MOK ToK Essay

The concept of knowledge has troubled many thinkers since the dawn of civilization and rational thinking. The nature and origins of knowledge have long been investigated by a great number of theorists, philosophers and scholars. As a result, a vast number of theories have developed over the years, with variations as to their reliability and validity. As such, no single theory about knowledge has ever been universally accepted by the general populace. Instead, some have proven more popular than others due to their justification, coherence and resemblance to real life circumstances. At the turn of the 19th century, the American author, historian and scholar Morris Bishop made a statement as to conceptualize what he considered knowledge to be. In his opinion, knowledge is “a collection of scraps and fragments that we put together into a pleasing design, and often the discovery of one fragment would cause us to alter utterly the whole design”. In the essay that follows, I will discuss the theory proposed by Morris Bishop and describe to what extent it is true, in reference to two areas of knowledge; history and the natural sciences, as well as my own personal experiences. To begin with, I would like to provide my own interpretation of Bishop’s theory about the nature of knowledge. In my understanding of the quote, Bishop hypothesized that knowledge is ultimately composed of justified and reliable information, facts and truths that have been accumulated and fitted together so as to form a single, coherent and comprehensible corpus. Furthermore, Bishop appears to state that knowledge itself assimilates according to discoveries of new facts or information that had not been established previously. So as to determine to what extent this theory is true, some general, widely accepted points have to be mentioned as to the concept of knowledge. Knowledge is often regarded as justified true belief. The fine distinction between truth and belief is found in the fact