubric of science . er the way the authority of science is constructed it's slightly different from the er authority of philosophy or the doctrine because er in er , there's a authoritative er philosophy we are asked to commit ourselves to the erm body of knowledge which that philosophy's supposed to be or to the particular propositions or particular claims of that er knowledge body , but science er keeps changing so in fact not only so it's not asking us to er give our assent to to some particular specific body of knowledge but to <COUGH> it claims authority over all future knowledge suppose you tell erm you ask a scientist that er er if er if everything has a causal explanation in terms of er physics laws then er in in when when when a medicine is tested it's er it's a known procedure that er there's a word for it when a new medicine is tested and then er along with the actual medicines studied people are also given er <S1> placebo </S1> placebo yeah er , medicine which look like medicines but they are just sugar pills and because many people er sometimes get cured because they think they are taking a medicine , so even though it's a recognised procedure in the er testing of medicine but it doesn't have a biological explanation but er this doesn't constitute a kind of er argument against science because you're told that it's right now we do not have an explanation but we'll have it some time tomorrow or thereafter so it claims and this is true for other things also and if i find erm not just in a theoretical ways if i talk to scientist and this is my experience that this is what comes finally if you are talking and many times . so er <COUGH> so if i if i erm , my knowledge that say this can happen and er there's there can be lot of other knowledge that i have from many other sources from many other traditions and er , it is er the authority of science renders them er , without any authority meaning my knowledge has no authority that is the relationship which is and not only for what science has an answer to now but also for what science doesn't have an answer to now we are supposed to commit ourselves that there's an intrinsic progressive character of science which will ultimately find various explanations <P:06> now er to take er slightly different kind of example and er now there is a , there is certain disciplines in science or in academy which have sort of turned the table on science so to speak like er social (xx) some parts of social (xx) there is the social constructivist views of science that science is er socially constructed and what we know by various terms as postmodernism relativism social constructivism <P:05> i'll just refer to them all as postmodernism as a kind of a . so it is supposed to be er against all normative frameworks postmodernism all normative frameworks of knowledge are in danger from this er critique of postmodernism and er the idea is that all no- normative frameworks are without any foundation they cannot be founded , because they are understood as er , constituting rules for generating true statements and er (accepted) rules are constituted then you will need a foundation for those rules and so on ad infinitum and so it's like er , unfounded totally without any foundation . and er , so the task of er research of this reason of knowledge becomes er that you keep deconstructing the various normative frameworks of knowledge of actual instances of knowledge which exist and er , but the question is for the , i mean no normative framework of knowledge can be founded in terms of rules or certain eternal principles but that mean whether that means that it is also without any ground whether it's groundless that is the question that , all the all normative frameworks of knowledge are without any ground and er , my sense is that in postmodernism also , i'm not a i've i've not studied postmodernism as such er postmodernism er (xx) i'll perhaps have to spend the half my life if i want to study science and postmodernism but er , my my er my justification for talking about science and postmodernism without having er really understood and read everything about it is that even 'cause i encountered their authority even though i not mastered them but er and er as an (xx) person this authority is something which i encounter i encounter scientists who tell me this i encounter er people that er say in the institute i work who tell er me that any kind of knowledge is not er possible or it has no foundations so i i . so if i make any kind of statements they're either i'm considered to be all knowledge is seen as in some way (complicit) with some kind of power , or er , or it's considered to be (xx) by er metaphysical categories now i have er learnt this er western metaphysical categories which forever (xx) and now er i'm not supposed to be er using them in any way and er . so i encounter this authority in various ways so i'm trying to sort of , understand er , secure my right to , er have (but) my knowledge and to act on the basis of my knowledge , i'm critically examining this authority which exists one is in the form of erm authoritative certainties and one the other one is in the form of , er , no possibility of any certitude at all (xx) us completely uncertain <P:06> and erm , of course this there's a difficulty in postmodernism that er , some of most of the people thinkers who are considered postmodernists , they do not cons- consider themselves as postmodernists but this difficulty is in science also