Friday, November 7, 2014
What's That Supposed to Mean?
Here in this environment where stumbling is a vital part of successful learning (synonymous, perhaps, with trying), I'd like you to stretch a bit for this post. One of this year's prescribed titles for the TOK essay is, "there is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge." Please formulate a response to this for Sunday. Don't just start writing. Unpack the first sentence, perhaps in conversation with a classmate, and decide, first, what you take it to mean. Begin your writing by explaining your interpretation. Then evaluate the statement in the two areas of knowledge you choose. As ever, your writing will be strengthened by reference to concrete, real world situations that you understand. Your post is due Sunday at 6 pm. Come to class on Monday having read one another's posts and with one selected that you'd like to discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"There is no such thing as a neutral question."
ReplyDeleteWhen I discussed this statement with Mckim, we came to the conclusion that there is no way to be neutral when asking a question. When someone asks a question, they have something that they are subconsciously expecting in response. Though they may not know the exact answer, they will have a general idea of it or the way that it will be answered. In this way, no question is completely neutral because everyone has their biases. I think that it is impossible to be neutral in general. One can disguise their biases when stating something or asking a question, but that does not mean that it will be completely neutral. For example, the country of Switzerland is often considered neutral because it does not take a side in conflicts. However, it cannot be truly neutral because it is still on its own side. This is the same with people. They can act neutral, however they will still have their own ideas and biases that will come forth in their questions.
The first area of knowledge that I will evaluate this statement in is history. History, as I see it, is the story of humans and their journeys in the past. One thing that I have found out about history is that it is impossible to be neutral. First, when learning about a time period in history, every source that you learn from, even the textbook, is biased. Everyone forms their own opinions about history and each question asked about history either reflects these underlying opinions or can spark a discussion that discusses the different opinions. There is no one opinion or one side in history. For example, one of the questions we were asked to write about in history is "To what extent was Germany to blame for causing World War I?" This question is not neutral because it already implies that Germany was to an extent to blame for WWI and it can spark a discussion with many different sides. One person might believe that Germany was the sole reason for the cause of WWI while another might believe that it was mainly caused because of simmering tensions in Europe.
The second area of knowledge that I will evaluate this in is the arts. It is impossible to be neutral on a work of art because one will always have opinions whether they be as simple as "I like it" or "I don't like it." Therefore questions asked about it can't be neutral. For example, in art class, I was evaluating an art piece, and I was asked the question "how do the colors reflect the mood of the piece?" This is not a neutral question because it is implying that the colors do reflect the mood of the piece and the answer cannot be neutral either because it would be taking a stance. Different people could have completely different answers.
KQ 1: To what degree can historical interpretations be influenced by emotion?
DeleteKQ 2: How do different styles of art affect one's emotions?
"There is no such thing as a neutral question" Sharvari and I decided to unpack this first sentence together. We thought that this wasn't a mind blowing statement. Of course there is no such thing as a neutral question. We thought that even at a subconscious level, when someone asks a question there is a certain answer that they are expecting, and because of this they may word their question in a way that allows their question to get the answer that they would want. At one point, Sharvari asked me if a question could be unbiased even if the person is biased. My response was, well who wrote the question? We expanded this statement to not only questions but life in general. We decided that it was impossible for a person to be 100% neutral in general anyway. For example, if a country was neutral in a war, even if they were neutral towards which countries they supported, they still are not completely neutral because they are pro-themselves. They don't see themselves as equal to the other countries they are neutral towards, and that creates a type of bias. For two areas of knowledge I will be using ethics and religious knowing systems. For ethics, there are many situations in which someone may find a practice ethical while other may not. An example can be beating your children as a punishment. A question that could be asked about this is "Do you think it's an okay to beat your child as punishment?" This question can appear like it is neutral. It is just asking if you think it is an okay thing to do or not right? But the question is biased. The fact that it is asking if it is okay imply that there can/probably is something wrong with it. A question that could be seen as not neutral from religious studies is, "Do you believe in a higher power?" this of course can be seen as a yes or no question, but once again it can imply that there is a higher power. Or, it can also imply that there isn't a higher power, and can be a judgmental. Either way, this question that can be seen as neutral can have bias to it. As long as when you ask a question and are expecting a certain answer, to any small degree, that question becomes not neutral.
