Justification. It is human nature to feel comfortable in things that we can justify. In many ways it is looked at as a safety net. It is a form of protection. Because of this I do strongly believe that we hold information in higher regard when someone can provide supporting evidence. In fact we see many forms of knowledge based on this foundation, such as science and the scientific method/theory, math and Perception. In all of these cases the use of justification is necessary for any results to retain any sort of value.
When thinking about knowledge, as aforementioned I believe that we gravitate towards and value information that we “Know”. This we have concrete justifications for. When looking at the purest form of perception these consist of “this is a desk” and “this is a pencil”. We know these things based on the multifaceted sensory perceptions we have. We know these things based on name recognition, based on visual cues, on the way they smell and feel, whether it reminds us of a past experience or something you have a personal affinity towards; the fact remains that we can identify these “truths” by logical deduction. And in cases revolving around identification, the justification is in our past experiences with these items. Although I have stated these are held in higher value, I have not said that it is always correct. We know of events that can act as contradictions to this claim. For example it was widely thought and highly valued that the Earth was the center of the universe from as early as 150 AD. This theory was called the Ptolemy (Kuhn 66). This not only had mathematical justification that fit the movement of the planets and the suns movements to acceptably accurate amounts, but also had justification grounded in the bible, stating that the earth is “firmly established” and cannot be “moved”. Because of the justification it held with hard science and with the Church, which was the most powerful body at the time, the value of the knowledge was indisputably high. Because of this the new model was not accepted until later. Although the Knowledge was held with more value than this new ideal/concept it was deemed wrong. This is important because even though something may be justified it does not mean it is correct, which is an interesting thing to note when looking at the validity of this method of thinking.
Science works in a similar pattern to perception in its regards to justification. The scientific method is a prime example of value being based on the amount of justification found to back it’s claims. When information is tested using the scientific method, it is done so in multiple trials and in many different situations. In each trial the information is pressured by different stimuli. It is after these measures that the information gathered is compared against a hypothesis and results are recorded. These results are considered to hold more value than the hypothesis. This is because instead of an educated guess the information in the results was justified by experimentation. Now because of this value the information can become commonly used knowledge. But I do believe there is a reason for this, a reason we agree to an extent on many things. This is because for the human race to survive we need this foundation for thought. Therefore I think of this valued knowledge as the foundation, the backbone or starting point, of logical thought. Therefore to an extent I believe that logical thought stems from the way we value certain knowledge more than others. I believe it is because at a young age we are given this knowledge that is highly justified, and in turn this basis allows us to logically perceive the world from the foundation we were given.
Now when looking at Religion, we can find some incongruence when comparing it with our value based on justification belief. Religion is a multicultural and almost all major religions are based off a text: The Bible, Koran, Torah ect. In many cases these texts are used as justification for their knowledge of religion, which at face value seems to fit the mold of value based on justification. However if we go one step farther, and look at what is justifying the texts, we could make the claim that there is almost always no first hand account for anything that has been written down. It is a compilation, in most cases, of ideals written down over thousands of years. Because of this most of the justification here has to be deemed null and void. So why is religion and the knowledge based around it deemed so valuable? I think this is where Faith comes in. Faith, I believe, is the exact opposite of justification. The fact that so many people can believe something based on Faith alone brings an interesting argument to he table. However, I would still venture to say that although faith based knowledge is held at a high value, in more cases then none the knowledge with justification is held higher. But I am not with out bias. I am much more apt to look towards scientific explanation than religious/spirtural ones. Living in a highly school driven lifestyle, which relies solely on science and proof has caused me to be that way. However, looking objectively on the matter I do think that scientifically justified knowledge has a majority in the human community.
Now, is this theory ( the theory that Knowledge is valued relative to the amount of justification) in its self inhibiting new thought processes from arising. When looking at Thomas Kuhns Structure of Scientific revolutions we see a specific process outlining the use of paradigms. He states that “Normal science is research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements” (Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolution). This idea correlates well with the idea of value in knowledge that is based on justification. Therefore in our case the justification of knowledge is the paradigm, and the value is the acceptance of the paradigm by a large number of people. This system further works on the basis that when a paradigm is not effective and a crisis occurs, a new paradigm comes and replaces it. But in this case of justification of knowledge, would the presence of valued knowledge have any bearing on the occurrence of new forms of knowledge and justification? I think in most cases there could be a shift in justification, but it would be much easier if the knowledge being justified stayed the same. However, in some cases will the value the knowledge holds in effect prohibit a change in paradigm? For example, in the aforementioned case of Copernicus and his concept of Heliocentrism vs Ptolemy, the latter was the current paradigm of the time; also the higher value according to justification. When looking at the outcome we see that the correct paradigm, or the paradigm that was offered by Copernicus was rejected due tot the fact that the current paradigm had a higher value according to the Church. This is a prime example of Valued knowledge being blocked by the current knowledge considered more highly valued. Although Heliocentrism is correct, the value of the prior knowledge led to bias in accordance to the acceptance of new concepts. The fact is that although this does happen I still believe that it is a correct form of thinking. In most cases I still believe this form of knowledge and value will follow the course described by Kuhn in more cases then know.
In summation, I do highly agree to the claim that knowledge is held with a higher value in direct proportion to the amount of justification backing it