“Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.” In order to make a claim on the truth of this statement, one must first delve into what the statement is saying. The use of the phrase, “nothing more than”, creates a problem for agreement. The phrase is able to add a sense of authority, but results in a condescending tone towards knowledge. The statement would be made improved if the phrase were to be replaced with something that continues to enforce the idea that knowledge is only the systematic organization of facts without using the words “nothing more”, as that implies that knowledge can possibly be something else, but that it would be considered less. Therefore, while it is a patronizing phrase, it lacks the certainty it ought to contain. Another part of the statement that raises a question is the word ‘knowledge’. The definition of this word is the subject of numerous philosophical debates, however the TOK course definition, a justified, true belief, will be used for the purpose of this writing.
In the mathematics area of knowledge, this statement is far easier to prove truthful. Math is typically ingested meticulously organized by the teacher, but it is also further organized by the student in a way that allows the learner to best understand what they are taught. The formulas, theorems, and measurements are all compartmentalized in ways easily comprehensible by students in attempt to get them to best understand and gain knowledge on the topic. Additionally, the students must organize what they learn in order to understand which formulas work for which problems. Once they are able to connect these ideas and organize them correctly, the will have gained knowledge on the area of math. On the other hand, when students fail to correctly organize what they’re taught, they aren’t able to understand problems, derive solutions, or comprehend the math they’re learning about.
Another area of knowledge that can be used to prove this statement is history. Historians collect evidence from the past in attempt to correctly organize events for humanity to gain knowledge on our history. The facts they are presented are given meaning when people are able to piece together the information they already know to construct a possible story that accurately depicts a possible timeline of events. Therefore, resulting in new knowledge that we are able to learn about and learn from.
Ethics is an area of knowledge that makes this statement more arguable than others. In this area, knowledge is often derived from people’s opinions and feelings. However, opinions and feelings are just as much facts as artifacts discovered by historians or algorithms derived by mathematicians are. Facts are anything considered to be true. Therefore when people’s opinions, which are true to themselves, are organized into justifications for varying ethical decisions, this means they organized facts to create ethical knowledge for that individual. Knowledge won’t be the same for every person, but it continues to be a true, justified belief to the person holding it, allowing them to have an understanding of a topic, whether it differs from others or not. Differences in knowledge in this subject is the result of differences in experiences. Some people will encounter situations that present facts that are drastically different than what others are presented with. Infants are not born with a stance on the morality of murder, however a child raised on a battlefield will come to view it differently than one raised in the suburbs.
In areas of knowledge like math, there won’t be as many different understandings, however there are always different methods used to derive an answer. Students’ brains organize the facts they are given in different ways, which allows for them to take different forks in the road to reach an answer. Although, Bayes theorem illustrates how personal beliefs and experiences can be used in math as facts to result in knowledge. The theorem uses an equation that contains prior probability to utilize experiences and feelings to produce potential knowledge. They use their feelings as facts, further proving the ability to create knowledge by doing so.
In conclusion, I agree with the initial statement basis, however if I were to construct this claim, I would remove the phrase, “nothing more than”, as it added nothings substantial to the assertion besides a condescending tone.
caro's blogs 
Caro, you are doing a lot of really great thinking through here. I especially appreciate your incorporation of other areas of knowledge as well, which while not required here DOES give your response a certain breadth of applicability that it might otherwise be lacking.
The math par in the beginning totally rocks, and I think the only way to improve your clarity there would be to put some concrete mathematical names on what you are talking about–maybe develop the way that we separate “geometry” from “algebra,” or what we think of when we think of rational numbers or primes or divisors or something. I like the impulse to incorporate Bayes in the end, but it feels tacked on–were you thinking that it was a way that math IS a bit more like ethics? That might be a fascinating angle.
Your approach to history and ethics are really nice, especially in how they seem to differ from mathematics. However, I feel like the treatment demands some nuance. When you say “opinions and feelings are just as much facts as artifacts discovered by historians or algorithms derived by mathematicians are. Facts are anything considered to be true.” I’m not sure I totally agree. On the one hand, I DO think that the opinions and feelings of a person or a group of people are important pieces of information in understanding how they behave and thus understanding the world. (Durkheim called these “social facts.”) On the other hand, I think the idea that our opinions or feelings can be considered equivalent to facts in justifying our behavior is pretty problematic. If anything we say is a fact is a fact, then your definition of knowledge might as well leave out the “true justified” part, and just be equated to “belief”.
Where you GET TO in this paragraph on ethics is awesome. I love the last two sentences of the paragraph both for their meaning and for the powerful concise rhetorical style with which you express the meaning. Maybe the place to expand would be just to acknowledge and work through the messiness of defining “knowledge” in ethics because of the problem of “relative truths”?
I also love your critique of “nothing more than”, but you miss the chance to show how, in many of these areas of knowledge, “nothing more than” doesn’t work not only because it is condescending but also because it is LIMITING–knowledge in ethics is clearly not “only” a systematic organization of facts,” since all of the experiences that you have are important to it, AND emotions, AND context, AND because it leads to REAL OUTCOMES and behaviors in the world. All of this is OTHER STUFF besides just a systematic organization of facts…
As usual, your writing here is clear, concise and powerful. WTG.
LikeLike