Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in “bubbles” where some information

and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

In today’s world, the acquisition of knowledge is disrupted by many different intervening

factors. In many cases, we unknowingly consume isolated "bubbles" of knowledge, where some

information is withheld and some voices are excluded. This puts forth the assumption that we

live in a false reality. This essay will discuss the consequences of acquiring knowledge in

“bubbles”. “Bubbles” will be referred to as epistemic bubbles, which are “closed,

self-reinforcing systems of knowledge production wherein certain relevant voices and/or groups

of knowers are excluded” (C. Thi Nguyen). In the context of this essay, the word “matter” will

refer to moral permissibility or epistemic validity. I will be using these flexible definitions in

conjunction with the areas of knowledge of natural sciences and history to justify the perspective

that the degree of the impact of acquiring knowledge in “bubbles” depends on the nature of the

circumstance where some information and voices are being excluded.

In the natural sciences, the existence of epistemic bubbles does not matter because they

are considered intrinsically unscientific-- not because they are inconsequential. Positivism

indicates that the researcher is independent of the study (Research-Methodology), suggesting that

only one inherently "scientific discipline" may exist. For example, a positivist paradigm like

climate change is rooted in empirical observation and is verifiable by the scientific method, thus

creating a scientific consensus. Positivism further indicates that a consensus has a higher degree

of accuracy in its reflection of reality than any singular opinion of study. Hence, groups such as

climate change deniers, "voices" that do not abide by the general scientific consensus, are

therefore seen as unscientific and are excluded from the natural sciences due to their empirically

invalid claims. It is ethically permissible to disregard climate change deniers because they

challenge existent empirically valid perspectives, creating a false balance by presenting a

scientific controversy as if it is equally valid. This ultimately undermines the authority and

credibility of environmental scientists and institutions and sets the world back in mitigating

global warming. Therefore, epistemic bubbles do not matter in the natural sciences, as they are

deemed insignificant when subjected to the rigor of the scientific method. This implies that only

one “bubble” of knowledge exists in the natural sciences: the scientific consensus.

On the other hand, some scientific discoveries have shown that the scientific consensus

can sometimes be collectively inaccurate, making “bubbles” important to consider. For example,

Johannes Kepler’s laws of planetary motion were a scientific development that replaced the

Ptolemaic model of the universe, which was originally accepted as the scientific consensus for

years. These laws played a crucial role in the development of modern physics and astronomy.

Isaac Newton built upon Kepler’s work and formulated the laws of universal gravitation and

motion, which are the cornerstones of classical mechanics. Kepler’s laws also laid the foundation

for the development of modern astronomy, which prompted important discoveries of

astronomical phenomena (Britannica 2023). This suggests that the opinion of the scholarly

majority in the scientific community can still potentially be inaccurate despite adhering to the

empirical method. Hence, by excluding voices from those outside the scientific consensus, the

empirical accuracy of scientific studies is challenged. Science cannot develop if new

perspectives are excluded to favor the universalism of the scientific consensus. Kepler’s laws

were a catalyst for challenging prevailing scientific norms and fostering a more empirical and

mathematical approach to science. Many other advances in natural science have been made by

revolutionary thinkers like Kepler. As such, the implication of denying advances of those that

challenge existing conditions and the existence of “bubbles” that only comprise prevalent
scientific knowledge is denying the progress of natural science itself. Therefore, “bubbles” do

matter in this AOK.

Another perspective is that “bubbles” and the exclusion of certain pieces of information

matter to a moderate extent with respect to the circumstances. At times, the presence of

“bubbles” is necessary in terms of moral permissibility. In my Environmental Systems &

Societies class, I learned that scientists at the US Fish and Wildlife Services intentionally

concealed information about the habitats of the gray wolf from the world, thus creating a

“bubble” of information. This information was deliberately concealed out of fear that the species

would be targeted and hunted by poachers. In this circumstance, these “bubbles'' highlight the

importance of preserving biodiversity and protecting the general interest of the population.

Therefore, while this exclusion of information does impact our acquisition of knowledge, it only

matters to a moderate extent because it is morally permissible to prohibit the publication of this

sensitive information. However, this creates the implication that people in positions of power can

withhold important knowledge from the general public depending on what they deem necessary

according to their expert opinion.

