Script:

C: Hello, and welcome to this weeks segment of What We Know and How We Know It. Im
Claire Fahlman and with me today are four of the worlds leading thinkers on... Knowledge.
Thats right, this week we will be discussing Knowledge itself. Now, if each of you could
introduce yourselves.
E: My name is Emily Leland and I am a professor of political science at the University of
Oregon. I use my analytical ways of looking at the world to examine the ways in which social
structures limit human interaction globally.
P: My name is Petra Dubekova and I am an activist. I work with environmental organizations
that give a voice to nature, which cannot speak for itself. I believe that knowledge can be found
in many unexpected places.
M: My name is Melanie Mendoza and I work as an archivist at the National Museum of
American History. I spend my time exploring the rich trove of historical artifacts we have
preserved and contemplating their effect on our world. I believe that from the past, we can learn
many things.
N: My name is Nikki Nguyen and I am a biochemical researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center. I use my rationality and my analytical skills to advance science, my favorite
variety of knowledge.
C: Thanks, guys. On to our first question! What is your opinion on imitation as a way to gain
knowledge about a particular work?
N: Well, I think imitation helps one to absorb and reinforce information.
M: Yes, I would have to agree. Ive certainly found it very useful.
E: The imitation of a work is an attempt to use another method of conveying information, so of
course its useful for learning how the author decided to convey their information, and how their
decisions affected the success they had in getting their information across.
P: Imitation can be useful in learning about other peoples ideas and views, but its intrinsically
not helpful for exploration of the inner self. Imitation may not be the best way to absorb certain
types of information. By imitating someone elses work, the individual is not exploring their own
self. Instead, theyre seeing knowledge through the eyes of someone else. In my view, imitation
can only teach us a lot about the author and their worldview. By imitating a piece, the imitator
may notice things that they wouldnt have seen before, but these are still only things that
someone else already said. Take the Dada movement, for example, and in particular Marcel
Duchamps LHOOQ. There is no evidence of him finding his own self in his combination of a
popular artwork with the also popular artistic worldview that the Mona Lisa is not to be highly

valued. Both were things already said. Imitations often have nothing to do with knowledge of the
inner self, which is the most important kind of knowledge anyway.
E: Id like to add that it is important to realize that there is no such thing as a perfect
understanding of the original authors point of view, so there is also no such thing as a perfect
imitation. All knowledge of the process, while it might be valuable and meaningful, is inherently
flawed.
N: I would have to disagree, as there is a such thing as perfect imitation. The way I see it, there
are two types of imitation: repetition and parodies. Most scientific experiences require a
repetition of procedures and the imitation of those procedures is how we are able to see
whether results are accurate or not. Thus, we are able to use the accurate results to make new
correlations that we couldnt dream of before. If you parody an original work through similar but
different processes, you must have understood the particular patterns of context and methods
used to create the imitation.
C: Melanie, what do you think?
M: When tackling big works such as those by Socrates or other great philosophers, readers may
not initially completely understand the argument of the essays. By imitating an original work,
readers can gain a better understanding of the structure and meaning of these arguments and
in doing so, can question the work and come to their own conclusions.
P: Im concerned with the destruction of the self that imitation requires. I believe imitation
automatically involves a loss of personal voice. Imitation in itself involves taking on the view of
someone else, and therefore it cannot be done in ones own voice. Melanie might say, in
regards to her example, that readers gain a better understanding of the philosophers
arguments, but in the end theyre still the viewpoints of the philosophers, not the imitator.
E: Im not sure I completely agree. I see it as impossible to actually lose ones voice in an
imitation. All people are uniquely biased by their own personal exposure to society and the world
in general so theyre incapable of perfectly imitating any other persons experience, or
expression of that experience. Even in scholarly articles, the diction used reflects the authors
personal exposure. In that way, the individual voice is always preserved.
M: I seem to agree with both of you. Yes, it is possible to imitate without losing ones own voice,
but it requires discipline. When imitating, it is important to remember that the point of the
imitation is to critically further understanding of a topic, not simply to repeat the arguments
made.
N: Rationally, most forms of scientific writing have little voice. There are undeniable facts. The
existence of the sun is undeniable. Voice plays a role in the interpretation of the fact, so it is not
very possible to lose ones own voice in imitation. However, if you lack objectivity, you may
have sloppy thinking, misinterpret the facts and methods, and lose the original intent.

