Traditional Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

Traditional Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

The world is a library of knowledge. There is a lot of information held in diversity and what people believe in. Traditional knowledge is held in cultural values and beliefs, religion, among other aspects. It is such knowledge that makes society a peaceful habitat because people have some kind of shared understanding in the way they do things.  Although scientific and technological advancements have improved human beings’ ways of accumulating knowledge, it is good to recognize the traditional methods of knowledge acquisition because they stand to be fundamental.  This paper, therefore, explores the traditional methods of knowledge acquisition, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses.

People learn to trust their instincts with time. This is the process of intuition. Intuition uses our emotions, guts, and instincts to built knowledge. A person is guided by intuition to determine what is right rather than factual examinations or seeking rational thoughts (Laird, 2010). As a result, we develop strings of believes that eventually form a set of knowledge. There is, however, a few disadvantages attached to this method. Intuitions can be wrong since they are based on cognitive and motivational biases and not logical reasoning. This means that it is likely that different people will judge a particular situation differently; hence intuitions may not lead to an everyday fact of knowledge. For instance, if a friend behaves strangely, we tend to have two judgments. Either they are lying, or they are preoccupied and bothered by other issues. Nonetheless, such a situation leads to the weighing of alternatives, which could be paralyzing on many occasions. However, researchers discovered that intuitive decisions are superior to logical or factual decisions (Gladwell, 2007).

The most common method of knowledge acquisition is the one that involves the passage of existing knowledge from elders to the new generations. This phenomenon has been coined as ‘authority.’ Authority is whereby information or new ideas are based on what the authority believes (Lalonde, 1993). In this context, the authority is the body that propagates the information. Such authorities include parents, doctors, religious leaders, the government, media, among others. According to Haseman & Mafe (2009), the ideal world requires has to trust the authorities. However, history proves such a narrative wrong. An example of this situation is the atrocities committed against humanity, which were a result of gullible trust in authority. For instance, tribal clashes happen because local leaders and the media make people believe that they should defend their land even if it means killing others. As such, authority as a means of knowledge acquisition stands challenged by intuition. The authorities might use their intuitions to make biased judgments that they pass on to the subjects who end up pursuing the interest of the authority. This is precisely what happens in politics. However, despite the fact that we learn a lot from the authorities, evaluating the credibility of the authority, the possible means used by the authority to arrive at a specific decision,  and the possibility of the authority misleading us are reliable tools to verify the credibility of knowledge acquired from authorities (Haseman & Mafe, 2009).

The world throws a lot of things at us. Everything we meet in life accounts to our knowledge. The third method of knowledge acquisition, therefore, becomes an appeal to experience. In this context, one has to use their sense and logic to comprehend life experiences and hence develop a set of knowledge (Lalonde, 1993). Some authors, such as Haseman & Mafe (2009), refer to this method as empiricism. Such a term suggests that the knowledge accumulated is derived from several observations and experiences. These observations are processed by logic to lead to conclusive inferences that are kept as pieces of knowledge.  One shortcoming with this method is that we tend to hold on to what we ever observed or experienced. Conditions change and, therefore, relying on only experiences to drive knowledge can be misleading.  Gladwell (2007) posits that we are limited in what we experience and observe; hence our senses can deceive us. Empiricism is, however, a reliable and robust method of knowledge acquisition because it is based on facts observed or experienced. As such, there are minimal chances of bias and misled conceptions. This is one of the reasons why scientific methods of knowledge acquisition are built on empiricism, systematic empiricism.

Although problem-solving could be viewed as the primary goal for accumulating knowledge, from a different viewpoint, it becomes one of the methods of knowledge acquisition. Thinking of a situation where one is meditating on the way to solve a particular problem, such a person will come up with a strategic way of dealing with the problem (Pirnau, 2008). If their presumed solution eventually works for them and the problem is solved, then it is counted in their experience that such a problem can be solved using that specific method. In essence, the person will have added to his/her knowledge and hence, qualifying problem solving as a method of knowledge acquisition. One of the weaknesses attached to this method is that it is based on trial and error, and one might not be keen to master what really worked (Pirnau, 2008). However, similar to empiricism, this method leaves traces of evidence because the learner does it practically. It is, therefore, a reliable source of knowledge.

In conclusion, the traditional ways of acquiring knowledge are fundamental and set the basis for scientific knowledge. There are different ways in which we acquire knowledge. Our instincts intuitively lead us to develop pieces of knowledge and make judgments. This kind of knowledge is, however, subject to personal evaluation, and the conclusion could be biased. Borrowing from what authorities are another method also suffers the risk of biasness. Experience and problem solving are seemingly the best methods of knowledge acquisition. They are practical, and therefore, factual. Although conditions change, relying on this kind of information can set the path for the researcher.