"Men in Black" on Knowledge

During one of our discussions on the nature of knowledge earlier this semester, I showed a clip from the movie "Men in Black," where Tommy Lee Jones' character makes some comments about knowledge and the way people handle knowledge. Unfortunately, the only individuals who offered any comment in class couldn't seem to move past their (apparent) excitement about the movie itself. So, with a little more time, knowledge, and thought under our collective belts, I thought I would offer another opportunity to comment on the clip.

Trying to convince soon-to-be Agent J (Will Smith's character) to join his agency, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones' character) says to him: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever 'known' has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it....Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Click here to see a video of this scene, as well as some other clips from the movie that the person who posted this on YouTube describes as "...important knowledge scenes you need to see...."


Issues & questions to consider:

1) What does the word "know," in the various forms used in this quote from the third sentence on, mean? Is it referring to knowledge as philosophy has traditionally defined it?

2) Does the word "know," as it is used from the third sentence on, mean the same thing as Agent K's use of know in the second sentence? What do you make of this apparent irony?

3) What does Agent K's statement imply about the nature of human knowledge? Is it progressive? Is it provisional? How would you describe the nature of the knowledge claims Agent K refers to from 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, and 15 minutes ago?

4) What does Agent K's statement imply about the value and/or validity of "consensus gentium" (or "common sense") as a basis, or "good reason," for claiming to know something?

Real DaVinci Code?

Questions & issues to consider:



1) How credible do you find this theory to be? Why? What is the basis for your judgment?

2)What would it take for you to be able to say that you know that this is, or is not, the true DaVinci Code?

3) What do you believe about the claim, any claim, that there really is a DaVinci Code? Why? What is the basis for your claim? Are you willing to say that you know that there really is, or is not, a DaVinci Code of some kind? On what basis?

Catbert on Knowledge

For a larger version, simply click on the comic strip above.

Questions & issues to consider:

A) In the third frame, Catbert says, "Stress is just another word for knowledge." What does this comment imply about knowledge (e.g. its nature, its basis, its consequences, etc.)? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

B) In the fourth frame, Catbert asks the quintessential TOK question, "How do I know that?" about his (her?) statement from the third frame. But are there any frames in the strip that the question would not apply to? What does this say about the nature of knowledge, or knowing?

C) What do you make of the mantra that Catbert recites in the next to last frame of the strip? What do you conclude is the artist's message here? Do you agree or disagree? Why?