One way of knowing?

Today's discussion in class made my partner and me think about how to separate the ways of knowing. The more we talked about it, it seemed that there is no one method for knowing at a given time. If your way of knowing is emotion, you obviously have reasons behind those emotions. Looking in the reverse, blind hatred could be the reason for one's knowledge. Take George Bush, for example. I am sure that there are many people who simply hate this man because it is the popular thing to do, whether they will admit it or not. Because of this, they are also inclined to disagree with some of the President's other measures, with this dislike as their only reason. Even skepticism can be based on instincts, intuition or common sense. Is there any method that can really be isolated?

Also, going back to what Hannah Osborne said today in class about the effects of drug use, is there really anyone who believes that drugs or any other substance can be a source of knowledge? The effects of these is more like a dream; they are your own thoughts that may or may not be enhanced due to drug abuse. Personally, I don't see how opium seeds were able to give Samuel Taylor Coleridge his literary works out of thin air while damaging countless other people's lives, but that may just be me. Knowledge is transferred in one way or another through brains, not dried up leaves, pills, drinks, etc.

emotion

Going back to what we were talking about in class about ways of knowing, I think sometimes one way of knowing can lead someone to change their other ways of knowing and persuade othersw. A good example could be Hitler. He had so much hatred that he believed that what he hated should be hated by everyone else. When he began his rise to power, people put faith in him as they had nothing else to put their beliefs in due to their loss of everything. When he became Chancellor, Hitler became an authority figure therefore helping emphasize his persuasion into making people believe his idea of a "perfect society". People believed him till the end and people still do think he was right. This I think is a good example of how ways of knowing can go wrong. People can be so headstrong not only about their beliefs but their emotions that it seems to be the only thing they think is right. Sometimes I think people question what we think is right for ourselves instead of what we think is better or right for everyone around us.

Common sense is used so often because, as you said in many circumstances that is the only knoledge we posses on the subject or that is just the first knowledge that we think of. And to answer your other question, no. common sense is never your only way of knowing. In every circumstance immaginable from cleaning dishes to advanced physics you are always able to re think your basic instinct/knowledge. no matter what, humans have the abbility to go back over how they came to a conclusion and decide if that was the appropriate coarse of action. that is the diffrence between humans and animals while we are able to think through situations animals must relie on their instincs to live.
p.s. i have trouble with spelling

Common Sense?

I wanted to answer one of Mr. Perkins questions from class about the strengths and weaknesses of common sense. I believe the class concluded that it's weakness is that common sense does have some exceptions. We also mentioned that one of its strengths was common sense is a good place to start to base your knowledge, when it is all you have. However that made me wonder, is there any situation in which our only way of knowing is common sense? It seemed that it was a controversial way to acquire knowlegde, so why is it used so often?

Erik makes a good point about common sense. Unless it's instinctive you can't know whether someone has been taught the same things as you or if they've been taught to perceive the same thing in a different way. In treating something as common sense, even allowing it to be called societal common sense, you assume that you share the same view. This indeed is exemplified in the movie; the man who says "Everyone knows that the people who live in those slums are no good" assumes that everyone shares his learned perception of urban poor. I would now append my earlier statement by qualifying instinctive common sense as common and societal common sense as based on assumptions rather than fact.

Common sense/movie

I think it's definitly true that common sense can be divided into instinctive ideas and ideas motivated by enviornment, but I think it's important to consider that all "common" sense varies drastically from person to person. Wheather because of different natural instinct, different cultural tradition, or different environment, every individual has their own idea of what is "common sense". The problem is that by declaring that something is common sense, someone implies that their idea of common sense is the only correct view and should be naturally held by everyone else.

This ties into the issues with prejudice in the movie. The reason so many people displayed such passionate views and could not understand why anyone would have a different perspective is that they assumed that their idea of "common sense" was the same as everyone elses. Prejudice often originates from assumption that something is common knowledge without enough information. A lot of the time, there may be a fine line between common sense and bias.

Prejudices...and some other stuff

The prejudices of the various jurors (which we defined as any prior judgements they may have brought with them) clearly play a significant role in the case's progression. In response to Mr. Perkins' question on the topic, I believe prejudices can be useful in many instances but can certainly be quite the opposite in others. It all depends on the weightiness of the situation and the ability of the one making judgements to recognize and understand the tendencies in him/herself.

