Black White and Grey

There is a rather large difference between ‘perception’ and ‘knowledge.’ Knowledge is the black and white—the indisputable, the same words from each person’s mouth. Perception is the interpretation of the events, people, places etc.

This blog took me a long time to think about. Although I’ve always believed there to be a clear differentiation between perception and knowledge, I have never come up with concrete definitions to back my assertion. I sat down the other day to contemplate just what the difference is between a person’s perception and a person’s knowledge.

Perceiving. Interpreting. Every person’s perception is different. Because of the very fact that everybody’s perception varies, this makes it rather unreliable. Just because a person says something happened the way they say it did, doesn’t make it legitimate. Perception is disputable. Simply because one person sees something one way, does not make that the way it is. Perception is up for interpretation. Be it good or bad, perception is often a person’s immediate judgment.

Knowledge is indisputable. Knowledge is reliable. Knowledge does not vary from person to person. Fact is universal. For instance, it’s fact that George W. Bush is a Yale Graduate. However, frequently when the President is talked about, it is not so apparent through people’s perceptions of Bush that he is, in fact, a Yale graduate. Bush is perceived, it is indisputable common knowledge that he is an alum of Yale University.

With stubborn people especially, perception and knowledge often are confused. When talking with an obstinate person, they frequently turn their opinion and perception of varying events, people, etc into fact. Regardless of the validity or concreteness of their statements, they believe their word to be irrefutable.

In regards to perception and knowledge, validity is an issue. While in Psychology class with Mr. Roy, we studied court cases and memory. Often times, what a person perceives to have happened in, say, a bank robbery, isn’t necessarily what actually occurred. In one case, a university set up a purse snatching. A (hired) man was to walk into the classroom, stand for about 3 seconds, then make a dash to snatch the purse and exit quickly. When students were asked to recount the event, each story differed. Although each story is what the students perceived to have happened, it is not fact. Because perception is so unreliable, that is the very reason eyewitness testimonies in court hold minimal weight. Simply because a person perceived an event to occur in a certain way, is not fact. They do not have knowledge of what took place. They merely have their interpretation, recollection, and perception of the event.

For this class I began research on Thucydides. After being exiled, he went to veterans of the Peloponnesian War and interviewed them. Gathering all the first hand accounts, war stories, and various other information, Thucydides then began to sift through his findings. What Thucydides published is what Thucydides believed to be the fact. Discarding the misconstrued perceptions of the war, Thucydides tried to base his books on entirely truth. Only genuine knowledge of and about the war was published. Certainly around long before The Peloponnesian Wars the idea of the differentiation between people’s perceptions of events and people’s knowledge of events existed.

Majority of the time, knowledge can come without perception. Hard-facts, such as the year the first Coca-Cola was produced, is pure knowledge. It takes no perception to, when asked, say 1886. It is a fact. If you ask another person the year the first Coca-Cola was served their answer would either be right or wrong- either 1886 or another date. If the date were incorrect, the person did not know the answer.

Likewise, in order to perceive something, you must not necessarily know it. Granted, sometimes a person’s perception is knowledge. Though, by the mere definition of perception, it is not grounded in fact.

To some extent, there are different levels of knowledge. On a more practical level, I have found this out on many a test. I believed I knew the material. I though I had a good grasp on what the test was to be on, and I fully comprehended the matter. Though, upon taking the test, I realized I merely had a general concept of the material. I did not know it—in actuality I could only regurgitate facts. On the surface it would appear that I knew the material, I did not truly know it well. The most supreme level of knowledge is complete and utter understanding of the topic at hand. It is debatable whether or not this level can ever be ascertained, to TRULY have the highest level of knowledge.

Perception and knowledge- what is what? Is it even possible to know what knowledge is? Isn’t the mere definition of perception perceptual? After much contemplation I’ve created what I believe to be perception and knowledge. Perception is a personal experience, belief etc. that is subjective. A perception is not necessarily fact. The person may not necessarily know anything, merely what they have perceived. Perception is disputable.

Knowledge, on the other hand, is indisputable. As stated before, knowledge is black and white. Knowledge lies in fact; while the very basis of fact is that it is universal.

In the world, everything claim, story, statement—everything is perception of knowledge. We are constantly bombarded with perceived occurrences and knowledgeable words. It is up to us to decide what is truth. It is up to us to find the validity in the myriad of stories. It is up to us to seed through the knowledge, and the perception and create our own versions of both.