C: Petra, you strike me as they type that likes art.

P: Oh, I love art. One of my best friends is making mobiles out of recyclables and setting them
out in nature. Its lovely.
C: Would you agree that art can also be used to convey scientific knowledge?
P: Art is a great tool to find and express ones inner self. One positive side of using art as a
medium to share objective information is that the process can still help the artist gain a deeper
understanding of their self. However, if the information being expressed is not from ones own
mind, the benefits of self-learning from it are limited.
C: Does art sell science short by cutting out information?
P: Sharing science through art can lead the artist to leave out certain facts in order to fit the
important things on the page. This may sell the science short a bit, but the receiver of the
knowledge should be aware that the art may not include the whole picture. Looking past this,
however, the artist can learn more about themselves and their values or priorities based on the
information they chose to include and the information that they chose to leave out.
N: I would have to agree with Petra in how art may not include the whole picture. As a scientist,
I have found that art conveys complex concepts to the general public in an easier or more
comprehensible way. Artists take specific parts of concepts and represent them in their art,
even if it opens a gateway to irrational thinking and false claims. For example, the popular form
of the atom ,the Rutherford model , is completely and utterly wrong; however, because it is
displayed on most forms of popular media, children believe the Rutherford model is how an
atom looks on the molecular scale. This is just one example of how facts may be oversimplified
and represent only a part of a whole picture or even deviate from the hard facts in science.
M: This leads directly into how history has given us many examples of the use of art to convey
scientific knowledge. Art allows scholars to give the public a better understanding of complex
works. In the past, paintings such as The Last Supper by da Vinci and The Creation of Adam by
Michelangelo provided an alternative way of understanding culturally significant ideas other than
through written texts such as the Bible. However, like Nikki and Petra said, using art to convey
science creates the opportunity for inaccuracies due to the artists interpretation of the topic or
due to oversimplification of what may be known at that point in history.How were we supposed
to know that the Rutherford model was incorrect when it was first created? As history
progresses, so does science.
E: This all depends entirely on the audience and the goal of the translation of science into art.
All translations are imperfect, as I previously said, so the science will not be conveyed perfectly
through art, but that might not be the goal or the right framework from which to look at the issue.
Some imperfect understanding might be more valuable than no understanding of a perfect

portrayal of the information in, for example, the Last Supper or the model of the atom. The
audience may be for a seven year old and a little understanding of history or science is definitely
better than being completely ignorant.
C: What about writing? Im sure we all remember writing long, tiresome essays throughout our
academic careers. Is it useful? Is writing an efficient way to learn?
M: Writing is useful because it requires us to analyze our understanding and opinion of a topic.
When dealing with large, abstract ideas, such as the questions of truth and goodness which the
classical philosophers dealt with, clarity is extremely important, and writing out our ideas on
these topics can help ensure clarity. Writing is best used as a way of thinking through which we
can consider a text, allowing for a more structured contemplation of the topic.
N: I think this structured contemplation is important for all disciplines, but especially in the
sciences. Whether its sociology , biochemistry, or archeology , we use scholarly articles to
share knowledge with one another. Its how we share evidence and learn from one another. As
long as its objective, Writing can help us learn how we process the data and methods in every
scenario. For example, in my biochemical research about the genes that cause breast cancer, I
use writing to reinforce my procedures and to think about and write an analysis of my data. We
write the objective facts that reinforce our particular claim and with the writing, we present our
findings for others to know, reinforce, or prove wrong. However, if the writing is for personal
reasons with no scientific basis like Green Eggs and Ham, then the writing is pointless.
E: I agree with you, Nikki. Certain types of writing are more useful in learning than others. This
all depends on what we want to learn. Writing can be helpful in learning how to think about
unfamiliar issues, but writing with no purpose is not instructive. Often when forced to clearly
articulate an opinion, we come across things that we dont often think about to ourselves.
Writing things out can, if properly structured, help make more clear to us what assumptions
were making about the world and how those assumptions are affecting our ability to think about
the issue at hand.
P: Well, to me, writing is definitely an efficient way to learn, especially when one is learning
about themself. Its a path to self exploration while also keeping a record of the journey. A
persons opinion or stance on a topic often changes throughout the process of writing, so the
writing piece itself can serve as a view into the persons growth and inner learning. For selfdiscovery or pieces when using an opinion is acceptable, writing is a great tool for learning. Like
I said before, it can help a persons thoughts grow. However, if the writing needs to stay
objective and is simply being used to give information like in Nikkis research, the author will not
gain much valuable knowledge about themselves.
C: When each of you are faced with difficult reading material, how do you tackle it?
N:There is no such thing as a difficult reading in science. Just kidding. Often time an outline is
the best method to tackle any dense reading. It is a matter of skimming over the paper itself and

