It’s one thing to imagine something. It’s another believe it, and yet another to know it. The first step is relatively straightforward: you go from merely picturing something to yourself to thinking that’s “how it is”. I can imagine a beer in my fridge. But it’s much nicer to think there’s a beer in my fridge. Ideally, of course, I would know it. How would I do that?

Well, first of all, while I can easily believe there’s a beer in my fridge without there actually being one there, in order to know it, there has to actually be one in the fridge. My belief, we might say, has to be true. But I also have to have a good reason to believe it. Merely very strong wishful thinking doesn’t count as knowledge, even when it happens to be true. And no amount of good reasons will do if what I’m thinking about isn’t actually the case.

Those three different mental operations are useful to distinguish: imagining, believing, knowing. They are all modes of thought, I suppose. But they are distinct modes. Each can be done well or not so well. I encourage you to practice all three.

A great many things are known to us, but how do we know them? What does it mean to be able to know? What does it take to know something?

There is, first, of course, the question of what it takes to learn something for the first time. But is there not also some skill or talent that is required to keep knowing? We sometimes talk about “maintaining” a position, as in, “I have always maintained that social life is predicated on recognition.” We can ask, “maintained” how? Maintained in the face of what forces that might render the position unserviceable?

The general answer, I would think is: in the face of criticism. So, the ability to know something is the ability to engage with criticism without losing belief, truth and justification. That seems about right. It merely traces the outlines of a competence, to be sure. But I think it’s important to think of knowing as an ability, not merely a state.

The university is supposed to be the institution in society where careful thinking is the norm. Ask yourself, therefore, how often you sit down and think carefully about something. Perhaps more importantly, instead of just assuming that this is something you do, try to describe what “careful thought” means for you in practice. What activities does it typically involve? What does it feel like? How do you know that you’ve been thinking carefully for the past 10, 30 or 60 minutes?

Does it require equipment of any kind? Is it something that you associate with other activities like reading and writing? If so, why?

What occasions force you think carefully about something? How often do they arise?

Also, what are the typical consequences of careful thought? Does it generate ideas or beliefs? Does it undermine your previously held beliefs? Do you associate “thinking carefully” with “changing your mind” or with “coming up with something to say”?

Finally, does your position as an academic support your ability to think carefully? Turning this question back on yourself: have you made optimal use of your conditions to foster care in your thinking? Have you organized your work to allow you to consider matters of concern to you and your peers in careful and thoughtful manner?

Lots of questions. I’ll take up some possible answers in subsequent posts.

Here are some things that students should learn while at university:

• what a “seminal” article is
• what a review article is
• what peer-review involves
• how to find scholarly work on a particular subject (hint: use the library)
• how to check the truth of a factual claim
• how to cite other writers
• what a paragraph is (and how to write one)

If you are a university student and you don’t know some of these things, I encourage you to start learning them. If you are a university teacher and suspect that many of your students don’t understand these things, I encourage you to devote your next class to introducing them to them.

There is, literally, no level of university education where complete ignorance about these things is acceptable or understandable.  (Obviously, if you are a university teacher and don’t know these things, then it’s time you did.) There will of course be degrees of mastery and understanding. I’m saying that students should be developing these competences from day one. And their incompetence on any given day should therefore be graded accordingly.

It has long seemed to me that the social sciences are much too concerned with the innovation of theories and methods, as if our ignorance stems from deficiencies at that level. I’m not sure that’s really where the problem lies. I think our methods and theories are, by and large, fine. What is needed much greater care in their application to the problem of knowing. Indeed, I think instead of developing new methods and theories I we need to strengthen our ability to use the old ones. I think we have forgotten the importance of training in fostering competence.