jnl985

Knowledge gained through direct experience is powerful but

problematic.” To what extent do you agree with this
statement?
 jnl985

Is the knowledge gained by direct experience always reliable? What does it mean that
knowledge is problematic or powerful? We will define the case of knowledge being
problematic as it being questionable. On the other hand, powerful knowledge "provides the
best understanding of the natural and social worlds that we have and helps us go beyond
our individual experiences" (Young, 2013, p. 196). Direct experience based on knowledge is
gained through an immediate sense of perception. However, this occurs in the AOKs of
History when the knowers lived through historical events and Natural Science through direct
experience from nature. These are the AOKs that will be seen throughout the essay. In
History, personal experiences are used as valid sources of knowledge, but in the case of
Natural Sciences, they are not enough because they lack scientific methodology.

In History knowledge gained through direct experience is powerful but problematic

because of the implication of primary sources. History methodology is based on the
interpretation of documents and other sources. People who narrate history from their own
experiences, explain historical processes from a subjective perspective and can be personal
and incomplete, therefore their historic representation may be biased. For example, to write
“Comentario Reales de Los Incas” Garcilaso de la Vega gathered Peruvian records, diaries
and oral histories, but his main sources of information he used were the direct experience
lived by his mother. Therefore it might be problematic to interpret it only by “a direct
experience”, such as the first-hand tale also referred to as 'primary sources in history.
Historical events and times vary with the passage of time and are generally interpreted on
the basis of values and events that are contemporaneous to the interpreter. As Winston
Churchill said, “History is written by victors''. Human beings have an infinite desire to
understand the world, therefore they are subjective and interpret their history based on their
own experience. A great example is the concept of the “American Slaves Narrative”. After
the Civil War, slaves continued to document their experiences in slavery. The stories reflect
life as slaves mainly in the South from a testimonial viewpoint. This example demonstrates
that there are always two versions of an event, but both are accurate for the person who tells
it, and each can be exclusive on their own, but combined might be complimentary, thus the
correct version must contain both in some form. Therefore a story given from a direct
experience can also be problematic in the sense that it needs to be validated by other points
of view, sources additional to single primary sources.

However, it's possible that historical information obtained via firsthand experience
can be powerful. Methodology awareness increases when historians point out how their
ancestors' present-mindedness led them to misrepresent history. Nonetheless, your own
knowledge can be liberated from the tales that others have passed down to you. Historians
are able to analyze previous events through data analysis, interpretation, and research,
which provides more aspects for understanding historical knowledge. This way, other
variables or versions are taken into account. What could be better for a historian than to
discover a piece of history they had no idea existed? Adding more perspectives about the
historical period they’re studying will expand their viewpoint, allowing them to understand
how the groups who aren't part of the narrative, based on what Churchill said, aren't
considered. That's a lot of labour, as hundreds of historians explore archives for their own
reasons and queries and build up a shared stock. Their mutual agreement improves their
views and conclusions. As Victor Hugo said, “What is history? An echo of the past in the
 jnl985

future; a reflex from the future on the past”. Learning about the past enriches our
understanding. A good example is how Anne Frank's diary became a testament to the
resistance to the Nazi conquest of Europe. Alejandro Baer, director of the U’s Center for
Holocaust and Genocide Studies, said “via popular (American) culture, Anne Frank became
a universal symbol. It stresses the commonality of the human experience, independently of
the ethnic or religious identity of the victims.” Since our context is shaped by history, but
mostly because past knowledge offers fresh perspectives on the present, past history
provides everyone with a greater understanding of our lives and the lives of many others.
First-hand narratives of history are powerful because they represent the most direct proof of
that period or event. As they were generated by people or objects who were present at the
time of occurrence. To me, these are sufficient and unproblematic reasons to pursue
first-hand knowledge However we should combine this with additional sources and
methodologies and perspectives for a full understanding of history.

Yet, unlike History, Natural Sciences are built on direct experience and knowledge that
is deemed to be powerful and not problematic due to the involvement of reason.
Scientific reasoning is used as a comprehensive term that encompasses a wide range of
cognitive processes. They are used in the pursuit of conceptual transformation or scientific
understanding of nature that scientists as human beings encounter. As a result, science is a
method of logically interpreting natural phenomena. As Max Planck said, “An experiment is a
question which science poses to Nature, and a measurement is the recording of Nature’s
answer”. The scientific method is based on formulating hypotheses, extracting rational
conclusions therefrom them, and afterwards conducting experiments or empirical
observations depending on such conclusions. In this way, scientific research is a way of
understanding direct experience through a rational approach. A great example of this
rational method is how, according to geologist James Hutton, the Earth is like an organic
entity, continuously reproducing itself to supply mankind with a livable planet eternally. He
was able to anticipate the presence of granite veins in the rocks by using his hypothesis. The
angular unconformities he predicted were likewise accurate. When compared to modern
thinking, Hutton's hypothesis was flawed in a variety of ways. The Earth was not created for
humans. As for plate tectonics, Hutton had no clue. Although not all of his hypotheses were
accurate, none would have been raised if he hadn't had direct experience with nature,
therefore it is critical to generate knowledge from direct experiences in natural sciences;
that's what makes it powerful.