looking at the major claims,the data presented, and the methods used.However, the con to
doing so is that one may skim over specific important information like the molarity of hydrogen
used and it may lead to fraudulent thinking or subjective interpretation.
P: In order to tackle difficult reading material, a person needs to look within. Surely, there will be
at least one detail or piece of information that stands out, so grasping on to this and following
that detail can help the reader understand the text. It can also reveal information about
themself, because the information that they understood can carry some weight or meaning to
their inner self. Its the inner-truth taken from the difficult reading that is important, not the facts
themselves.
M: Like Nikki, I spend a lot of time when faced with difficult readings for my research. After all,
Rome wasnt built in a day. I first read through the text once, paying attention to headings or
titles and think about what I understood and what I have questions about. Then I read through
the text several times, focusing on my questions, until I feel that I have a good grasp of the
argument. But most important is to remember that critical reading doesnt end with
understanding an argument. Just as philosophers do with their predecessors texts,
contemplating the topics of these works and eventually coming to some conclusion about them
is arguably even more important than grasping the argument made.
E: I find it essential to understand the structure of a work before trying to take it in as a whole.
Many of the structural choices the author makes, whether conscious or otherwise, influence
what and how they are able to convey about their information and insights. I also find it helpful
to think about an issue other than the one the work is covering and identify whether or not I
understand the authors ways of seeing the world and the assumptions they make based I what
I think they would think about that issue.
N: Scientifically speaking, everything is structured for a purpose. Even the structure of the
universe has a purpose; we as scientists just need to find it.
M: That may very well be true. There is a lot of structure involved in any historical writing and it
is often chronological to the time period.

C: Lets turn now to history. Melanie, this should be something youre excited about.
M: Its my passion and my career!
C: Is inference from historical documents a fair or accurate way to gain information about a
culture? If we can never truly know, is guessing worth it?
M: The study of historical documents is a very fair and accurate way to gain information about a
culture. In fact, it is, or at least should be, a key way to learn more about a culture as the culture
of a society is defined by its history. For instance, one could learn a lot about American culture

by studying The Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, who, by the way, were heavily
influenced by the Ancient Greeks. Even scientific discoveries can show the innovation and
ideology of a civilization.
E: The answer to this question depends greatly on what the goal of the exercise is. If gaining
perfect truths is the only way to knowledge then all pursuit of knowledge is futile and flawed so
of course its not worth it. But if gaining some imperfect truths is the goal then all guesses are
worth it. And of course the most helpful part of doing this research is practicing arriving at partial
truths and then acknowledging that they are imperfect. Its something that is hard to accept
about the truths that weve built our modern societies on, but the more practice we have in
seeing the imperfect foundations other civilizations were built on, and the more we see our
knowledge as subjective, the easier time we will have at seeing the artificial barriers our society
has constructed around knowledge and truth.
N: As I see it, historically distant documents are the only way we can progress as a culture and
is thus an accurate way to get information about a society. The historically distant documents
have hard truth in them, something that was a part of a society that we can look at and be able
to take results from. Like as Melanie said, it is hard fact that the Constitution was created by the
founding fathers. We can use these results to make new different hypotheses about our world.
Although we may never know the true answer we can always make highly supported
conjectures that can be assumed true by science.
P: Using historical documents may be valuable to learning hard facts about societies from the
past, but the learning will be limited. Documents are often structured and concise, so it would be
difficult to extract any information relating to people or their worldviews.
C: Can we attempt to compare what we think we know about historical societies to our own?
E: As long as we are clear that our own biases and preconceived notions will inherently bias our
inquiry and render all judgements subjective at best, comparison can be beneficial. Even if it
yields little in the way of true knowledge about whatever historical society it helps us think about
our own society and what is different, and, perhaps more importantly, what is fundamentally the
same.
M: Even if we can never, theoretically, truly know what the people of that time were thinking,
because of the deep connection our current society has with its past, it is, nevertheless, very
important to study it.
P: I agree with Melanie that guessing can still be worth it. Studying historical documents may
not teach us a lot about the people from the past, but it can still teach us something about
ourselves as we compare our society to the little information we can gain from the documents.

