In our recent Theory of Knowledge session with IBDP year 1 learners, we delved into the complex relationship between evidence and justification. The discussion was centred on whether having relevant evidence guarantees justification in believing something or someone.
One predominant view was that while solid evidence forms the foundation for belief, justification entails more than just evidence. Justification involves reasoning and contextual understanding of how evidence supports a claim. One student highlighted that what counts as “good evidence” can vary depending on the context and the perspectives involved. For instance, scientific evidence may be rigorous and empirical, but ethical or cultural considerations could also influence ones justification.
Another perspective brought forth was that biases and incomplete information can undermine justification, even with seemingly strong evidence. It became clear through examples and debate that the process of justification is dynamic and often subjective, influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and the methodologies used to evaluate evidence.
Overall, the discussion emphasized that while good evidence lays the groundwork, justification requires critical evaluation and interpretation, reflecting the nuanced interplay between evidence and the reasoning processes that define knowledge acquisition. This session left us with a deeper appreciation of the complexities inherent in justifying beliefs based on evidence. As we navigate the landscape of knowledge, we are compelled to ponder: How do our personal biases shape the way we evaluate evidence, and ultimately, our understanding of knowledge?
