Knowledge that is acquired and accepted as true today is constantly changing. This is because we curious humans are always generating questions that spark the production of newly conceived ideas and theories. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “Men love to wonder, and that is the seed of science.” While these ideas may be accepted as relevant and reliable currently and can be useful tools for acquiring newer knowledge, it is easy to assume that pre-existing knowledge has been discarded. This is not always necessarily true, but rather that pre-existing knowledge is revisited and improved upon. With the areas of knowledge natural sciences and human sciences, knowledge is acquired through different ways, even though they are both classified as a science. With this, knowledge issues may arise within these two areas of knowledge in which a consideration of pertaining ways of knowing must be included. In the natural sciences, a knowledge issue that may stem from the statement of “That of which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” is: “How can we justify that new knowledge always causes pre-existing knowledge to become discarded?” With the natural sciences, new knowledge is constantly being formulated by information based from the results of experiments and/or new discoveries. New knowledge in this area of knowing may interfere with already existing knowledge by making the pre-existing knowledge become less valid. As William Lawrence Bragg said: “The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.” A topic that came up in a past history class of mine regarded the times of Nicolas Copernicus and Gallileo. Nicolas Copernicus used reason and sense perception ... ... middle of paper ... ...e to access pre-existing knowledge, it assists us in understanding the development of new knowledge and the evolving process of how we got to that knowledge in which we accept today. So, pre-existing knowledge does not get discarded but instead becomes built upon to improve it and allows us to understand the processes in which we arrive at our knowledge. Works Cited Bingham, Jane et al. Book of Knowledge. London: Usborne Publishing, 2003. Print. Carter, J. Stein. “History of Biology.” Biology.clc.uc.edu. 8 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 Jan. 2014 “Key thinkers on the human sciences.” theoryofknowledge.net 2012. Web. 17 Jan. 2014 “Key thinkers on the natural sciences.” theoryofknowledge.net 2012. Web. 17 Jan. 2014 Moncur, Michael. “Science Quotes.”quotationspage.com 2013. Web. 26 Jan. 2014 “Quotes on the natural sciences.” theoryofknowledge.net 2012. Web. 26 Jan. 2014
The knowledge question “To what extent do we trust the opinions of experts in searching for knowledge” is relevant to our daily lives because we rely on them for our decision making and issues regarding life and death. It is important that we are aware of both arguments of the same issue so we’ll be conscious of both opinions and using both our knowledge and belief, form knowledge.
The journey of science has come a long way in analyzing how knowledge developed over the years as it continues to expand its boundaries towards new ideas and discoveries. It changed the perspective of life and assigned different roles in our society. All the literatures that were written and the scientific data gathered through observations and performance have proven to expand the cultural beliefs of Enlightenment, which impacted how humanity is defined by. These contributions that influenced the approach of life, such as subject matters, reasoning, and society practices, has created a diversity of ideas and concepts that shaped our modern world.
Ever since the beginning of the Revolution of science, the western world has valued the scientific improvement over any other, placing scientific theories and leaders on the base above their equals in lower sectors of society such as leaders within the business sector or governmental leaders, which leads to the question: Why is it that the Sciences and theories are held in such as great respects? With the two different areas of knowledge what results and consequences, do these two different sciences utilize methods such as observation, empirical evidence and the scientific method, in the development of theories? These two areas of knowledge have key differences at their conclusion, which leads to their differences in their ways that they persuade others. In what why do the aspects vary? Are the truths established in the sciences unquestionably true? But importantly, what is it about theories in Human Sciences and Natural Sciences that make them Convincing?
Knowledge production through passive observation and active experiment are used in all areas of knowledge and has been crucial in creating knowledge for humankind. But, are passive observation and active experiment the only two ways of producing knowledge? To fully explore this knowledge issue it is essential that “passive observation” and “active experiment” are defined. Passive observation can be defined as gaining knowledge from noticing how something works, without directly affecting the process of outcome. On the other hand, active experiment can be seen as gaining knowledge through interfering and manipulation until eventually affecting the outcome of what they are studying. In other words, active experiment is observation plus the altercation
“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge.
