The Pursuit of Knowledge

Gumption is the attempt to have answers to for everything in order to be able to function. In other words, it is an innate need to answer things; curiosity. People try to get all these answers in vain because either way there are too many variables to assess and hence it would be impossible to attain certainty. It is towards satisfying this gumption that most of our actions are steered. It is towards satisfying this gumption that most of our actions are steered.

These newly considered knowledge tools are considered to be mistrusted or invalid ways of knowing in certain areas of knowledge. Abraham Maslow’s quote implies that we, humans, are all biased by our backgrounds and have the tendency to put forward solutions to any situations that our backgrounds suggest to us. If overly-familiar methods aren’t the only tools in acquiring true knowledge, how does the other ways of knowing, such as intuition and imagination, play a role in different areas of knowledge? Scientists tend to argue their common belief that general scientific theories and laws have always been reached through rational explanation, thereby overlooking the possibilities of intuitive and imaginary developments. It is commonly stated that intuition or emotions suggest irrationality and that scientific truth and achievements depend on reason alone.

This is due to that which can be regarded as knowledge will often be disregarded or built upon. In the natural sciences hypotheses are first created and then they undergo rigorous testing t... ... middle of paper ... ...knowledge could prove fatal to the progression of humans. Would it ever be possible however to have knowledge that cannot be discarded, since our opinions and ways of knowing are constantly changing? The closest that we may get to absolute certainty is mathematics. This contrasts to History and the Natural sciences as it relies upon variables that cannot change, allowing for knowledge that can be regarded as almost certain.

I’ll be focusing on how the areas of knowledge, history and the natural sciences to be specific, are major proponents of this concept. Knowledge has never been concrete because of the way people change their views on the histories and natural sciences. I think history is consistently recorded and “revised” by many historians, and consistently gets discarded when it isn’t necessary anymore. What is accepted universally in the natural sciences is that there is always more to be discovered when it comes to what is already known, which in turn can disprove itself. It’s important to note that we are bound by the ways of knowing, as well, because it’s about how our reason and language are used, that also result in new knowledge being formed while old knowledge becomes rendered useless.

To not only have to beli... ... middle of paper ... ...hat is known is not valuable and not beneficial, and what is unknown is original, daring, valuable and great. The greatness resides inside of us and we must excavate it through constant reevaluation of our principles and virtues, without regarding foreign influences. In conclusion, I believe Emerson’s applicable challenges can be identified as his leading arguments when concerned with individual and personal revolution. His views on religion, education, art, and society are explicated through his gifted intuitional understanding and reason. By reasoning to the reader through vivid examples which are apparent and self-evident, he creates the proof for his understanding of reason’s uses to question what we are perceived to know.

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.

In history, the past affects and changes the way we view the world around us. History is never discarded but adapted and learned from to better the future. However, we can say knowledge is not always discarded, but rather,becomes the basis of advanced knowledge. This is one of the ways that knowledge evolves. Some indifferences or obstacles in history lead theories to be “discarded” by the scientific community.

In comparison, Deductive reasoning is a more accurate verification technique, as it does not allow for ‘degrees of accuracy’. It works through verification: coherence process, which involves formulating a general law which becomes standard and by which any further examples are judged against. Eventually scientists have come to realise the methodological problems with these two techniques of verification. In an attempt to eliminate these fundamental errors, scientists have attempted to incorporate the fu... ... middle of paper ... ...s statement is essentially a misconception. I have discovered that Knowledge can be anything, fact and fiction.

Therefore, this research question is implying that knowledge which was accepted as justified true belief can sometimes be discarded tomorrow because knowledge claims can be improved or replaced by new ones. Thus, in this essay, I will explore the extent to which this claim appertains to natural science, history and ethics. I will also consider how the dynamics of these disciplines are affected by external factors. First of all, the "once" "accepted" might have had errors or replaced by new theories. However, on the other hand it would also mean that they are completely discarded because the old theories are simply assimilated into new theories.

Looking at this in a different perspective, we do not discard all the knowledge we know 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.