KNOWLEDGE AND THE KNOWER

HOW MIGHT THE CONTEXT IN WHICH KNOWLEDGE IS PRESENTED INFLUENCE WHETHER IT IS ACCEPTED OR REJECTED?

Haoues, Rachid. “ 30 Years Ago Today, Coca-Cola Made Its Worst Mistake.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 23 Apr. 2015, source

New coke is often cited as one of the Coca-Cola Company’s biggest failures. It is one of the most well documented cases of a company tampering with a well-established brand. When it was released it was hated by many despite the fact that it consistently scored better in blind taste tests. After the brief stint with New Coke, the company reverted back to the original formula, and the New Coke formula has not been missed since. That being said, recently a few years ago Coca-Cola re-released New Coke in collaboration with the Netflix show Stranger Things. I was able to acquire a couple cans of the limited run Coca-Cola produced. As someone who did not witness the hate the formula received in the 80s , I was extremely curious as to what it would taste like. The moment I tasted the New Coke, I felt underwhelmed. To me it tasted just like Coke Classic. In truth, the context is key to understanding why New Coke failed. It failed because when it was released, Coca-Cola stopped production of the original formula. New Coke consistently scored better than Pepsi in blind taste tests, and in theory Coca-Cola had a superior product. In fact, Coca-Cola had a very similar product, only being slightly sweeter than the original formula, however due to the context in which it was released to the public, perception changed. In the same way that I did not find New Coke all that offensive, the public in the 80s didn’t either. New Coke on its own was an acceptable product, however instead of forging a new identity for the company it just made consumers miss the original. Donald Keough, the then COO of Coca-Cola reportedly overheard someone say, “Yes [I like New Coke], but I’ll be damned if I’ll let Coca-Cola know that.” This only goes to show that while knowledge may stay constant, its perception changes depending on the context in which it is released.

"File: Bartolomeu Velho 1568.Jpg - Wikimedia Commons". Commons.Wikimedia.Org, 2021 source

This is an illustration of the solar system by Portugesse cartographer and cosmographer Bartolomeu Velho, made in 1568. This is one of the earlier portrayals of our solar system; most notably of all, this image portrays the geocentric model. It derives from the idea that we are the center of the universe. During this period, this was astronomy, and was considered by many to be fact. This model would later be replaced by the heliocentric model, the one most of us are familiar with. Today it is very easy to look back upon the science of centuries ago, and laugh and gloat at it. However, we are often so caught up in such, that we forget that that was the accepted science. Given the context of the era, that was the best interpretation of the solar system. Today, we have broadened our world view, and within our context, such interpretations look foolish–at least within the scientific community of knowledge.This does however bring up the question if perhaps our accepted science today could be wrong. Afterall, there are still countless things we do not understand about our universe. It is completely possible that our descendants will be laughing at the present us, wondering how we could have been so naive. Perhaps in the future, common scientific knowledge will be crushed by future discoveries. Still, to us, we would never know, in the same way that our ancestors never knew. Today there are many scientific theories that are either accepted or rejected, however their acceptance has varied depending on the context. And if the acceptance of past knowledge can change with context, who knows what will happen to our present knowledge.

Chen, Joyce. “But Seriously Though, Could You Kill Baby Hitler?” Us Weekly, 7 Dec. 2017, source

My third object is a famous image of a baby taken around the year 1890 in Austria. To the uneducated this would appear to be simply a picture of a young child filled with innocence. That is why many are surprised to discover that that is a picture of Adolf Hitler when he was a baby. It is frequently used by historians and teachers alike to show how a baby could eventually grow up to be one of the most notorious dictators in history, responsible for the deaths of millions. The context in which this image is presented drastically changes its perception. If this image were shown to someone who knows little history then their perception would generally be a positive one, as babies are often seen as cute and innocent beings. As soon as the image is contextualized however, one would be hard pressed to find someone who did not share disdain for such an image. However, this image can be contextualized even further. One can most certainly presume that baby Hitler was not the antisemite we know him as today. However, we still know that the baby in the image is Hitler. Is the person in the image the same person who caused the Holocaust? Such questions regarding identity both physical and spiritual still remain points of debate.When given the historical context, this knowledge would be sharply rejected by many, however there would equally be those who would accept it due to a lack of context. One can most certainly presume that Hitler’s parents did not foresee their child becoming the figure we know Hitler as today. Perhaps, this may happen to someone in the future, perhaps the next Hitler has already been born. And while their parents may take pictures and admire their innocence, it would still be the same person. Just like this image of baby Hitler, context would determine the acceptance or rejection of such knowledge.