History, as an AOK, involves bodies of knowledge about the past produced by historians

and how that information is communicated. It is characterized by its subjectivity as it is purely

speculative and based on, although expert, but ultimately personal interpretation, which can lead

to the presence of “bubbles” where some voices and information are excluded in order to push a

certain narrative. Therefore, the presence of epistemic bubbles in history can matter to a great

extent, to a certain extent, and to a lesser extent in terms of moral permissibility and epistemic

validity.
 Epistemic bubbles matter in the acquisition of our knowledge about history because it is

not morally permissible to exclude vital pieces of information to produce a narrative historical

account. In order to produce unbiased and objective knowledge, the multi-faceted layers of the

past event must be holistically considered and evaluated. Otherwise, concentrated knowledge

enables the further production of misinformation that disregards other perspectives and

interpretations. For example, a historian states that Hitler’s invasion of Rhineland in 1936 was

the trigger that “effectively destroyed the post-First World War security system” which generally

disregards the significance of other German expansion events and the other events that were

dismantling global security, such as Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia. Other interpretations consider

different triggers that supposedly ruined collective security, such as Britain’s persistent perusal of

the appeasement policy or Japan’s establishment of the puppet state Manchukuo. The singular

interpretation gives the reader the perception that Germany was solely to blame for destroying

the world’s security system when other factors played their own crucial roles too. This creates

misinformation, which is why the existence of “bubbles” when acquiring knowledge matters in

history. The way we interpret history manifests in the inner workings of the world today, which

makes it important that historical knowledge is holistically produced. However, this creates the

implication that these “bubbles” of knowledge are not applicable or referable to any further

investigative research that other historians are aiming to conduct because they are not entirely

objective. Regardless, these “bubbles” of knowledge are still relevant because they provide a

valuable perspective about a past event that can be analyzed.

It can be argued that epistemic bubbles in the acquisition of our knowledge matter to a

moderate extent because even when voices and information are included in the narrative, they

can be filtered or censored for the sake of cultural sensitivity. Historical records that touch upon
sensitive topics can be partly omitted from historical investigations, which ultimately interferes

with the process of acquiring knowledge through the creation of “bubbles” where voices are

excluded. For example, the testimonies of Holocaust survivors that recount deeply traumatic

experiences are often censored in an effort to preserve their dignity and well-being. Historians

exercise sensitivity when using these testimonies as evidence in educational contexts by

redacting highly disturbing details. While this action does impact our understanding of the

realities of the Holocaust, cultural sensitivity is balanced with the aim of preserving historical

accuracy. Therefore, in certain cases, the presence of “bubbles” in the acquisition of our

knowledge matters to only a certain extent because this form of censorship does not distort

historical reality by any means. This creates the implication that cultural sensitivity makes our

view of history relatively incomplete.

Another perspective is that “bubbles” of knowledge in history only matter in the

acquisition of our knowledge to a limited extent because historians themselves receive their

information in “bubbles” too. New historical documents and shreds of evidence that can change

the course of historical knowledge that was previously being produced are constantly arising. For

example, the discovery and public release of the Wannsee Conference minutes in 1947 altered

the narrative about the Holocaust and Nazism. After World War II, the scale of the Holocaust

was known but not the details of how the plan was formulated, giving historians the space to

speculate. The minutes provided historians with inarguable evidence that the highest levels of the

Nazi government premeditated and orchestrated the tragic event which allowed the historians to

dispel doubts about the depth of Hitler’s involvement in the genocidal policies of his regime

(Gerlach). This example demonstrates how history is an ever-evolving discipline because

historians work with the limited amount of “bubbles” of knowledge that they have access to.
This effectively implies that the “bubbles” of knowledge that we henceforth acquire, matter to a

limited extent because the information is arguably bound to evolve. However, this creates the

implication that the validity of the historical knowledge we have now can be doubted and can

fuel conspiracy theories formulated on baseless claims that invalidate reality.

In conclusion, epistemic “bubbles” that interfere with our acquisition of knowledge in the

Natural Sciences and History AOKs have varying degrees and relevance of interference.

“Bubbles” can matter to a great extent, to a moderate extent, and to a limited extent with respect

to moral permissibility and epistemic validity in both AOKs. The matter of importance lies in the

circumstances where information is being withheld and voices are being excluded.
Sources

C. Thi Nguyen. “ECHO CHAMBERS and EPISTEMIC BUBBLES.” Episteme, vol. 17,

no. 2, 13 Sept. 2018, pp. 141–161,

www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/abs/echo-chambers-and-epistemi

c-bubbles/5D4AC3A808C538E17C50A7C09EC706F0,

https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32. Accessed 10 Aug. 2023.

Research-Methodology. “Positivism - Research Methodology.” Research-Methodology,

2023, research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/positivism/. Accessed 12 Aug.

2023.

“Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion | Definition, Diagrams, & Facts | Britannica.”

Encyclopædia Britannica, 2023,

www.britannica.com/science/Keplers-laws-of-planetary-motion. Accessed 13 Aug.

2023.

Gerlach, Christian. “The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler’s

Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews.” The Journal of Modern

History, vol. 70, no. 4, 1998, pp. 759–812. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.1086/235167. Accessed 20 Aug. 2023.

“Marta’s List: The Pursuit of Holocaust Survivors’ Lost Insurance Claims.” National

Archives, 15 Aug. 2016,

www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/articles-and-papers/symposium-papers/pursuit

-of-survivors-lost-insurance-claims.html. Accessed 20 Aug. 2023.