As new knowledge is introduced, we choose whether to accept or disregard these new claims based on our current beliefs and the values we hold. We gain knowledge through our perceptions, emotion, and we also utilize language and reason in doing so. But because of the subjectivity taken place, we can never really claim what we know is actually true. However, we must also take into account that knowledge can’t really be discarded rather we can make modifications for it to be improved especially in the area of history where we take into account the different perspectives presented and in natural science where new theories are frequently being introduced. History is an area of knowledge that helps us understand past events through gathered evidence from over time.
History provides information of the past and how small events can lead to large scale ones but if the information given is falsified or wrong it may cause inaccuracies in knowledge. Natural science shows us how knowledge must be tested before being discarded an... ... middle of paper ... ...ethod we learn to further knowledge to increase our understanding. Those in power may try to do this for beneficial or even unethical needs but knowledge cannot easily be fully erased from history, traces will always remain and it is our job to find it. Some knowledge can withstand the test of time due to this and thus are always changing little by little in order to obtain a better or a more complete truth. Therefore in conclusion “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” is an accurate statement as shown from the areas of knowledge history and natural sciences.
Knowledge goes beyond the regurgitation or memorization of facts, and knowledge claims can either be justified with experience or simply an understanding. Different areas of knowledge have different methods to either build or falsify knowledge, as the method of justification differs between these areas of knowledge. There are perspectives to support building facts around knowledge, while disagreeing with the neglect of facts that were previously held as knowledge. These perspectives collectively create opposition for the areas of knowledge, science and history. Both science and history are subject to changes in knowledge for facts may sometimes be discarded, built upon, or distorted to prove an opinion or theory.
Some people wish for concrete evidence to prove or disprove an idea or belief and through this can arrive at what they believe is knowledge of a topic. Through the study of History, the Natural Sciences and the sensory perceptions, we will see that an idea or belief, which is held to be knowledge one day, can be discarded or altered in the years to come, between which there is a major difference of conservation and destruction. The natural sciences can be seen as areas of knowledge that consistently discard hypotheses and also change them. However in contrast can it be seen that the study of history is able to discard more or less knowledge? Along these lines how does this knowledge link to the areas of knowledge within the study of history?
The major knowledge issue is whether or not the knowledge can be trusted if there have been instances where something accepted and known to many has been discarded. This being said, the natural and human sciences face problems with the way knowledge is obtained and how absolute it is. These fields test the extremes, in natural sciences technological limits, and in the human sciences moral limits. The real question is how far do we need to go to get absolute knowledge and reach a point where that knowledge will never be discarded.
Once Peter Berger said Flexible here can be explained that history might be changed over time as the evidences developed.. We can say they're not discarded, but rather, the old theories simply were assimilated within the new theories and "evolved." The knowledge is also apparent in both the human ... ... middle of paper ... ...o be true until now since there are no objection or revolution towards it, so far. This might give me a statement that knowledge is not provisional when there is not objection or revolution towards the theory itself. But later in future it could be provisional when the development of new concepts about the theory is made and proved. With all the things I have mentioned above, I can then conclude that history and natural sciences proves to be a provisional knowledge.
That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow. I am agree with the claim but first it is important to clearly understand the claim stated. The word ‘accepted’ means that the knowledge needs an approval from the society or maybe the government in order to be announced as the correct one. But the word sometimes proves that not all knowledge has an expiration date and is being discarded as some might stay. When the knowledge is said to be discarded, it does not certainly mean that the knowledge is lost, forgotten or ignored but it is used as a base to emerge new theories.
History and the natural sciences are two areas of knowledge where past and present conceptions reliabilities determine if they will stand the test of time. How can we know for certain whether or not the present’s conceptions will remain constant and on what basis should we decide to discard knowledge? History plays a major role in our personal knowledge base of the present. Though problems begin to arise when personal values and opinions are included in our views of events. This introduces the element of Bias that dictates a subjective view rather than an objective one.
“ 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.
In the end, I hope to give an answer to what task the future and the past plays in the two areas of knowledge. Firstly, I want to discuss the word “task”: Do history and human sciences each serve one purpose only? I think that an area of knowledge has more to it. We use its methods to answer questions we might have or to find solutions to problems in order to ultimately know more about our own existence. An area of knowledge therefore has multiple tasks.