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.
Knowledge is but understanding. How we indulge and interpret an issue is knowledge. In the pursuit of knowledge, we, as materialistic learners and knowers, repeatedly ignore crucial procedures, pro...
... middle of paper ...
...of knowing alongside areas of knowledge which engenders paramount amount of knowledge.
Numerous conclusions can be evaluated from the above argument. Walter White’s decision that changed his and family’s life forever is a factual model that if we taper the ways of knowledge, the knowledge gathered is identical, thereby, losing the potential in the circumstance. As a result, we, as grasping apprentices, are deceived by our perception. Moreover, psychologists make the finest use of all the techniques provided. Similarly, it is important that we make advantageous use of all the ways of knowing so as to benefit from finest acquaintance. Areas of knowledge and ways of knowing are paired; one is required to implement fallouts from the others.
“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.”
In the “rational approach” of knowing, knowledge is “not worth lingering over, meditating upon, remembering, and returning to” (Jardine, 2008, p. 1). In the previous paragraph, one example I brought up is the idea od research and I brought up a question of “why are we doing this”. I think teachers are using this kind of learning approach because it is efficient, saves time and easy to manage. In the article, Jardine emphasises the idea of whiling, which is taking time and making relations. However, whiling takes up too much time and it is less efficient. While pondering with this idea, I asked myself: why are we rushing learning? I think that teachers use rational approach because they were pressured by the government with a static set of curriculum standards. Ultimately, knowledge is political, never innocent and always has a purpose. I asked my self, what is the purpose of education in rational approach of education? By combing the previous readings and this article, I concluded that education is to achieve the final outcomes set by the society and to prepare the future work force (Bloch, Swadener, & Cannella, 2014). This way “measuring time” is about the accumulation of knowledge and measuring empty singularity (Jardine, 2008,
We as humans tend to have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. We look for knowledge about everybody and everything that surrounds us in our day-to-day life. Sadly though, we must accept that in the grand scheme of life we (as a society) tend to put pleasure above our quest for knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge tends to take time and energy, two things we call invaluable, and it also shows us things that might depress us. Contrastingly, ignorance takes no time and energy.
This perception results from a combination of personal experience and social integration. Kurtz argues that there are “two kinds of values within human experience [...] values rooted in unexamined feelings, faith, custom, or authority [...] and values that are influenced by cognition and informed by rational inquiry” (73). He reveals that one can base his values on either intangible beliefs, or on logical exploration, and suggests that the latter one is more correct. However, what is right or wrong is a matter of cultural interpretation, and what is wise today may not be wise tomorrow. Subsequently, it is the way we use scientific findings that matters more than what those findings actually are. In the cloning example, the only reason safety was considered an issue is because of the belief that we should not harm a human, given that we perceive our lives to be special. Even so, Galileo was persecuted and Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for suggesting that the earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. This is common knowledge now, having had our notions evolve with science, but it does not change the way the two of them, along with many others, were treated for going against the doctrine of their time. This proves that science does influence the way we factually look at things (eventually) but that we still use it according to our deeply rooted beliefs, creating divisions and tensions amongst our own
Have you ever wondered if there is a price to knowledge that we learn and get at any cost? In the poem “American Flamingo,” Greg Pape, (see Fig.1.) he is basing his knowledge on what he knows in the painting American Flamingo by John James Audubon, (see Fig.2.) what he did not know, and showing how smart he is with the knowledge he has. The painting has caused an ethical dilemma regarding knowledge.
Knowledge is basically the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It consists of facts and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Ethical considerations are relative to one’s own knowledge, experience, and value system. According to Hunt and Vitell (1986), ethical judgment is the process of considering several alternatives and choosing the most ethical alternative. For Rest (1986), ethical judgment is the process by which an individual determines that one alternative is morally right and another alternative is morally wrong. “Broadly, ethical judgement can be defined so as to include the decision process as well as the action itself.” This essay aims to discuss the way in which ethical judgements limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and natural sciences.
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
Our knowledge is a key to our success and happiness in our life to give us personal satisfaction. Knowledge is power but not always. Sometimes our self-awareness and growth as an individual gives us negative thoughts that make us want to go back to undo it. Everyone wants to unlearn a part in our life that brought us pain and problems. Good or bad experiences brought by true wisdom can be used for our self-acceptance, self-fulfillment and these experiences would make us stronger as we walk to the road of our so called “life”, but Douglas’s and my experience about knowledge confirmed his belief that “Knowledge is a curse”. Both of us felt frustrated and sad from learning knowledge.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
The Romantic Era followed the Age of Enlightenment, a time of scientific discovery, political changes, and philosophical advancement. Romanticism challenged the rationality of the Enlightenment (Britannica). Romantic artists placed emotions above reason. In keeping with the Romantic tradition, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley challenges the benefits of science, education, and knowledge. In Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein, his creature, and Robert Walton are all ambitious; they have a desire for knowledge. However, this quest for knowledge brings about destruction to Dr. Frankenstein, misery to the monster, and danger to Walton. Shelley draws parallels to the Biblical story of the Fall; a catastrophe which befell mankind because of a desire for knowledge.
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Truth and beliefs contribute in building the knowledge of a person. Cogent reasons for the beliefs convert the beliefs into knowledge. However, sometimes the beliefs are actually assumption, so they may be wrong. Truth is the facts known from different sources. Something can be considered as knowledge, only if it is true. The word epistemology refers to studying the source of knowledge. The epistemology helps in understanding the process of development of knowledge, sources of knowledge and makes distinctions between belief and actual truth. I critically examined and analyzed the origin and the process of acquiring the knowledge for the two essays I wrote earlier. One essay, an analytical one, was written on the subject of increasing prison population and improper justice system. The second essay was written on the subject of human resource management. To develop the knowledge and understanding I demonstrated in the essays, I had to search for resources, rationalize the information gained and evaluate it in conjunction with my personal beliefs.
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.
Production of knowledge is generally seen in a positive light. However, when ethics and morality become involved in the process of production, judgements will undoubtedly be made that may seem to limit the availability of that knowledge. Ethical judgements are made by the combination of a knower, his or her standard of value, and the situation itself. In the field of the arts and natural sciences, ethics plays a crucial role in the extent one may possibly be allowed to go when discovering new knowledge. Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing that help guide knowers in making certain moral decisions.
The two fundamental components of Kuhn’s proposition of scientific revolutions are the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. He defines paradigms as “sufficiently unprecedented [theories] to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity” (Kuhn, 10). Through this interpretation, Kuhn constructs the argument that possessing the ability to convince other scientists to agree with a novel proposal serves as the most crucial aspect for establishing scientific advancement. Kuhn reasons that the task of discovering “one full, objective, true account of nature” remains to be highly improbable (Kuhn...
Voltaire said “the perfect is the enemy of the good” (Voltaire 74). In striving for a perfect definition and application of scientific analysis, Karl Popper established an impractical and ineffective approach to science. In this paper, I will discuss the premises and principles behind Popper’s scientific method of critical rationalism. I will then explain where I believe his method succeeds, where it fails, and why I consider his method both impractical and ineffective. I will do so by first explaining his thoughts on science versus the status quo, then I will take the position that his approach is flawed and impractical, and lastly conclude with a commentary on why truth has to be flexible. My thesis is that in defining highly rigid parameters