ReplyDeleteKQ #1: To what extent can the knowledge of accepted morals within a community stop us from doing something due to extreme emotion that is immoral?
DeleteKQ #2: To what extent can knowledge based on faith affect the acceptance of knowledge based on logic?
K-ish Q #2.5: To what extent can knowledge based on faith be proven and trusted when the basis of faith is to believe and trust in the unseeable?
"there is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge." Please formulate a response to this for Sunday. Don't just start writing. Unpack the first sentence, perhaps in conversation with a classmate, and decide, first, what you take it to mean. Begin your writing by explaining your interpretation. Then evaluate the statement in the two areas of knowledge you choose. As ever, your writing will be strengthened by reference to concrete, real world situations that you understand.
ReplyDelete"There is no such thing as a neutral question."
My interpretation of this sentence is (primarily) that there is no question asked without a background context of the questioner's expectation. When someone poses a question, they ask it out of some emotional reason - perhaps it's confusion, perhaps it's a pointed question designed to prove someone else wrong; whatever the reason, there is an expectation that the answer-er will give one of a few answers, all of which are within the realm of the questioner's thoughts and expectations.
The first area of knowledge in which this is clearly shown is in the human sciences. For example, in a psychology course, one may be posed the question, "Does the media's influence over body image correlate with the rising rates of eating disordered girls?" While this may seem like a "neutral" question at first glance (the possible answers being yes, no, and somewhat), there is still an implicit assumption that the media influences girls' body images. Even if the question were to be "Does the media influence body image?", it would still plant the seed of thought in the head of the responder that there was some degree of correlation. Because humans are subjective, emotion-driven creatures, we are incapable of asking a question which is completely neutral without any pretexts of assumptions or implied connections.
Another AoK in which this can be seen is in ethics. Frequently when evaluating the moral righteousness of crimes, humans attempt to be neutral and unbiased by asking who decides what is right or wrong. For example, someone may ask, "Should murder be a federally punishable offense?", but this obviously implies that the issue at hand is a serious one (seeing as widespread punishment is in question). There is no way to formulate a question which does not have any background of emotion or assumption.
KQ 1: How do accepted human biases affect our understanding of the human sciences?
DeleteKQ 2: To what extent are the people in charge of creating laws responsible for altering universal norms of behavior?
"there is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge."
ReplyDeleteI am currently sitting at home alone writing this, so I decided to unpack the question to my cat. Perhaps that's not quite as useful as hashing it out with a classmate, but better than nothing. Anyway, I interpret this question as saying that there is no way to ask a question without having some sort of expected response. I personally cannot think of a time where I asked someone a question and was neither expecting a certain answer, nor hoping for a certain answer. In this case, if we consider biased to be the opposite of neutral, then it seems fair to say that all questions have a bias. Everyone has a reason for asking a question, and that's enough to make the question not be neutral.
The first AoK I considered with this statement is ethics. There are two kinds of questions/ways to ask them. The first may be something such as "Is not allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with discrimination?". This kind of question, while it appears 'neutral', is worded to imply that the asker is either expecting or hoping for a certain answer. The answer, in fact, is almost implied in the question, and it's up to the person being asked to answer 'correctly'. Another possible question might be something along the lines of "What animals is it okay to kill for food?". While this has no answer implied, it is likely that the person asking has an answer in mind, and if they do not relieve that answer, there is going to be a problem.
The second AoK I considered was history. In class, we address questions concerning the nature of events that have already passed, which is fair because it's history. But most of these questions have answers that only have one real answer. For example, we were given the prompt "To what extent was the League of Nations doomed to fail?" as a debate. I was on the side that had to argue that the LoN was not doomed to fail. This proved to be quite difficult, because it DID fail. This is a perfect example of how questions in a historical context cannot be neutral. They can be used to examine historical events, but often there can only be one correct answer, because the events happened in the past.
In conclusion, it is in the nature of questions to be biased, because the person asking them is always going to be biased, whether that is intentional or not.
KQ 1: What role does reason compared to intuition play in making an ethical decision?
DeleteKQ 2: How does our understanding of history change over time when memories of historical events are no longer fresh?