In more trivial circumstances, it may not hurt to base judgements on preconceptions, but in 12 Angry Men, the seriousness of the verdict to be reached makes it much more crucial for the jurors to look beyond personal biases and avoid any oversights. (They obviously don't all do that immediately though). Predispositions based on past experiences can be beneficial so long as their holder is not, as Ryan said, completely blinded by them. He/she should know that there are always exceptions to generalizations and should remain able to set prejudices aside and examine a situation from an objective standpoint. If that can be done, then prejudices can often be utilized as a viable starting point. Stereotypes, after all, are always derived from some truth. However, inferences really shouldn't be made without complete certainty, especially in a case with the kind of impact the one in the movie has.

Another thing I'd like to point out after all of the class discussions we've had about knowledge is that it's important to realize that the jurors do not, by any means, have to know that the boy is innocent to acquit him--they just must not know that he's guilty. Unless they're absolutely certain that the boy killed his father, they're really obligated to declare him innocent according to our legal system, though I kind of doubt that that principle is taken completely literally...how can we really know or prove anything?

Re: What is common sense

I definately agree with your classifications of instinctive and societal common sense, but I don't necessarily believe that true common sense must transcend all social/provincial lines. "Common," after all, as a term in itself means shared by two or more people. I'm not saying only two people have to be in accordance to make something "common sense" but I think if something is held in general consensus it can still be considered true common sense--albeit for only one large area (eg, eating out of the trash is bad).

Regarding the idea that we discussed in class that "people elsewhere may enjoy running over people with their cars," that seems to be an exception rather than a common rule. But if we were to consider whether such a rule existed in a different culture (something differing from what we see as "right" in the US), that seems to be an argument against moral absolutism, rather than one against common sense.

To bring together the movie and our discussion, im going to ask the group the question that i believe Einstein came up with.....is common sense just a collection of prejudices?

What is Common Sense?

Or rather, what is common? Today's discussion, while touching both on intuition and instruction, lacked a clearly stated definition of what we mean by "common". For common sense to be absolutely common, it must be something that transcends all societal boundaries. In transcending these boundaries, it is therefore not generated by society but rather generated from within or through experiences basic and frequent enough that all people would have them [falling hurts]. Common sense must be instinctive, or else it could not be common to all people.
But if that's common sense, what do we call these seemingly basic ideas like "eating out of the trash is bad"? These ideas must not be described as common sense, or at least without the modifier of "societal" common sense. Just as it seems common sense that "driving is best on the right side of the road" here, a trip through Europe would show just how far from common that idea is. Consider a society in which leftovers are not kept and perfectly good food is disposed of right after a meal, [ironically similar to our own wasteful system...] would the same perception of eating out of the trash exist?
Common sense therefore exists in two categories: instinctive common sense, and societal common sense. Instinctive common sense is learned through response to rules absolute to all people, such as momentum and metabolism. Societal common sense is learned through response to rules common to a given society, driving on the right and putting inedible food in the trash. Perhaps an awareness of this distinction will allow us to communicate our ideas on the validity of common sense more clearly.

the movie

i believe that this movie displays how our judicial system SHOULD work today. That one man can overcome the prejudices of other jury members and convince them otherwise. The case obviously had enough evidence not to convict the kid because of reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the prosecutor MUST have a good enough arguement coupled with evidence and facts to CLEARLY show that the accused is guilty....that didnt happen here.

This movie also displays peoples preconceived ideas about the accused...even when he faces going to the chair! Some jury members believed that because of the kids background, his neighborhood, his past, and the stereotypes of ruffians, that he DEFINITLY killed his father, without even hearing the evidence they assumed he was guitly. In my opinion the 12 jury members represent the question, are your beliefs chosen? Either a belief can be automatic (the 1st guy to vote not guilty) or some choose not to believe because they dont want to believe (the other jury members).....o and by the way, this is victor

12 angry men

i think it's interesting that so many people in this movie seem to be able to blindly believe the worst of the defendant just because of some shaky evidence. any reasonable doubt is enough to acquit him...and from the evaluation of evidence that the main guy provided, there's some significant doubt in my mind at least. what this movie is trying to show, i think, is that even though the "system" is supposed to fair to everyone and consider all aspects of a trial, human prejudice is unavoidable. i guess i'm trying to say that no matter how allegedly foolproof the system is, because it's run by people it can't really be perfect.

Hello Everyone

Hi everyone this is Lawrence.

