In this area of knowledge, I believe that the philosophy of knowledge should be absolutists because I believe that there should only be one accepted fact for a specific aspect of science. If there are several accepted facts/theories in this field of science, then chaos and confusion would exist among the world. An example would be in Physics, more specifically Newton’s law of universal gravitation, which says that all things on this earth will be brought down due to gravity. In the case that there are other accepted theories in relation to the theory, then there would be no one exact explanation of why things are brought to the ground.
Second, in human/social sciences, the philosophy of knowledge should be evaluativists because this area of science is rather open to a lot of interpretations, and to an extent opinion based. Specifically, the in study of psychology, there are no rules rather there are only theories. If a person is feeling depressed, there is no one reason of why the person is experiencing depression; perhaps there are a lot of theories that can be applicable to the person, yet there is only one that fits her situation.
Third, in art, I believe the philosophy of knowledge should be relativist because art is very opinion-based. People around the world have different opinions on certain types of art work, and no one person’s opinion is accepted. In the field of art, all of the people’s opinion have a little say: an example would be the Mona Lisa, since a lot of painters consider this as a very fantastic art work, however not a lot of people feel that way. When I saw the painting, I didn’t feel the overall uniqueness in the painting; the only thing that was good was that her eyes followed you wherever you go. I also overheard a lot of people saying the same thing, from different cultures and backgrounds.
Fourth, I believe morality should be evaluativist because there a lot of rights in this area, but only one can be the “more right”. An example would be the RH BIll, wherein this issue has been a very debatable one in the Philippines. Some people would say that this is not right because it goes against the Catholic beliefs of the Filipinos, however others say that it is just, given the population problem we are currently experiencing. In the end, there is only one right— to pass the RH Bill for the betterment of the country.
Lastly, I believe that religion should be relativist because one cannot say one religion is better than another. Furthermore, in religion, people are entitled to their own opinion and one cannot say that this opinion is wrong (in relation to issues affecting/regarding religion). An example would be the opinions of Roman Catholics on the RH Bill— not all Catholics in the Philippines are against the RH Bill; others see it as a step towards the welfare of the country, and sees the need for it to be implemented. In addition, the anti-RH Bill Catholics cannot say that they are wrong because each Roman Catholic Filipino has the right to say what they think of the issue.