There is no such thing as a neutral question. In my opinion, this sentence means that any question cannot be asked in a completely neutral way. When someone asks a question, there is always an expected and inclined response to that question. Even when the question is asked without the questioner’s personal bias, the question still contains a direction and area for the answer- no matter narrow or broad.
ReplyDeleteThe first AOK I thought about is history. In my history class, we have been discusses a question: “To what extent is WWII Hitler’s war?” Although this question is asking the causes of WWII by both Hitler and others, the question indicates that the answer is more related to Hitler’s causes, because he did caused conflicts and tensions through his ambitions and aggressions, and the mention of Hitler in the question really shows the expectation of the answer in the larger area of Hitler’s causes.
The second AOK that I considered is human sciences. A questions asks, “To what extent does people’s emotion affect their use of languages?” Similar to the history question, this question fails to be completely neutral. The question itself indicates that emotion does affect the use of languages. For the expected answers, it can always be that emotions has effects on the use of languages, and more likely, the effects are big. Thus, there is no way to ask a neutral question without any indications to an expected direction and area of an answer.
KQ1: How does the use of language affect one’s understanding and opinion on history?
DeleteKQ2: To what extent does people feel differently on one human phenomena through different senses of perception?
In discussing this with my dad, we decided three things: there is no question that can be asked without some bias or background being involved on the part of the asker, the relationship of the person asking & the person being asked is significant, and an answer is always expected. The first part of this relies on the basic assumption that all people come from some sort of cultural background. The second part of this is based on personal experience. As Natalie said, I cannot think of a single time I have asked a question without expecting some kind of answer, and often have already thought of the answer I want. To explain the third part, the relationship between the people involved dictates how the question should be answered. "Where were you last night?" could be between friends, asked by a parent or by the police. This also raises the question of whether or not the question itself can be neutral, since the asker and the question are two different things. But the question was written by the asker and reflects the biases of the asker.
ReplyDeleteThe first AoK I considered is ethics. To use a real world example, Adrian Peterson has caused a stir in the media for beating his young son with a tree branch. This raises the question: “Is it his parental right to discipline his child however he sees fit?" Anyone asking this question has to come from a background that either involved physical discipline or did not. The question is biased by the asker's background and personal beliefs on physical discipline. Anyone asking this question expects an answer of yes or no, possibly with a reason. The asker is hoping for a specific answer, and therefore does not have neutral intent in asking. The relationship between the person asking and the person listening also affects the intent and answer. If a doctor were talking to a new mother, the desired answer might be "no, hitting your child with a tree branch is bad." However, if the two people both thought that physical discipline is useful in teaching children, the answer would be different. When I had this discussion with my father, our backgrounds and relationship affected the conversation. My father comes from a background in which he was occasionally physically punished. His memories of physical punishment helped form the opinion that physical punishment does not do much to help a child develop. Our relationship affected my question and his answer. As my father, he was quick to assure me that he would never hit me. This was partially the answer I had been hoping for. I also wanted to discuss it in a broader context, which he had not initially considered. If I had been asking this question to a teacher, the discussion would have been different.
The second AoK I considered is the human sciences. In the context of criminal psychology, someone might ask "Is there anything wrong in the minds of serial killers?" This assumes the common background that everyone in the room agrees that serial killers are bad. The asker wants an answer, or else to inspire discussion. The asker's background is crucial. The asker may be a serial killer. The intent of that question is very different than if the asker were a TOK teacher (although the two may overlap). The answer also depends on the context in which they ask. For instance, if a TOK teacher were to ask this question of a class, they would probably get a less panicked reply than a serial killer's victim.
A friend once asked me this probably without intent of validating his urges to kill people, but for idle conversation. He was disappointed when my answer was "I don't know" and gave me more information about serial killers. This shows that he wanted a specific answer. In our friendship it is okay to bring this up in casual conversation. Had he been a stranger, the tone of both his question and my answer would have been different.
In conclusion, there are no neutral questions because there are no neutral people. The question is influenced by the person asking it.
Ethics: To what extent can indigenous cultural knowledge affect a knower's actions?
DeleteHuman sciences: How can religion affect one's understanding of the brain and body?
After discussing the statement "there is no such thing as a neutral question" with my mom I came to the definition that a neutral question would be an unbiased question that does not imply a specific answer or show the perspective of the person asking the question. Everyone's perspective is biased from political views to music preference therefore if a question shows the perspective of the asker then the question itself is biased.