because er many must understand this and they talk about er science in detail then er they do not agree with what are the ready er general kind of er er elements of the what is considered the , er a common idea about science and which i think is important in itself and just because it doesn't apply to scientific research as it is done doesn't mean that and that's what i'm trying to understand what that is the normative framework which er that is how it works er this er similarly the what is the ideas that are associated with postmodernism they are most sweeping and they go deeper than any of the actual postmodernist thinkers would actually claim and argue for , but it exists nevertheless as a kind of a normative framework of research and it sort of posits certain relationships between academic knowledge and all other knowledge and also i think , very implicitly west and non-western knowledge wh- what has struck me in the , very few er er encounters that i've had with some of the er (xx) thinkers like derrida and foucault and er lyotard i find that they acknowledge at certain point , quite close in the er quite right in the beginning somewhere that what they are talking about like derrida says that it applies especially to the west lyotard mentions in passing somewhere that you can call it a choice called occident and but the implications of this are never paid attention to ok- if what his whole analysis is based on the history of western philosophy , and then what does it mean if looked at globally so that is not er worked out , anyway so . i'm saying that normative frameworks of knowledge as guides to knowledge , they exist and and they should exist and i'm looking for one @and@ er and it's guides to knowledge also and also maybe (xx) er er kind of normative framework for as guide to research as a as a model er as models for any quest for knowledge and er , so i'll briefly er <P:06> i'll briefly very er simple (xx) and put forward a few propositions about a normative framework of knowledge and then we can sort of discuss this issue , so <P:24> er i'd say that er basically there are two sources of knowledge , one is er perception perception understood er as a what is in front of us and one is inference the other is inference , there are only these two sources of knowledge and what other sources are can be accommodated within these two sources of knowledge . knowledge cannot be defined as such , if at all sort of er er , we want to define it we we wind up defining it as some knowledge is direct knowledge some knowledge is indirect knowledge so they're sort of er defining with respect to each other , and er direct knowledge is what i mean by perception and indirect knowledge is what i mean by inference . in inference er we inference also we perceive something from that meaning for something else . and we can divide inference into two kinds one is inference for ourselves and one is inference for others , in inference for ourselves we take this sign (meaning) sort of er we're all the time making inference for ourselves and it's a kind of a continuous activity that's how we er go about living and er but inference for others is er some kind of demonstration i mean i can infer something er from something else but for others if i have to , so i have to sort of demonstrate how that's why we can call that inference for others <P:08> knowledge can be verified only in its application that's (appropriation) any knowledge whether it's er , er our everyday inference or the it's a scientific proposition or because how else do you er verify knowledge if i say that there's a person standing outside the door it's a very elementary piece of knowledge so how do i do so what i do to verify this knowledge is to act on the basis of this knowledge i go open the door and see if there's a person or not , so , any knowledge is verified you take that knowledge you act on the basis of that and you see the result whether it conforms to your expectation or it doesn't and that's how you verify knowledge and that is what is er i think even er experiments and all can be understood in this , but there's a secondary er way of verifying knowledge which is er by testing it by sharing it with others testing it like i'm trying to do @now@ in a dialogue so and i think the principle of this kind of verification , by presenting it to others is dialogue that is the basic means of (a rough) verification . i think i'll stop here and maybe we can <P:05> so maybe i i just recapitulate by saying that er to understand knowledge in society er , you are trying to understand the relationships between my knowledge your knowledge and the knowledge systems er science and other knowledge systems and which exist and to understand these relationships i'm talking about normative frameworks of knowledge which are like some kind of guides to knowledge but they do not serve (xx) guides certain influential normative frameworks of knowledge they serve as sort of bringing certain bodies of knowledge and making them authoritative and excluding other bodies of knowledge , i talked of science and i talked of postmodernism which is a critique of any normative framework of knowledge but i'm seeing that as also a normative framework of knowledge , and i feel that these two er , prevalent er normative frameworks do not (serve) . on knowledge er for our purpose of knowledge and for a democratic society if you like , and er we need another democ- er normative framework of knowledge </S3>
