“ Knowledge is justified true belief.” – Plato
Every fact organized into our knowledge was once a claim, which was composed by different perspectives shaped by the temporal circumstances and then justified by the different methodologies available in the era it was presented. Considering the change in accuracy and validity of such methods throughout the years, the once solid line between our knowledge of today and the claim of the past time may be blurred. Although we believe we possess objective facts, from a different perspective gained by progress, such facts become re-interpreted in the light of new evidence, discoveries, technology or societal trends. This new knowledge sometimes makes the existing knowledge become wrong or outdated, causing the existing knowledge to be discarded in favor of the new knowledge. However, absolute refusal differs from modification, addition or correction in the sense that knowledge needs to be subject to review and revisionism over time.
Historical knowledge, which is gained basically by the study of the present traces of the past, needs revising, due to the inherent biases of the people who write history. As history can never be objective in an absolute sense and the contribution of every historian includes a subjective element to the context, every generation must rewrite its own history with the new and usually improved circumstances and opportunities it is surrounded with. As historians are concerned with describing the past as well as understanding and explaining it, historical knowledge we acquire today depends on their perception of the event, reasoning of interpretation and analysis and the language they used to account for what they had perceived. Therefore, as of with any other ...
... middle of paper ...
... nature of scientific knowledge.
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.
Throughout the play, Romeo makes very hasty decisions, a number of that lead to unnecessary consequences. Heretofore, Romeo sneaks into the Capulet Ball with Benvolio and to cover their identity they each wore masks. Capulet allows them to enter the ball, not knowing they are from the Montague family, because he thinks it 'll be amusing for his guests,and because he remembers when he young doing similar things in pursuit of ladies. Benvolio wanted Romeo to go, therefore he could see that there were other women there who were even prettier than Rosaline, however this is where Romeo meets Juliet and quickly forgets about his initial true love whom he solely desired lust for and Romeo quickly changes his timeless love he felt with Rosaline to Juliet without any remorse. Romeo spontaneously decides he has fallen infatuated all over again, this reflects Romeo’s impulsive character. “Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight! / For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.”
Investigating the Extent to Which Historians Can Be Objective ‘You have reckoned that history ought to judge the past and to instruct the contemporary world as to the future. The present attempt does not yield to that high office. It will merely tell you how it really was’ - Leopold Von Ranke ‘There are no facts, only interpretations’ – Nietzsche Here we encounter two diametrically opposed views concerning objectivity. It can be argued that “true” objectivity cannot exist, as history is more exposed to differing interpretations than any other discipline and to be “factual”, dispassionate or truly objective would be at best unrealistic and at worst impossible. Historians, in their selective analysis of the past on the basis of surviving historical records and evidence, draw conclusions, which must necessarily be subject to their own individual interpretations – interpretations that are in turn subject to the historians’ own individual ideologies.
ABSTRACT: Imre Lakatos' "methodology of scientific research programs" and Alasdair MacIntyre's "tradition-constituted enquiry" are two sustained attempts to overcome the assumptions of logical empiricism, while saving the appearance that theory-change is rational. The key difference between them is their antithetical stand on the issue of incommensurability between large-scale theories. This divergence generates other areas of disagreement; the most important are the relevance of the historical record and the presence of decision criteria that are common to rival programs. I show that Lakatos' rejection of the incommensurability thesis and dismissal of actual history are motivated by the belief that neither are compatible with the rationality of theory-change. If MacIntyre can deny the necessity of dispensing with the historical record, and show that incommensurability and the consequent absence of shared decision criteria are compatible with rationality in theory-change, then Lakatos' argument will lose its force, and MacIntyre will better honor the intention to take seriously the historicality of science. I argue that MacIntyre can dissolve tensions between incommensurability and rationality in theory-change if he is able, first, to distinguish a sense of the incommensurability thesis that preserves genuine rivalry between theories, and second, to show that the possibility of rationality in theory-change depends not on the presence of common decision criteria, but on the fact that traditions can fail by their own standards. After reconstructing and examining the argument, I conclude that the notion of a tradition's "internal failure" is coherent, but that it leaves crucial questions about the epistemology and ontology of traditions that must be answered if MacIntyre's proposal is to constitute a genuine improvement on Lakatos.
Remember when it was published that Pluto is no longer considered as a planet? I remember that our physics teacher was really angry about the fact that in space agency discarded the fact that was known and generally accepted by the general public. In my essay I will discuss how the “old” knowledge was affected when there were new aspects of particular knowledge discovered. I will focus on two areas of knowledge: The natural sciences and the arts and I will ask myself: To what extend can new knowledge contributes to abundance of old, generally recognised facts?
Knowledge is something that can change day to day, which can be learned through both the natural and human sciences. Knowledge changes in the natural sciences when an experiment is conducted and more data has been gathered. Knowledge changes in human sciences when patterns are recognized in society and further tests have been conducted. Does our knowledge of things in the natural and human sciences change every day? I think that our knowledge grows everyday but does not necessarily change every day. The areas of knowledge that will be discussed in this essay are natural and human sciences. In History we can see that at one point something that was considered knowledge then transformed into different knowledge, especially in the natural sciences. However, in the past, due to lack of technology, it might have been more of a lack of knowledge that then turned into knowledge on the topic.
In my view, knowledge is relative and can be changed at any given time. What works best one time may not be correct a second time. Before the 1300's, man believed that the sun revolved around the earth; for man, at that time, this knowledge worked best. After the 1300's, humans began to see that, actually, the earth revolved around the sun. This idea wo...
If knowledge didn’t evolve, then according to what was once ‘accepted knowledge,’ the Earth would still be flat. This evolution however, was only possible due to the inherently flawed means by which humans pursued this so-called knowledge. The statement we will be addressing throughout this essay – “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” – has a key word; “accepted.” When people accept something as knowledge based on unreliable principles, then it is bound to be discarded tomorrow. Because of the flawed ways of knowing, our knowledge is also flawed and therefore should always be challenged to ensure it is accurate and reflective of the objective world. Various disciplines – science and history– along with their associated knowledge claims will be examined closely throughout this essay to assess whether knowledge should in fact be discarded.
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
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.
Though the past may bring "a revival and restoration of the misery"(Limerick 473), I believe it is necessary to know and study our past. Through this essay I shall explain how knowledge of the past helps improve the quality of future output, satisfy our human thirst for knowledge, and understand certain polices and regulations.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
The claim is true but it has its exceptions,since both areas of knowledge contribute to understand the past in order to create the future ; evidence is the essence of both fields. History has clearly developed into an area of monumental importance. History is merely a compilation of evidence left. Historians beat history into something acceptable from mainstream values. This degradation of knowledge is also apparent in both human and natural sciences. This quote is examined and it is evident that both history and science change, first distorting the facts in order to shape it into the conventional opinion, and slowly change as society is changing. It is important to keep in mind that there are at the very least grains of truth in almost every historical account or scientific breakthrough.
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
This essay will discuss differences in motives which have driven ancient and modern science, arguing that 17th century alterations of power structures led to the ultimate division between modern and ancient science and the eruption of modern science as it is today. Comparisons will be drawn regarding knowledge accessibility, prevailing philosophies and ideologies, and the relationship between science and the church.
The issues that are raised in this source by Marc Trachtenberg are is whether or not objectivity is still a relevant idea, and if it is not then is history in fact dying. Keith Jenkins' "What is History?," Carl Becker's "What are Historical Facts?" and Richard Evans' "In Defence of History" will be used to discuss and examine these issues.