ReplyDeleteI specifically saw the significance of this statement within the fine arts, specifically rhetoric. Within a cross examination (whether in a debate or an actual court of law) a lawyer will ask a witness or the convicted depending on the situation specific questions. The lawyer asks these questions in the hope to receive certain answers and lead the person answering the questions down a specific path. With that said, lawyers in the setting of the courtroom are not asking neutral questions because they are implying a specific answer from the individual that the question was directed at.
Another example of this sort of questioning was present in a debate meeting in which my debate coach was talking to the group and I about loaded questions which, no matter what your answer, gives your opponent what they were looking for. My debate coach used an example of the question "Do you still beat your wife?" If an individual answers 'yes' then that means they are still beating their wife and if they reply with 'no' that means they are not STILL beating their wife which implies that they in fact did beat their wife before. This means that when asking questions like this the person asking is looking for an answer that reveals something specific from another individual and the question is used to lead that individual to a specific answer.
Another area of knowledge that this statement can be applied to is History. If a specific event has occurred a reporter may ask questions to those involved to understand what happened. By including certain things or excluding certain things within those questions, reporters have the ability to use their question and the response they are given to shape a certain event to be something it is or is not. Historians can look at an event in the past the same way by asking specific questions that include information relevant to the event or leave them out shaping their research to point in specific directions.
An example of this can be seen in history class when my class was talking about Pearl Harbor and one of my classmates asked the question of whether the U.S. knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbor before it occurred. Although this question may seem unbiased and created out of curiosity it implies that their may be more to the story of Pearl Harbor than the common information. This also shows the perspective of the individual asking the question. This question shows that the individual may not completely believe that the U.S. was oblivious to the intentions of Japan.
In conclusion, through the areas of knowledge within the Fine Arts as well as History we can see that questions are always asked with a purpose. There is always an expected answer to a question asked therefore questions are always biased, some more so than others. Considering that neutral means unbiased or without implications, all questions are never neutral.
KQ1
Delete-Fine Arts (Rhetoric)
To what extent could an individual influence the memory of another within the field of Rhetoric from their understanding of language?
KQ2
-History
How could an individual's logic hinder their overall understanding of an event within History?
The first area addressed by the statement "There is no such thing as a neutral question" is human sciences. When asking a question, we draw on our knowledge of human pschology in our phrasing and tone of voice. These are affected by audience and end goal. It is possible to ask the same question with the exact same wording and receive two different responses, for example when I was confused on a topic and asked my teacher for clarification, and recieved that. Later, when I was helping a friend through the same topic, I asked her similar questions to guide her through the issue without giving her the answer, ulitmately arriving at the same question I had asked my teacher earlier. However, the answer I was looking for from my friend was to clarify that she understood the topic, and so I used a different tone of voice and asked other guiding questions phrased in different ways to get her to the answer. The reliance on knowledge of human sciences to shape the connotative meaning of the question shows that there is an end goal or purpose to every question. Since it is not possible to ask a question without having that purpose, it is not possible to ask a neutral question, as a neutral question would have no more than a denotative meaning.
ReplyDeleteA second area of knowledge the statment applies to is history. The speaker's knowledge of the subject matter is a large part of the way a question is presented. Knowledge of the subject matter will affect the end goal and purpose of the question itself. For example, in history the other day when we ran across a complicated word and one of the students asked the teacher what the word meant, she was looking for information. The lack of knowledge about the word meant that the purpose of her question was to gain information. Another scenario would be when the speaker has background knowledge but wants to make sure the information they know is correct. I have done this when for example I had read the homework reading we were supposed to do but then asked the teacher to explain it. I did not ask because I did not know or understand but because I wanted to ensure that I had interpreted correctly. The background knowledge or an individual's history with the subject matter affects the phrasing and one of voice used so that the end goals for whichever question is being asked is reached. This reliance on history is another example of how a question cannot be neutral because again, there is a goal with each question based on what the speaker wants to learn from the response.
KQ1 (Human Sciences/psychology): How do we make the necessary adjustment to the presentation of our questions utilizing human sciences to receive the desired response?
DeleteKQ2 (History): To what extent do we rely on past knowledge of a subject when asking a question?