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
To conclude, knowledge does change over time. No matter whether it derives from the original knowledge, it is evident that ‘sometimes’ they are discarded due to replacement of new theories. New details are added and sometimes, new areas open up. Therefore, even if a body of knowledge were eventually improved on, it would remain valid for most circumstances.
For many persons science is considered the supreme form of all knowledge, as science is based on facts and theories and it reaches its results through an approved scientific method. Consequently, it seems to be objective and thus more truthful and reliable. However, other persons argue that this is a misunderstanding of science. Hence, one should question what science and knowledge entail. Can there actually be some form of knowledge that overrules all other types of human knowledge? Is scientific knowledge actually always objective? Are there other types of knowledge of equal worth? This essay will discuss the views presented mainly using examples from biology and history and comparing them to the different ways of knowing, i.e. perception, reasoning, emotion and language to try and reach a conclusion on whether scientific knowledge really is a higher form of knowledge.
“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.” Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge.
Overall, this essay I have made claims that history is what makes us who we are by learning through mistakes that are regarded as to be “discarded” knowledge. When it comes to Natural sciences we cannot always look back at the discarded knowledge but rather start from it because starting from the beginning will just bring us to back where we were. “There are many hypotheses in science, which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the apertures to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.” This quotes says it all. This has led me to a new knowledge issue: To what extent does progress and our mistakes from the past allow us to come closer to truth?
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
In conclusion, after having completed a thorough investigation of the diverse perspectives for both history and natural sciences, I came up with a moderate understanding of the role of revisionism and review on our knowledge. Since our historical knowledge is influenced by bias and is limited to the extent of our tools to investigate the present traces of past, modification is inevitable. Yet, as humans carry perceptual and reasonable stability, certain components of our knowledge don’t need reassessment. Knowledge from different areas may not always be discarded or modified in the same way as well. New scientific knowledge inclines either to bring further justification to its ancestors’ claim or trash it completely. Because of these, knowledge may bot only be discarded but rather can be modified, added on to or corrected.
When focusing on the human sciences and natural sciences, one might wonder why we believe what we believe. In general, human science can be defined as a social science, or anything that deals with human behavior in its social and cultural aspects (Bastian 190). Natural science is more often thought of as "regular" science. It is an organized undertaking that focuses on gathering knowledge about the world and condensing that knowledge into scientific laws and theories that can be tested (Bastian 153). Theories in these two types of sciences are often convincing because of the observation that takes place, the empirical evidence, and the ability to put the theories and laws to the test. This knowledge by description, which is defined as public knowledge that is expressed as facts, as well as knowledge by acquaintance, knowledge from familiarity or experience, can also be contributing factors in why we believe what we believe (Bastian 18). However, there are some knowledge issues, as well as counterclaims that may interfere with someone’s belief and perspective on a certain topic. Also, some of our ways of knowing can play a role in different interpretations of theories in these sciences. These aspects can help answer the topic question of what it is about the theories of human sciences and natural sciences that make them so convincing.
According to Lowe, knowledge requires a form of action to be accurate and precise. In other words, knowledge is created on the basis of a rationally conceived design such as an experiment. Experiments are a great example of how action is required to produce or replicate knowledge. Moreover, one necessitates research and a rational design to attain certainty in his or her knowledge claim. Generally, this certainty may be achieved with an experiment. Natural sciences may be referred to as a science of the physical world, whereas a social science may be defined as a branch of science dealing with human society and relationships. Furthermore, social sciences and natural science may be distinguished by the method of their creation. In general, natural sciences usually require a form of action (i.e. experiment) to provide justification for their knowledge claims whereas social sciences don’t require action to justify their knowledge claims. An example of a method that doesn’t require action may be a case study. One may wonder which method is more reliable and accurate. A knowledge questions that arises from this situation is: To what extent is action required to justify knowledge. In this essay, I am going to examine the extent at which action is required to justify a knowledge claim. By taking both natural and social sciences into consideration. By taking personal experiences and relevant knowledge issues into account, this essay will discuss several aspects regarding the knowledge question.
Natural science and indigenous knowledge systems both build areas of knowledge in today’s world and past societies as means of gathering data, building understandings, and making deductions about life. Information builds and evolves, revising itself as new data is understood, and both reason and memory must be applied to help this understanding. As the world changes at a brisk pace, knowledge does too, and knowing as a whole reflects these changes.