Disinterestedness is (mostly) not essential in the pursuit of knowledge

Originally posted 12/18/18

The action of being disinterested can be defined by two aspects: one is to not have personal stakes nor preconceived notions involved, the other is to lack curiosity and desire. Thus, while disinterestedness can be essential in ensuring the absence of bias, the dedication involved in initiating a pursuit and exploring contrasting perspectives is even more essential in the pursuit of knowledge. This degree of interest, if utilized cautiously and with awareness, can lead one to the path of valuable knowledge. I will explore this balance between interest and bias in the areas of knowledge of natural sciences and history.

When one possesses a preconceived notion — even subconsciously — his or her pursuit of knowledge may be skewed by a phenomenon called confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret findings as support to one’s preconceived beliefs. This tendency can be observed through the natural sciences, and we can observe this phenomenon in theories that have been since disproven. For example, in the early 20th century, the theory of maternal impression arose due to the belief that mothers who underwent traumatic experiences gave birth to children with correlative deformities. With this correlation already established, scientist von Baer, noticing that his sister envisioned a fire while pregnant, formed a baseless assumption through reasoning that her baby’s birthmark was shaped like a flame and was a direct result of her earlier perturbance (University of Virginia School of Medicine). Though multiple studies were later able to disprove the causation of maternal impression, the existence of confirmation bias in scientists is why it is difficult to determine the validity in proving a theory; instead, theories are accepted through abductive reasoning after the alternatives are disproved. When conducting an experiment, this bias can cause the observer-expectancy effect, in which the experimenter subconsciously influences the design to prove the result they have in mind. This then begs the question, does beginning scientific research with a hypothesis in mind sway one’s results?

But would areas of knowledge be even pursued without the initial interest? One counterclaim is that scientific discoveries require the initiative to begin experiments and ask questions in order to find an answer. For example, scientists Hershey and Chase were interested in knowing what the carrier of genetic material was — DNA or protein. Because of this research question, they were able to track the presence of sulfur in only the DNA, confirming that DNA was the genetic material. Without the interest, there would be no pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore, true passion about a subject should spur the questioning of one’s own knowledge. The quest for valuable knowledge often requires the unpacking of multiple perspectives, whether those perspectives contradict one’s own opinions. Thus, using our curiosity and desire to learn can actually prevent bias.

In the area of knowledge of history, a measure of changes throughout time, the presence of bias manifests in a different form — it is knowledge that relies on the nuances passed down from historian to historian. For example, while many historians today overwhelmingly believe the American Revolution was caused by political reasons such as the loss of benign neglect, the Progressive school of historians including Charles Beard believed that it festered due to class conflict. The Progressive Era was bent on activism against excessive industrialization and the corruption of big businesses. Influenced by this ideology, Beard used faith as a way of knowing to spin a story of economic corruption in American history because of the popular movement in his own time. As all historians are personally invested in the history they tell — and all history is told through historians — they pursue the knowledge with a prejudiced mindset and consequently may be unsuccessful in discovering truth should it conflict with their opinion.

Furthermore, the popular saying that “history is written by the winners” is relevant, as popular beliefs of the time period, cultural nuances, and personal values of the reteller are forms of interest that can influence knowledge. The “loser” in history is less likely to pursue this knowledge — if they even exist to do so — because it is not in their interest. When the losers do write histories, they are less popular than that of the dominant culture, which portrays such history in a more flattering manner. When flipping through my history book, for example, I found that less than one page is dedicated to the subjugation of the Japanese-American people into internment camps during World War II, yet an entire chapter about the reasons America was justified in joining the war. These differences in the retelling of history can be a manipulation of the way of knowing of memory, which often veers from reality. The psychological biases of our fickle memory can explain the reason for the omission or diminishing of unflattering history: the fading affect bias shows how information regarding negative emotions are more likely to be forgotten than positive ones while the self-serving bias is a distortion of self-perception in a more favorable manner. Thus, the writers of history may be more lenient toward their countries’ own biases.

But without this interest in exploring the dimensions of history, who and why would they pursue knowledge? Undeniably, the motivations, causes, and effects of change may vary how history is developed. And while one may argue that the interests of the writers inevitably influence the retelling of knowledge, a counterclaim is that they are still necessary to pursue knowledge in history. After all, historiography is knowledge that can be simultaneously disputable and true. Because it is such a subjective topic grounded in the interpretations of different historians, developing an understanding of more dimensions and perspectives is only beneficial in getting closer to truth. For in other history books — as well as many textbooks and online sources — I’ve also seen pages dedicated to exploring the different and controversial viewpoints surrounding a topic to guide the reader to their own conclusion with the benefit of multiple opinions and interests. Without this degree of interest, there would be neither a pursuit of history nor a thorough investigation of that aspect of history.

The implication of this essay is that bias is inevitably tethered to possessing interest. But does interest necessarily manifest in bias? While pursuing knowledge, we should actively evaluate our interest in pursuit of truth claims. If one is truly passionate about pursuing knowledge, seeking impartiality and reasoning to achieve truth is the best form of interest. An acute awareness for identifying the types of bias as well as methods to avoid them will prevent one’s susceptibility to unfounded prejudice. By doing so, the level of interestedness will not be so overwhelming as to override fair judgement, but it will be sufficient enough to initiate and carry out a careful pursuit of knowledge.

In more objective areas of knowledge that do not have many areas of dispute, such as biology, interest is less important in the pursuit of knowledge, and may even be beneficial in preventing biased results. Conversely, history can only be passed on through humans, making subjectivity and interest inevitable, but beneficial, in its pursuit. Thus, disinterestedness in the sense of personal impartiality is helpful in the successful pursuit of knowledge, but not as essential as a degree of interest in the pursuit.

Written for the Theory of Knowledge prompt: “Disinterestedness is essential in the pursuit of knowledge.”