Shared Knowledge Confidence

Shared knowledge confidence

I often wonder about the foundations of current shared knowledge and what have been the methods to verify the veracity of them. This is an unknown that I have had from an early age. It is also well known that shared knowledge changes with the passage of time which can greatly affect people’s trust. One of the greatest examples in the evolutionary history of knowledge was the theory raised by the scientist Nicolás CopernicTo the other planets revolve around him. For people of the time it was very difficult to unlearn, to accept this new knowledge. However, the faith or trust that is given to a certain group of experts, which helps in approval of a new concept. It is thanks to this fact that leads us to interrogate ourselves. How does the trust of a population generate the approval of a new knowledge? And the veracity of a shared knowledge depends on the group of experts and the methods used, or simply depends on the acceptance of the social group?

If we talk about the veracity of a shared knowledge we can avocado towards the natural sciences. It is in this branch of natural sciences that the methods that are followed for the verification of a new theory are a little stricter. However, it is what happens with the knowledge that we still preserve from previous years. A few years ago Nwe Journal of Physics magazine questioned the speed constant raised by Albert Einstein. According to the physical laureate, the speed of light has always been constant (approximately 300,000 kilometers per second), what is questioned today is how is it possible that the universe is so uniform throughout its extension? Joa Mangueijo is one of the main scientists who have questioned this theory for decades.

Taking this example into account, the first thing we must ask is why the population took as true what Einstein had raised? One of the reasons could be trust. This is because people trust the work done by one or a group of people, trust the knowledge of a group of scientists who have specialized in a branch of human sciences, in physics or chemistry, is because ofThat a community trusted the research carried out by the group of scientists, is because of this that at the time that a new shared knowledge people adopt it as true, even if wrong, because there is that trust towards knowledgepersonnel from other people. Taking into account all this can be ensured that the acceptance of new knowledge also depends on the group of people who provide knowledge, because trust would no longer be the same, you could no longer trust the knowledge of people, simply becausePeople are not specialized in a branch of human sciences. Likewise, the methods used to verify your new knowledge, also influences the acceptance of a new theory, remember that a new knowledge at the time that comes literally crushed the previous concept, then to be able to replace the shared knowledge already accepted you havethat support them with tests, which would become the methods used to verify a new theoretical that works in life, at the time the tests and methods used the confidence of people increases therefore it has a greater probability thanbe accepted.

On the other hand, history is part of our shared knowledge, however, as every great historical fact has different perspectives, that is, history is always subjective so we cannot say that a fact is true with total security. This is thanks to the appearance of new perspectives that can radically change the course of an investigation;The more a study is carried out on a fact, there are more perspectives to analyze which can be evidenced in the confusion that each in the researcher on the fact grows. In history, one of the facts is related to what was the war, more related to the United States since this made a cultural bombardment for almost the entire globe. However, all these primary source brochures, books, movies had a bias. This bias does not allow to investigate and evaluate the true reasons why this cultural bombardment by North America has been carried out. Child et al. (2009) states:

For the most part, they care about export and cultural dissemination, but not the importation and assimilation processes, depriving us of the possibility of evaluating the efficiency of those policies. This bias is undoubtedly due to the type of sources available. (p.57)

As the bias has already been evidenced is one of the main causes for which a historical fact is not one hundred percent reliable. However, as people get to trust what the different historians tell us. Population confidence lies in the tests they present, their different primary sources. Likewise, the study conducted is obliged to evaluate different perspectives, so that people can trust their knowledge as a historian;And if people trust their work it will be much easier to accept new knowledge. Then it can be mentioned that the population’s trust towards shared knowledge depends on the tests that support it and the methods used to formalize knowledge. If people with a mere notion about the topic come to understand this knowledge can trust what they are studying.

However, there are cases in which a new knowledge came to light with an erroneous approach, such is the case of “Linus Pauling was a renowned figure in his time: he had won two Nobel prizes, and ISSAC ASIMOV said he was theThe largest chemist of the twentieth century, however I propose a theory that could not be more wrong ”(Benavente, 2014). In this case, it can be evidenced that despite trust, according to the personal image that Linus generated thanks to its different recognitions;The population did not trust his theory, because the evidence presented were not solid. That is why it can be mentioned that there is a dependency between what is confidence in your knowledge by the population and the foundations you present to support your new theory.

From my point of view, the change in shared knowledge fails to greatly affect our confidence in current shared knowledge, because when we refer to trust, we refer to acceptance by the population towards the creation of a new knowledge,Bringing to creating some erroneous theories, but nevertheless this drives us to the search for truth, this due to the very nature of the human being since this has always researched the accuracy of things so much, from starting to have parameters forestablish a measure, until establishing parameters for our behavior. That is why I can mention that the different mistakes we have made as a breed in the different aspects and areas of our life, have served as an impulse for the search for truth. However, initially a very sudden change in our shared knowledge can generate uncertainty, however this is not largely due to the confidence in the people who carry out a new research. On the other hand, the tests presented, that is, the methods used to verify a new theory are the foundations of this new knowledge, the more resistant they will be, the more they will last over time