"there is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge."
ReplyDeleteWhen someone come up with a question, they mostly likely already have some background knowledge about the question based on their memory. Because of people all have different experiences, they have slightly different opinions about the knowledge. Therefore, people come up with questions with their own emotion, which reveal there are no questions that are asked without any bias. When the question is asked, it it not neutral.
The subject in a knowledge question about history can reveal the preference of the people who ask the question. For example, in AOK of history, when the question is "what brought American into WWII?" It is not neutral, because the subject is America, which already showed the interest of people who asked this question; they are interested the reasons particular for America.
When a question is asked in indigenous knowledge systems. For example, "what influence does global warming have on American?" This question has already showed the consideration of the people who asked this question. Also, the answer to this question is going to be negative because global warming is an issue. Thus, when the question is asked, the subject shows the unnaturally of this question.
KQ1: To what extent can the subject of one question imply the unneutrality in the question?
DeleteKQ2: How consideration based on logic affect the expectation of an answer to one question?
When I first heard the statement "There is no such thing as a neutral question," the debate training I've had kicked into gear and I immediately interpreted this question to mean that every question has a potential answer that is double-sided, or even has multiple facets, as in debate: every statement can be argued in at least two directions. I was talking to Katlyn about this an she agreed; in this instance we defined "neutral" as a question that was unbiased and did not leave space for difference in opinion, and so only one possible answer or conclusion could result. When we considered various areas of knowledge to which this statement could be applied, Katlyn said it couldn't possibly apply to math because math follows a strict formula and only 1 correct answer can result. However, on this point I countered her. I gave the example that while 2+2= 4, it is still valid to say that 2+2=22. The first answer is correct because of the properties of addition, but the second answer is also correct because it follows a pattern or sequence of numbers. Therefore, if someone posed the question "What is 2 and 2?" it would not be a "neutral" question as we had defined it because it had room for multiple perspectives and several lines of argument.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of the nonexistence of neutral questions can also be applied to History. Bias is inherent in the recording of history; there will always be a winner's side and a loser's side, or a gray area in between. This is what keeps pushing historians forwards to revisit and revise old arguments and channel new lines of thought. A question, such as "Why did America drop the atomic bomb on Japan?" is not neutral; there are pages of literature to prove that this question is ambiguous. On one hand, some argue that it was the quickest and most cost-effective way to end WWII; others argue that is was intended as a threat to Russia and the beginnings of the Cold War. In history, all question are rooted in perspective and to some extent, bias, and so they can never be considered neutral.
Now, to take a broader step back. As I look back on what I've discussed, I realize that I defined the neutrality of question based on its viable answers, instead of looking at just the question standing on its own. I believe I did this in part because I expect that a question always comes in a package with an answer. So without the expectation of an answer, can a question that is completely isolated and thrown into the abyss truly be neutral? Consciously or subconsciously, we ask questions with intention and emotion involved, that in some ways reflects our limited perspective and biases. Therefore, I still conclude that neutral questions do not exist.
KQ # 1: How does a knower's reasoning enable him/her to draw different but equally valid conclusions in math?
DeleteKQ # 2: Can a society's favor of one particular historical bias alter the collective memory of the event?
"There is no such thing as a neutral question."
ReplyDeleteImmediately after I read this question, my thoughts were drawn to how a question is answered not how it may be asked. I first thought about how if a question is neutral, there must only be one answer. So if a question is not neutral, that means there are at least two answers. As I started to think deeper about this statement, I figured that the only way to determine how many answers there are to a question, you have to know how the question is asked. As Claire already mentioned, when we were talking we came to a conclusion that a neutral question is not biased and there would be no difference in opinion.
Now the easiest AOK for me to apply this statement to is history. Historians have many differences in opinion when it comes to a country's motives for a certain action. This is also the reasons for why historical debates occur, there are always two sides to argue. Even if one side has a greater chance of winning the argument there are still two sides. If there were neutral questions, there would be no debates. Questions that are not neutral start debates, they leave room for difference, for two-sided arguments, maybe even more.
