“What evidence is there to prove that new ways of thinking about what is already known leads to new facts?” “What are the justifications that discovering new ways of thinking about known facts is more important?” The two concepts, of discovering new ways of thinking about what is already known and discovering new facts, are correlated as knowledge is derived from both, one leading to another. I agree with claim because in most situations, discoveries by one person tend to be built upon the discoveries of another person and so forth. By discovering new ways of thinking about what is already known, new facts and ideas will start to emerge since a great deal of attention and depth is put into the area of interest; therefore, it reveals more details that can lead to new discoveries.
To further examine the claim, it has to be understood that the difference between the two concepts is that new ways of thinking about what is already known is referring to the rethinking of already acknowledged old concepts; however, the discovery of new data and facts is referring to the observations of completely raw information, new to man. I believe that the discovery of new ways of thinking about known facts is more important as it improves what we already have, whereas the discovery of new facts will contain a lot of faults and misconceptions; however, one may counter-argue that in order to discover new ways of thinking about known facts, there needs to be data present to examine.
Mathematics is an area of knowledge where the claim is applicable as it is a subject formed by different ideas merged and put into complex formulas. By applying these principles, mathematicians are discovering new facts through rethinking about known information. Ben...
... middle of paper ...
..., consisting of different knowledge.
In the end, I have shown that in different areas of knowledge the discovery of new ways of thinking about what is already known is more important than the discovery of new data and facts. Both concepts are correlated as one depends on the other; however, not to the same degree as rethinking of past findings has improved our knowledge about today’s world and made it more concrete by leading people, such as scientists and mathematicians, to new discoveries, unknown to man. These new discoveries are introduced by new ways of thinking due to the great deal of attention that is put in the area of interest. There is an exception to this rule: in biology, a branch of the natural sciences, new data and facts are more significant than new ways of thinking about what is already known, since theories are created through new observations.
Many scholars, researchers, and scientist claim that the greatest discovery in mankind’s history was actually made by Professor Albert Einstein and is called the “Theory of Relativity.” The reason they say this is that by being able to explain and understand how everything relates to everything else is the key to advancing or evolving our knowledge about everything. In other words if we know how a starfish relates to a star, in theory we can know or cause to be known everything in-between. So the very evolution of knowledge is at stake, never mind the methodology that is used.
Previous to the Scientific Revolution, it had been thought that the majority of truth was already known to man and that it merely required someone to explain and understand it. However, the discoveries occurring as a result of the rise in empiricism during the Scientific Revolution demonstrated that new truths could and were being discovered. Furthermore, empiricism, inductive reasoning, and scientists slowly began to replace philosophers and deductive reasoning. Men such as Francis Bacon were behind this shift in thinking.
...ned their idea and focused on a new change instead, the Copernican system. This was a good example of how scientists kept trying to study within their paradigm dimensions but instead of uncovering more normal science, anomalies were discovered breaking their old scientific tradition. As said earlier by Kuhn, as a new paradigm gains fame, the older paradigms lose members and their ideas and assumptions eventually get entirely forgotten. This is what Kuhn means by ‘mop-up work’ and how scientists strive to keep researching to expand upon the scientific achievements the community have deemed to be worthy or particularly revealing. New and unsuspected phenomena’s and anomalies are impossible to not uncover, introducing problems with the paradigm criterion and forcing scientists to possibly change their perspective on things, in time possibly resulting in a new paradigm.
Atwood takes many of today’s potential scientific developments and illustrates the worst possible outcome of what may happen if we continue the unregulated pursuit of knowledge. In reality, the scientific advances of today will yield a higher standard of living for the majority of the world tomorrow. We will continue to push for the best in everything including science, medicine, and technology; we will not allow any single person to make the sole decision to develop an idea. Scientific progression will save many lives; therefore, it should and will always be there for us.
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
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.
A significant function of science, and of everyday thinking, is to make sense of available information. Induction is the process of going from the specific to the general thereby reaching a conclusion about the complex nature of the universe from a , thus far, limited set of observations. A person uses a collection of evidence, gained through experience, and uses it to form a conclusion which is conceived to be conform with the given facts. This means the observations may be true, but because of the given limitation of observation the conclusion could still be proven false. David Hume has identified this problem of induction and deems it therefore as logically unjustifiable. It is, however, the primary form of reasoning in science and is used to attain inferences which the scientific community believes to be the most likely form of the observed phenomena in question within a current paradigm. Induction has established itself as an effective method in the natural sciences and is imperative for scientific advancement.
Since a valid difference in methodology and idea existed, the notion that the difference between science and other types of knowledge is true.
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.
When results arise that cannot be explained through the current paradigm, a new paradigm may begin to form. the new paradigm originates with new theories that are proposed as a result of the anomalies that were found. “to be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted” (Kuhn 17-18). when the new paradigm is finally accepted, a paradigm-shift occurs. the paradigm shift represents Kuhn’s “scientific revolution”. Once the paradigm-shift is completed normal science returns under the new paradigm until new set of unexplainable facts arise.
‘It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts’. To what extent would you agree with this claim?
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.
However, because of the fact that knowledge is constantly evolving and changing, knowledge that was once considered to be fact is disproven creating a scenario where the theories that we accept today are waiting to be proven wrong in the future due to advances in areas such as technology. This is demonstrated by the changing in understanding surrounding the atom. Ideas have constantly changed surrounding the shape of the atom. This can be seen by John Dalton who in 1803, built upon previous interpretations concerning Proust’s Law by determining the Law of multiple proportions . This would have made previous scientists using the older model question what they knew was actually true and that their theories had been proven wrong and so should be discarded. From this stems an issue whereby there are factors hindering you to accept new knowledge, one may believe that we can have solid facts but by time progressing, perspectives change and with that facts can become reinterpreted due to ...
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.
The history of math has become an important study, from ancient to modern times it has been fundamental to advances in science, engineering, and philosophy. Mathematics started with counting. In Babylonia mathematics developed from 2000B.C. A place value notation system had evolved over a lengthy time with a number base of 60. Number problems were studied from at least 1700B.C. Systems of linear equations were studied in the context of solving number problems.