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.”
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.
Throughout Frankenstein it is evident that Victor and Robert express their thirst for knowledge, which often leads to destruction. Through analyzing Frankenstein it is possible to find many examples that illustrate the fact that wanting to have more knowledge can be extremely dangerous. Firstly, as Victor is creating life he is able to create a humanoid monster, unfortunately he is appalled by his creation and becomes very ill. Afterwards, when Victor is completing the female companion for his original creation, Victor realizes that this will only create more destruction. Finally, as Walton is on a journey to the North Pole he encounters difficulties that nearly kill him and his crew. This shows that Victor and Walton are repeatedly searching for more knowledge even though it is dangerous.
Scientists have greatly taken todays advantage to make what once was research, factual evidence. To be a scientist takes great creativity and intelligence, and today’s scientists even past scientists had to rely on their hypothesis as a form to make a new discovery. John M Barry, the author of The Great Influenza explains how scientific reasoning. Barry compares scientific reasoning as very important, that a scientists works “…May break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding.” This idea of his, compares what a scientists work may be with what it actually is.
The knowledge question “To what extent do we trust the opinions of experts in searching for knowledge” is relevant to our daily lives because we rely on them for our decision making and issues regarding life and death. It is important that we are aware of both arguments of the same issue so we’ll be conscious of both opinions and using both our knowledge and belief, form knowledge.
Knowledge is an addictive drug. If administered in controlled dosages, it has the ability to cure a critical illness; however, if taken whimsically and in excess, it acts as a consumptive toxin that can result in powerful suffering or even death. If this is the case, then what makes knowledge so desirable? Throughout their texts, Aeschylus and Shelley depict numerous characters in mad pursuit of knowledge, like Victor’s creature from Frankenstein or Io from Prometheus Bound. Yet, one after another, characters are propelled into an existence of utter despair because of their unquenchable thirst for new enlightenment. Prometheus Bound and Frankenstein demonstrate that the pursuit of knowledge often results in grave suffering, physically and mentally; yet, Shelley and Aeschylus’ characters cannot abandon their chases, as knowledge provides the ultimate form of individual glory, power, and freedom.
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.
...erefore we must seek to better understand it. It is unfortunate that the ideologies of the men mentioned here have still implemented themselves in our culture. While their premises are valid and vastly important in the history of humankind, one must be careful to discern what is relevant in today's society and what was the experimental leanings and philosophies of the past.
" All historical experience confirms the truth that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible."
The main relevant ideas of the treatise were the four rules of thinking. The first rule, in his own words was “never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such.” This sentence remains one of the most influential quotes in the foundation of modern science. The second rule was to divide each of difficulties under examination into as many parts as po...
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 to when discovering new knowledge. Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing that help guide knowers in making certain moral decisions. Both ways of knowing can be associated with teleological or deontological arguments; the ethics are based on either an objectives-focused or obligations-focused mindset. In this essay, I will be discussing the limitations set on both the arts and the natural sciences as areas of knowledge. To what extent do ethical implications hinder the way art can be produced or the methods involved in expanding society’s knowledge of science?
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.
This essay will show that ethical considerations do limit the production of knowledge in both art and natural sciences and that such kind of limitations are present to a higher extent in the natural sciences.
When I think about knowledge the first thing that comes to my mind is education. I believe that knowledge comes to people by their experiences in life. In other words, life is an instrument that leads me to gain knowledge. Many people consider that old people are wise because they have learned from good and bad experiences throughout their lives. Education requires work, dedication and faith to gain knowledge. We acquired knowledge through the guidance of from parents, role models, college/University teachers and life experiences.
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
The opinions of experts are handy in the search of knowledge; however their opinions are a double edge sword – The knowledge of experts act as building blocks to our own thoughts, but sometimes the experts may be incorrect, and their beliefs lead seekers down the wrong path. Experts often do this when new ideas are purposed. They may disprove newer ideas in order to stay relevant, like when evolution was purposed. The benefits that experts can provide in the search for knowledge can be important but often times are more a hindrance. Experts act in some ways as a neighbor shouting to you as you walk around the block but are not as fundamental emotion, sense, perception, and language in the search for knowledge. The opinions are useful when reasoning especially in regards to the History, Human Science and Natural Science Areas of Knowledge.