Jaspers on the Nature of Knowledge
Jaspers: Nature of Knowledge
Reliable knowledge
Jaspers was particularly conscious of the difficulties of securing reliable knowledge.
Objectivity
Even if knowledge is universally valid, it is not absolutely objective. Knowledge is the product of a particular method chosen by the investigator.
Universal validity
Since knowledge cannot be completely objective, it cannot be universally valid in the absolute sense; Jaspers grounds universal validity on universal consensus.
Science and philosophy
Jaspers analysed the relationship between science and philosophy, treating both as integral parts of education.
Three marks of scientific knowledge
- Methodical: we know by what means it was arrived at and within what limits it holds good.
- Certain: it stands the test of any reasoning; distinguished from convictions for which one is prepared to risk one’s life.
- Generally valid: it is recognised without limitation by anyone who understands it; stands in contrast to any form of knowledge in which one places unlimited faith.
Jaspers spent serious work on the epistemological question of what counts as knowledge. The question matters for education because what an educator transmits depends on what they think knowledge actually is. The article works through Jaspers’s account of objectivity, his three marks of scientific knowledge, and the relationship between scientific and philosophical knowledge in education.
Reliable knowledge and the role of method
Jaspers was, by training in medicine and psychology, particularly conscious of the theoretical difficulties of securing reliable knowledge. The everyday picture treats knowledge as a direct correspondence between mind and world: a person knows something when their belief matches what is actually the case. The picture is intuitive but, on closer inspection, too simple to capture how knowledge is actually produced.
Jaspers’s correction is to put the method of investigation at the centre. Knowledge, he writes, is the product of a particular method chosen by the investigator. The investigator did not just open their eyes and see reality; they applied a specific method, and the knowledge they produced is the result of applying that method. A different method might have produced a different result, even from the same underlying reality.
This does not mean knowledge is purely subjective. It means knowledge is methodically conditioned. The knower can usually say what method they used and within what limits the method holds good. A claim grounded in a clearly stated method, within clearly stated limits, is more reliable than a claim with no such grounding.
The point matters for education because students are usually given knowledge as if it were just a direct picture of reality. The methodical conditioning is hidden. A student who learns chemistry without learning how the chemistry was discovered, what methods produced the current account, and what limits the methods imposed has not really learned chemistry; they have memorised an account of chemistry that they cannot evaluate. The methodical understanding is part of what makes the knowledge actually theirs.
Knowledge is methodically conditioned, not a direct mirror of reality
The investigator did not just open their eyes and see reality; they applied a specific method, and the knowledge they produced is the result. A different method might have produced a different result. This does not make knowledge subjective; it makes it methodically conditioned. A claim grounded in a clearly stated method, within clearly stated limits, is more reliable than a claim with no such grounding.
Universal validity and objectivity
Jaspers draws careful distinctions among kinds of validity. Even if a particular kind of knowledge is universally valid, he writes, it is not absolutely objective. The two are different.
Absolute objectivity would mean the knowledge captures reality without any contribution from the knower. The knower’s method, perspective, and concepts would play no role; the knowledge would be the pure unmediated truth. Jaspers thinks this kind of objectivity is not actually available. Every act of knowing involves the knower’s contribution.
Universal validity is weaker. A claim is universally valid if anyone who applies the relevant method correctly will arrive at the same result. The validity does not require that the knower’s contribution be absent; it requires that the contribution be the same across knowers, so that everyone using the method reaches the same conclusion. Mathematics is the clearest case: any competent mathematician working the same proof will arrive at the same theorem. The proof depends on the mathematician’s competence (the knower’s contribution), but the contribution is the same across competent mathematicians.
Since absolute objectivity is not available, Jaspers grounds universal validity on universal consensus. A claim is universally valid in the practical sense when there is universal consensus among those competent to evaluate it. The consensus is what does the work absolute objectivity used to do. The shift sounds technical but has consequences. A claim that lacks the consensus has, by this standard, not yet attained universal validity, however well argued it may be. The acceptance of competent peers is part of what establishes the validity.
The implication for education is again real. A student who is told that some claim is universally true should be helped to see what method produces the universal validity and which community of competent peers has reached the consensus. The student who knows these things can evaluate the claim’s status; the student who does not is taking the claim on the teacher’s authority.
Absolute objectivity (knowledge with no knower contribution) is not available; universal validity (same result from anyone using the method correctly) is, grounded on consensus
Absolute objectivity would mean capturing reality without any contribution from the knower. Jaspers thinks this is not actually available; every act of knowing involves the knower. Universal validity is weaker: anyone who applies the relevant method correctly arrives at the same result. Since absolute objectivity is not available, universal validity is grounded on universal consensus among those competent to evaluate the claim.
Three marks of scientific knowledge
Jaspers identifies three marks that distinguish scientific knowledge from other kinds.
Methodical. Scientific knowledge is methodical knowledge. We know by what means it was arrived at, in what sense, and within what limits it holds good. A scientific claim that cannot be located in a particular method with particular limits is not yet really scientific knowledge; it is a hypothesis or a hunch.
Certain. Scientific knowledge is certain in the sense that it stands the test of any reasoning. It is not certain in the sense of being beyond all possible doubt (no empirical knowledge is); it is certain in the sense that any reasoning that competently tests it will support it. This is distinguished from convictions, which are the things by which a person may live and even be prepared to risk their life, but which are not certain in the same sense.
Generally valid. Scientific knowledge is recognised without limitation by everyone who understands it. The recognition does not depend on the audience’s commitments, beliefs, or values; it depends only on their understanding of the relevant method and content. This stands in contrast to any other form of knowledge in which a person may place unlimited faith but which does not command the same general recognition.
The three marks together describe what makes scientific knowledge a particular and valuable kind of knowing. Not all knowledge is scientific in this sense; philosophical knowledge, moral knowledge, religious conviction are not generally scientific, though they may have their own forms of validity. The scientific kind has its own clear properties, and a real education has to give the student a clear sense of what these are.
The implication is that an educator should be careful about how they present knowledge to students. Knowledge presented as scientific should actually be scientific in the three-marks sense; otherwise the student learns that science is whatever the teacher says it is, which is corrosive. Knowledge presented as conviction (moral, religious, political) should be presented as such, not dressed up as science. Students who can tell the difference can evaluate what they are being given; students who cannot, cannot.
Methodical, certain, and generally valid
Methodical: we know by what means it was arrived at and within what limits it holds good. Certain: it stands the test of any competent reasoning, distinguished from convictions for which one is prepared to risk one’s life. Generally valid: it is recognised without limitation by anyone who understands it, regardless of their other commitments. Not all knowledge is scientific in this sense; philosophical and moral knowledge have their own forms of validity.
How was this article?