I only have one comment about the movie twelve angry men. The movie portrays both the strengths and weaknesses of the american judicial system. It showes how that not everyone partakes in the process of serving as a jury member with the open mindedness that one is supposed to have. There is no way around. As I am sure we will discover as the year progresses, there are many times when people are so set in their ways and beliefs that they can blindly stare reason in the face and dismiss it. I think that maybe was the point of us being shown the movie, so that we may all realize how closed minded at times and not ever realize it. I hope everyone learns from this movie, including myself, and keeps an open mind throughout the year.

Unreasonble doubt?

I think that the movie is interesting and addresses some interesting questions about the legal system and "true" knowledge. Unfortunately, it's kind of sobering to think that people (not just in a movie) are not willing to take some of their time to really, truly think about the life of a young man. With the exception of the lone juror, the other eleven jurors were unwilling to really think about all of the possibilities -- they instead based their decision on their own prejudices and because they believed they had other, more important things to do. It is truly the responsibility of the jurors to debate and discuss the situation, and then make an assessment on ANY reasonable doubt. As a juror in that situation, I would be seriously be thinking about whether or not I could sleep at night knowing I sentenced an eighteen year old kid to death after a fifteen minute conversation.

As far as prejudice and personal experience, I think its bound to have an impact on any court case -- or for that matter, on any decision in life. Despite these prejudices, it is important to learn to fairly assess the situation without being completely blinded by prejudice (like the angry juror). Personal experience can also be useful, although it is not something that someone should base an entire decision on. I think prejudice and experience will always influence your opinions -- it's just important to be open-minded.

oh and this is Ryan btw

Hi, everyone, it's Hannah. First of all, I really want to agree with Jill--it is a frightening thought. If the one man had not defied the status quo, the jury would have come to a hasty and potentially incorrect verdict which would have sent an 18 year old man to the electric chair. Just to answer one of Mr. Perkins questions, I don't believe that prejudice is ever helpful in the court of law (ideally, of course, justice is blind, but we see that this isn't always the case). What is helpful is background knowledge, preferably objective, although personal experience can come in handy as long as it does not infringe upon the bearer's ability to make rational decisions.
In this case, prejudice was not a good way of knowing the young man's guilt because it was simple, boorish prejudice: He must be guilty because he is from the slums, has lived around violence, and so must be prone to violence himself (remember the Broken Chain???). Once the jurymen heard this one tidbit of information, their minds were closed to anything else which may have swayed the case.
Just to add a bit more thought to the subject, I want to quickly bring up some information about human emotion. There is a part of the brain called the Limbric system, which is responsible for emotions. The part of the brain responsible for rational thought is located in the frontal lobes (the Limbric system is near the center). When something happens to a person, the 'knowledge' of this enters into the brain around the medulla oblongata. The signals have to literally pass through the brain to reach the frontal lobes where they can then be analyzed rationally. That means that in most conscious circumstances, the signals have to pass through the Limbric System (think of if someone accidentally bumps you in the hall. Within milliseconds, you think: 1. ow 2. why the heck did they do that?! jerk. and maybe 3. it wasn't personal; they are probably running to get to class on time). What happened in this movie is that only one of the jurors was able to think rationally about the verdict; everyone else was caught up in emotions and prejudices. They were literally rushing their thought process and one was actually genuinely more concerned about a baseball game than a life. As the movie climaxed, more and more jurors allowed their thought process to move away from the Limbric System and into the rational part of the brain. There were only a couple of people still stuck in the Limbric system when we ended, and they looked and acted like fools.

Prejudice in the Judicial System

It is interesting that a couple of the jurors allowed personal prejudice to affect their beliefs in a trial. Prejudice has no place in the judicial system but cannot be avoided. If jurors do display their prejudice it should not affect if they think a defendant is guilty or innocent. They should stick to the facts and base their decision off of facts, not prejudice.

Mildly Entertaining

The start of this movie was very good in terms of the one man standing up to attempt to save the boys life and then his arguments and those contributed by others are outstanding but as soon as they have been presented the movie goes downhill. I believe at the point they are at there is no doubt there is enough reasonable evidence for an acquittal so everything henceforth is just obnoxious and unnecessary banter. The knowledge they have of the case is definite and they just need to end the movie and let the boy go.
Ben "Big Poppa B" Pflederer

The reason why I enjoy this movie so far is because its a call-out to the people we encounter everyday who do not understand modesty and humility. There are too many people who achieve a certain status in life, whether they were given that position or they earned it on there own, that turn and look down on others once they realize their position. The movie illustrates these people as weak and shallow skinned. Many of the men are caught up in words and left to realize that life is not as simple as they convinced themselves to be. The movie also displays a great variety of personalities among many men with similar physical characteristics. One would think that perhaps to illustrate the diversity of the actors would be with different ethnicities, however they use other characteristics instead which keep the viewer uncertain of how each person is going to act as well as using our own prejudices to place our judgment on the film.

by the way this is keane mossman

Riding the fence????