C: A question that is always on my mind is the best way to conduct an interview. As people well
versed in the arts of interviews, what tips would you give me? What are different ways to
approach a sensitive question?
N: We scientists would face the sensitive question head on.That is to say, we would consider
the person itself but look at the facts that have been given to us to make a reasonable
response. For example, a sensitive question asked at the Fred Hutch would be what are the
odds of patient X surviving. We cannot shy away from the sensitive question or give false
optimism, instead we have to look at what the facts tell us about their chance of survival. We
must step back and look at the bigger picture at what cold hard facts we have rather than our
own personal opinion. We must see what can reasonably be said or done.
E: The most important part of answering a sensitive question is keeping in mind that there is no
absolutely right answer to any question, and that everyone will have their own perspectives on
what is true and what is not. Its also important to keep in mind all of the ways that societal
influences can narrow the ways that we view certain issues, making some taboo and others
cliche.
P: When conducting an interview, it is important to keep in mind what you can learn about
yourself by hearing others tell you about themselves. Inner-truth can be found through multiple
facets, and its not necessarily selfish to notice what you can learn about yourself from others.
Being careful around a sensitive question can involve keeping the other persons worldview in
mind. No matter what your own inner truth may be, it is important to remember that others may
not feel the same way. Respect for others is the best way to handle any difficult interview
situation.
M: When conducting an interview, it is important to be aware of your standing in relation to your
interviewee. If the person you are interviewing has a title, then you should definitely address
them as so until they tell you otherwise. As for sensitive questions, before asking such a
question, and before the interview, you should research the history of that person to learn about
what topics might be touchy in the first place. Based on your research, you should be better
able to determine what questions might be too personal for the topic of the interview.

C: So weve been talking about sensitive questions. If I may ask about a sensitive topic in
order to apply all of this, which methods of conveying knowledge do you think are most effective
in addressing difficult scientific issues like climate change?
E: I think that unconventional methods of spreading information about scientific problems are
necessary in order to reach the huge audience that big issues have. For instance videos and art
displays have been more successful in capturing public attention in general than academic
papers have, despite the fact that papers are the traditional means of spreading scientific
knowledge. We need to look outside the barriers to transmitting knowledge that we have
constructed and engage with segments of the population that have been ignored.

N: I entirely disagree. While videos and art displays are very successful ways to capture
attention and to communicate to a general audience, academic papers and published research
articles would be more effective. An increasing amount of research has been published about
how to best address climate change , and it maintains truth and a sense of urgency to the
situation.
P: The best means of conveying knowledge always depend on the person and their purpose.
Each person finds their own knowledge on the path to finding their inner truth. Through that
journey, they also find their own way to best vocalize their knowledge on an issue like climate
change
M: People today tend to be passionless, self-centered, and unambitious to say the least. We
can look toward past artifacts and see how earlier cultures have responded to similar situations.
Although climate change is only a recent issue, we can still seek wisdom from great
philosophers such as Socrates. Such a difficult concept like climate change can be addressed
by showing the youth artifacts of the past and showing how our world has disintegrated.
C: That concludes this weeks segment. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge with our
audience!
All: Thank you!