My TOK prompt is: To what extent is certainty attainable?

In this screenshot, math applications such as Calculator, Photomath, Math, and Mathway are
displayed. These educational applications are available on IOS and other platforms, which can
be easily downloaded and then accessed through many smartphones. Modern technology
provides multiple platforms, one of them being apps, in which knowledge can be preserved,
produced, and shared. However technology isn’t entirely reliable and may actually cause more
uncertainty.

These apps have software functions that facilitate the acquisition of knowledge through
justification such as data, explanations, and evidence which justifies one’s true belief and
cements it into knowledge. Justification is one of the components of knowledge and, combined
with true belief, it makes certainty very attainable. For example, I use mathematical applications
such as Mathaway that provides me with true mathematical values which are then justified,
through the app’s explanation function, that explains step by step, how it achieved its results.
When they’re combined, the evidence and explanation, help me understand the concept as I
gain new mathematical knowledge. This piece of technology makes certainty very attainable,
however, not entirely.

These applications are run by software that relies on machine learning and artificial intelligence
that may come with uncertainties as machines can possibly malfunction. According to Nobert
Wiener’s article “Is Mathematical Certainty Absolute”, “it’s highly probable that we can get no
certainty that’s absolute in the propositions of logic and mathematics”. Therefore, these
uncertainties oblige these softwares to make assumptions which might affect the apps’ results.
Therefore, by trusting and depending on technology in our daily lives, we risk facing these
undetected irregularities that we might take in as justified knowledge, as we believe apps’ false
evidence and explanations. In conclusion, there’s limitations to the certainty of knowledge that
educational apps provide.
This picture displays a visual illusion in which a person may be tricked into believing that the
orange circle on the right is bigger than the orange circle on the left, when in reality they’re both
the same size. People most often rely on their five senses to make knowledge claims which, in
some cases, can lead to false knowledge. Sense perception is one of the sources of knowledge,
meaning that it can be a place where knowledge comes from. However, there’s limitations to our
sense of perception as it can be easily tricked or exploited.

Ever since the beginning of human history, sense perception has been commonly used to
confirm the certainty of a person’s knowledge claim. An example of that would be when the
Court uses what the witnesses hear or see as evidence for a case. The same could be said
about this optical illusion, wherein the brain uses what our eyes perceive as evidence for our
claim, that the orange circles are different sizes, which in this case, is false. In this manner, our
senses may actually limit our acquisition of knowledge because we put too much value on our
sense perception as a way of certifying if something is true or not.

Therefore, sense perception can be a way in which knowledge is acquired but it cannot always
be certain, as our senses may very well be wrong. Thus, using observations, which are data
that come from our senses, as justification for true belief does not necessarily mean that it can
become knowledge. In conclusion, there's a limit to how much certainty is present in our
acquisition of justification and knowledge through sense perception as our senses,
unfortunately, can be unreliable.
This is a screenshot of a slide that comes from our TOK class’ presentation about “Knowledge
and The Knower”. More specifically, it’s an informative slide about “The Gettier Problem”, which
is a problem that Edmund Gettier found while analyzing the extent of which certainty can be
attained through the “Justified True Belief” concept, which was used to validate one’s claim as
knowledge. The “Justified True Belief” concept explains that knowledge is achieved when all
three conditions are met: justification, truth, and belief. It was used to assess the certainty of
the knowledge of a given claim. However, that all changed when Edmund Gettier pointed out
that justified true belief, which is considered as knowledge in the “Justified True Belief” concept,
can be obtained by accident.

In this image, the “Gettier Problem” points out that this supposed “knowledge” can be obtained
by accident through the story of a man noticing a sheep in a field, which is used as an allegory.
The man saw a sheep in the field and declared that “there’s a sheep in the field”. But he was
ultimately wrong when he found out that the sheep was actually a big rock. However, to his
surprise, there was an actual sheep in the field behind that big rock. Therefore, did that man
“know” that there was a sheep in the field? The justified true belief system says “yes”, as the
man has obtained a true justified belief. It’s true that there’s a sheep in the field and the man’s
true belief is justified through his sense perception when he sees the sheep behind the rock.
However, Edmund Gettier does not agree.

If we want knowledge to be reliable, then it cannot be just justified true belief because it's too
inconsistent as it can be obtained by accident, as shown in the “Gettier Problem”. The “Justified
True Belief” concept has a limit in its extent of certainty in the acquisition of knowledge. As per
the example provided in the image above, the man didn’t actually know that there was a sheep
in the field, yet his claim remains valid as knowledge in the “Justified True Belief” concept. In
conclusion, the “Gettier Problem” challenges the “Justified True Belief” concept’s certainty in
solidifying a person’s knowledge claim.
Total Word Count: 950

Sources:

Wiener, Norbert. “Is Mathematical Certainty Absolute?” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology
and Scientific Methods, vol. 12, no. 21, Journal of Philosophy, Inc., pp. 568–74,
doi:10.2307/2012740. Accessed 23 May 2021.

Contributors to Wikimedia projects. “Ebbinghaus Illusion - Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the Free

Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 27 Jan. 2006,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion#/media/File:Mond-vergleich.svg.