Another AOK this statement can be applied to is human sciences, psychology specifically. Many therapists have different methods they use when talking to patients and trying to know more about them on a personal level. Therefore, some methods are often contradicted by others and social workers argue against methods that are not their own. I think another way to apply this statement to the real world is by analyzing people's decisions. People have completely different views on right from wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. This difference in perspective just shows that daily problems have two sides. The law may prove someone guilty of a crime, when that someone believes they are innocent. Now if a question were to be neutral, there would never be a difference and all people would have the same view on right from wrong. For these reasons, I agree with the statement; I believe there is no such thing as a neutral question.
KQ1: To what degree do historical events have impact on a knower's intuition when it comes to predicting future events?
DeleteKQ2: How may a person's internal emotions be influenced by external perspectives and methods?
"There is no such thing as a neutral question" Is there?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, a neutral question is one that simply does not take a side; neither positive or negative.
Mathematics
In mathematics, I would argue that there are neutral questions and biased questions. For example, 2 + 2 = ? can easily be see as neutral. Granted, there are discrepancies within this problem. The first is that problem writer is assuming that the symbol + means addition and = means equals. The second is that the question is biased in that it should give a tangible result. Mathematics also contains completely non neutral problems such as "prove that 2 + 2 = 4". The person who wrote this problem has set it up to be a truth, when in actuality, it has been forced upon us.
Ethics
In ethics, there are both neutral and non neutral questions as well. A non neutral question usually comes from the phrasing, tone or language of the question. "To what extent do one's past traumatic experiences, in the gruesome and scarring things one sees, justify one's future actions? This question can be turned into a neutral question with a change in language, "To what extent do one's past experiences justify one's future actions?
Even a neutral question it seems could be bias in it's use of vocabulary and tone. However, I believe that in the purified question, there is such a thing as a completely neutral question.
Mathematics-
Delete"To what extent does one's familiarity with certain subject matter influence their expectations of the results in mathematics." -logic-
Ethics-
"To what extent does one's inner emotion being portrayed in one's language have an affect on other's reactions in ethics." -emotion-
" There’s no such thing as a neutral question"
ReplyDeleteI took it to mean that no matter what kind of question you ask the person's answer will always be influenced by their past experiences or their assumptions. A neutral question is one posed without any bias. However, when someone asks a question, especially through dialogue, the answerer will always infer something from it. For example, if Mr. Bogel asked me what I did with my weekend my experiences of what he would consider acceptable or not would influence how I answer his question (Not that I did anything unacceptable with my weekend). Thus even if he has not implied a preference in his question I already know what type of responses are acceptable and expected. However, it is important to note that the question posed in abstract without context or a person behind it can be neutral, it is the person who asks the question who has the potential for adding bias.
One AOK where a neutral question is extremely difficult to ask is in indigenous knowledge systems/ religious knowledge systems. Meaning, a set of religious beliefs that are part of your indigenous culture. For instance, Dominica is predominantly catholic and like the rest of the West Indies, very conservative. If I was home and someone like a parent, aunt or uncle, or a religious figure was to ask me a religious based question, I would first consider how much emphasis they put on their beliefs. I would moderate myself and “taint” my answer to satisfy them. Personally, this is because most times it is less of a hassle for me to give them an answer they like more. Also, if a stranger was to come up to me and ask me about my political views, my answer would be moderated because I do not know them and I would not want to say the wrong thing. Thus, when engaging in a series of questions based on something as sensitive as indigenous knowledge systems/ religious knowledge systems, answers are often moderated based on the relationship between persons, but moderated none the less.
I want to believe that questions asked in the realm of natural sciences have a greater potential to be neutral because they can come unattached to personal experience. Questions asked for the purpose of scientific experiments are usually formatted so that they carry no embedded biases or opinions. On one hand in a study to find the effect of sleep on teenagers the examiner may ask “How many hours of sleep did you get last night?” This question would be neutral because the examiner had not indicated to a preferential answer in the eyes of the subject. On the other hand, if the next question was “how well did you perform in school the next day?” and the subject got a full 8 hours and still felt exhausted but they knew that they should not feel this way, they may change their answer to conform to a general truth. Thus, questions can be posed neutrally but be received with “perceived” bias and preference.
1) How can the cultural beliefs that a knower is raised under affect their justification of knowledge acquired through sense perception?
Delete2) Why do some knowers value other people's unbased assumptions instead of their own intuition in the investigation of natural sciences?