Think about it.
The knowledge that we surround ourselves with is based on truths which we accept as legitimate.
Those truths are based on certain theories, as opposed to others, which have dominated and been able to gain power throughout time within specific contexts.
Those theories which create the truths which we then implement and concretely apply to fit into the practical world surrounded by knowledge are in fact made up with assumptions of specific circumstances which are necessary to theory for its very defeinition theory is but at the same time it is not. It is what holds the practice but cannot always be proven by it to the full extent.
Those very assumptions are constructed according to the study or analysis of previous theories and assumptions which at their time emerged in contrasting times and places to the ones of the later theories, and thus at their time reflect another development of theoretical assumptions which are modified on a constant basis. If assumption is the driving force behind theory, for, as already mentioned, it is in all its nature a possibility but not a certainty (i.e. an assumption is a non-certain circumstance which must hold constant regardless of other variables-thus it must be immune to change in a context of evolution, reason for which the assumption is built i.e. because the certainty of its occurrence cannot be fully defended), then how reliable is the theory in itself?
One can start to see how knowledge is in itself,- as well as the reflection of the underlying power structures which allow it to hold and continue throughout time (dear Foucault)- basically a construction which relies on previous ‘tools’ needed to build whatever is to come next or the structures of the designed future as believed by the beholders of that knowledge. Those tools are however themselves built according to other specific engagements with a different set of theories, proven wrong and later modified to give a final result.
Take the word research…
…it is the re-searching of something, i.e. the engagement in a search based on previous findings as its solid ground…
…Its very meaning relies on the exploration and the attempt at ‘discovering’ something by engaging in an active seeking of those ‘truths’ which may be used to strengthen the argument that is made with empirical evidence.
But even that empirical evidence, in its combination of variables at their time researched through a set of collection of previous research and experiments at their time based on other experiments (all which aim to prove a specific theory or thesis through the marriage of theory and practice) is dependent on all the previous evidence and formulations previously made.
Thus, it appears to be that research in itself, when investigating within a specific field and aiming to provide some sort of ‘empirical’ data, requires a degree of ‘trust’ in the validity of the data which it collects and later selects for validity proof. Vulnerability is therefore always an eminent characteristic of research, on which theories are built.
So the natural question arises, if research is based on theories which are based on assumptions which are constructed within specific constraints with specific already existing truths to uphold one exact theory throughout its construction, in other words, if research is vulnerable and theory is based on that research and that research is exclusively picked for that theory, and theory is the basis on which we construct truths, and truths are specific leading interpretations which have become to lead and thus at their time create ‘knowledge’, can one not conclude that knowledge is itself a construct which is vulnerable to the strong winds of contradiction and external pressure as much as to the internal structural grounds upon which that knowledge rests???
Is it wrong to believe that that which surrounds us is the blatant proof of our misunderstanding of the world?
By which we take truths that we ourselves created limited to specific constraints and within interests in mind, and surround ourselves by these ‘interpretations’ that are ever so fragile and interconnected, to the extent that having the real truth is no longer possible(or never was…), as we will never really be able to fully separate and analyse one specific aspect or ‘field’ of knowledge without necessary requiring the other?
‘Let us say that we are obliged to produce the truth by the power that demands truth and needs it in order to function: we are forced to tell the truth, we are constrained, we are condemned to admit the truth or to discover it.’
(Michel Foucault, Lectures at the College de France, 1975 —76: Society must be defended.)
Think about it. It makes a lot of sense.
LG