I think that the prejudice that some of the jurors employ forces them to make assumptions and overlook several important details in the case. However, their prejudice is sometimes based on personal experience rather that being conjured from thin air....so their opinions cannot be completely overlooked even though they are biased. Using the personal experiences of these men to condemn the boy is just as risky and as likely to be incorrect as using the personal experiences (acknowledging his purchase of a duplicate knife from a local pawn shop as valid, relying upon his mini testimony about living near the "L" train, etc.) of the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" in order to maintain the boy's innocence. From a legal point of view, the boy should be considered innocent until proven guilty...however with the type of trial he received...the jury was ready to convict him and reluctant to delve deeper into the evidence. So far the "not gulity" gentleman has provided reason to doubt the boy's guilt.....but has yet to completely convince me of his innocence.

response to mr perkins

Why is prejudice not a good way of knowing in this instance? Can prejudice ever be a useful way of knowing?

Many jurors automatically think the boy is guilty just because of his background, from "slums". Prejudice is not a good way because it does not target everyone. Some individuals are different, one of the jurors is also from "slums". In most of the cases, prejudice might be true. There are more crimes in a "slums" background. It can be a useful way of knowing if used correctly.

What role has personal experience played in the knowledge of the jurors? When has personal experience proved to be a faulty way of knowing and when has it proved beneficial?

Personal experiences are often used in their argument. Some played a beneficial role: the old juror relating himself to talk about how the old witness might just want attention and give false information; a guy bought the same kind of knife as the one said to be unusual. Personal experience also played a faulty way: one juror being an executor, deeply desires death, he think people from "slums" all deserve to die; another guy, relating to his own son, think they are all the same.

Do you think the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" proved, to your satisfaction, that there is reasonable doubt in this case? Why or why not?

He did prove that there is a reasonable doubt, but he still can't explain all the problems beside using the word "possible". He does have many good point, such as the accuracy of witnesses, the knife, the time it took to finish the crime, the possibility to forget the movie's name under emotional burden... etc.

These are my opinions so they might not be right.
~Yilun Wang

Congrats, and questions

Congratulations to those who are getting signed up on the blog! Now, let us hear from you!

I have seen some great comments and questions so far regarding the movie. Let me ask a few more...

Why is prejudice not a good way of knowing in this instance? Can prejudice ever be a useful way of knowing?

What role has personal experience played in the knowledge of the jurors? When has personal experience proved to be a faulty way of knowing and when has it proved beneficial?

Do you think the gentleman who originally voted "not guilty" proved, to your satisfaction, that there is reasonable doubt in this case? Why or why not?

THE 11 Angry Men and Piglet

I personally first thought that this movie would be another one of those "Law and Order" movies where they just figure what happened, but after watching a major portion of it, this movie is definitely one of those movies that question the ethics of not the individual but the ethics of the society upon which we live. There is definitely flaws not just in the government we see before us, with there whole system of determining the life of another, but there are traumatic flaws in people themselves, with their continuously selfish personal pursuit, and in the process they disregard the well-being of the society present. This is truly evident in the movie, or rather what I hope is the case.
PS: please be the case

Hello

Jill here. So I'm really liking this movie so far. I personally think it's frightening, how 11 of the men were--at the beginning--certain that the young man was guilty; he nearly died as a result. Only one of jurors disagreed out of reasonable doubt and ultimately led us to view this case as notably shaky. Without his dissent, the case wouldn't have been questioned, and the men would have left with the "knowledge" that they put a guilty man to death. This seems to lead to the discussion we had the very first day; how do we arrive at true knowledge? The jurors undoubtedly thought they knew of his guilt (two of whom still do), and it seems they may be wrong. I'm not even sure that witnessing an event taking place can lead to sure knowledge; the witnesses to the murder, after all, seem possibly to have been wrong in what they saw. Am I making sense? It was an interesting thought, in any case.

Hey This is Kat, is there anyone else posting????