Despite the fact that the Natural Sciences may appear to be rational, direct
experiences play a powerful role in this AOK. Most people seem to think that their
perceptions are accurate and that what they experience represents external reality. A
person's perception is frequently, sometimes not, reliable. It's just a matter of knowing how
reliable it is, which might cause issues. As the Russian novelist, Leo Tolstoy says; “True
science investigates and brings to human perception such truths and such knowledge as the
people of a given time and society consider most important”. Tolstoy asserts that a society's
values can influence the importance of the relationship between scientists and their reality;
new experiences of nature are required to overcome these limitations. The information
gained from direct experience is powerful, but it must be combined with several other
sources of knowledge. In the case of the natural sciences, the experience of nature must go
through the scientific process to be verified (conduct experiments, for example). Because of
this, it is the primary incentive for knowledge generation. Sometimes our personal
 jnl985

experiences are altered by our own beliefs, therefore the knowledge that is obtained by
first-hand experiences must be scientifically evaluated For example, “if you see anything that
appears like a red, shining fish in front of you, you will believe there is a red, shiny fish in
front of you for as long as you see it. According to this approach, the content of experience is
about the same as the content of the ideas with which it is acquired. When it comes down to
it, a content's level is calculated by its beliefs.” (Critically discussed by George Pitcher ). To
put it another way, not only is sense perception misleading but the information they perceive
can be altered by one's own beliefs, similar to what happened to James Hutton. This
demonstrates that while the approach by experience may appear to be reasonable, there are
several drawbacks to knowledge obtained solely via perception (direct experience).

The essay has discussed the concept that knowledge obtained via direct experience is
powerful yet problematic. The RLS has examined this concept. Direct experience is the
basis of knowledge, particularly in the Natural Sciences, which are born in the experience of
nature and rely on empirical data. However, they also investigate nature through reason.
Due to the necessary application of scientific knowledge that verifies direct experience, it is
claimed that human perceptions can be misleading and that experience isn't enough to
construct scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the knowledge obtained in History is based on
primary sources, which might be problematic in terms of evaluating it. Since they are based
on a direct experience, which might be problem-oriented by itself, it has been discussed that
they demand historical perspective and various perspectives.

We can affirm that direct experience knowledge is powerful but problematic. Facts are
needed to support and authenticate experiences so that we can resolve the conflictive
knowledge generated by memories, perception or plain experiences. Direct
experience-based knowledge is so powerful that seeking to verify and uncover the reason
behind first-hand sources and the experience of nature is always necessary so that we can
contradict erroneous knowledge bases on unreliable first-hand experiences.

Word count: 1576

 jnl985

Bibliography

Zimmerman, Corinne. The Development of Scientific Reasoning Skills: What

Psychologists Contribute to an Understanding of Elementary Science Learning.

“Tok Natural Science as an Area of Knowledge (AOK).” Amor Sciendi and Literary
Connections, amorsciendi.com/natural-science.

Silicon. “4 Convincing Scientific Theories That Fooled Scientists for Decades.” Silicon
Republic, 22 Oct. 2019,
www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong.

Mancini, Mark. “Three Famous Hypotheses and How They Were Tested.”
HowStuffWorks Science, HowStuffWorks, 17 Dec. 2020,
science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/hypothesis.htm.

Siegel, Susanna. “The Contents of Perception.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Stanford University, 4 Oct. 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-contents/#2.2.

Rash, John. “Opinion Exchange: The Enduring Impact of Anne Frank's Diary.” Star
Tribune, Star Tribune, 30 Sept. 2019,
www.startribune.com/the-enduring-impact-of-anne-frank-s-diary/561570052/.

Slave Narratives: An Introduction to the Slave Narrative,

docsouth.unc.edu/neh/intro.html.

“The History of Experience: A History like Anything Else?” Blogs,

www.oulu.fi/blogs/hex2020.

“Why Is History Important?” Southern New Hampshire University,

www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/2018/04/why-is-history-important.

“Historical Methodology - Uni Heidelberg.” Historical Methodology – Heidelberg

University, www.uni-heidelberg.de/en/study/all-subjects/historical-methodology.

“Comentarios Reales De Los Incas.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Aug. 2021,

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comentarios_reales_de_los_incas.