But this still doesn’t entail knowledge. Knowledge requires truth, but the future’s truth value is undefined. The events in question have yet to occur, and thus whether or not they will occur is questionable. So, any one of these future events could be true or false. Thus, the truth value is undefined. If the truth value is undefined then the belief is not true. If it cannot be true then it cannot be knowledge. Instead, since we can be justified in our future beliefs, the most we can obtain is a justified belief. Thus, the artists are correct we cannot have knowledge of the future; we can only have justified beliefs.
The fact that we can only have justified beliefs about the future is enough to show that the scientists are incorrect. To justify
…show more content…
This actually makes a lot of sense. The artists’ view intuitively follows how we think of policy analysts in the real world. Naturally, we understand the inability to have knowledge of the future to be problematic. The truth holds power over us, and as a result we naturally go towards. But, when we cannot obtain the truth we become anxious in our decisions, as we are unable to obtain certainty. Now, since most decisions policy analysts make are in situations of relative uncertainty, they desire a way to supplement inability to have knowledge of the future, so as to make sure that the decisions made will still be good decisions. So, the artist adds to the sciences, to make it even better. Due to this artists take two additional things into account. First they look at the context of the decision making process, and second, the analysts look at, and are expected to understand moral claims. Now, I will show that this is case, that artists give us an accurate picture of how we understand policy analysis.
First, we understand the analyst to make use of science. This we find to be intrinsically in the makeup of an analyst. In fact, the cost benefit analysis seems to be the most recognizable tool of the analyst. It would seem crazy to us then that the analyst was without science. I doubt that we would even consider someone an analyst if did not make us of science. But, even in artists view, the analysts still makes use of the scientific methods; he is just not reliant on them. Thus, the artists’ view still makes usage of science, and is consistent with how we understand policy
...one, D. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton, 2012. Book.
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.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that suggests that the goodness of an action is dependent on its consequences. When we consider the two areas of knowledge from a utilitarian perspective, ethical judgements would be made based on hypothesis by weighing potential advantages against consequences. But are results alone a well-founded basis to raise ethical limitations from? This is problematic because in the sciences, it is often difficult to foresee the implications of scientific research; likewise, in the arts, it is seldom possible to anticipate what messages the audience will attain from a work. Furthermore, when unintended effects in either area arise, ethical considerations may often be re-evaluated. Adhering to utilitarianism, conflict exists between limiting knowledge production from the beginning or moving forward and risking repercussions. When viewed with reason, utilitarianism is a practical method of judging ethics because we are generally concerned with not only gaining knowledge but how it is a...
Charles Lindblom in the Science of Muddling Though identified two methodology in formulating policy - the Rational Comprehensive (Root) and Successive Limited Comparisons (Branch). There are numerous differences between the root and branch decision-making methods for policymaking; root (rational) decision-making starts from basic issues on every occasion and builds from the ground up, whereas branch (successive limited comparison) begins with the current situation and changes incrementally. The linear or rational model presents policy-making as a problem solving process which is sensible, objective and analytical. In the model, decisions are made in an orderly manner starting with the identification of a problem or issue then ending with a set of activities to solve or deal with it. Charles Lindblom is critical of the Rational Comprehensive Method (Root) of policy process as simplistic and difficult to apply when dealing with complex issues (Lindblom, 1959, p. 79). He advocates that there is logic of “muddling through” the process rather than identifying all the issues, collecting al...
In The Science of “Muddling Through”, the author explained his theory on how policy-makers handling complicated circumstances or situations by coming up with an idea on how things should work, or improve any situation step by step when he mentioned “list all related values in order of importance”, “possible policy outcomes could be rated”, and “outline all possible policy alternative”. These three steps require an amount of time and collecting a large data, which make a decision to be faultless in a short period of time is just impossible.
...ledge in both the arts and the natural sciences. However, they are limited differently in art and natural sciences area. In general, for natural science, the ethical judgments more depended on social judgment. Because of the product as the result of an ethical issue is measurable, as long as the product is way more valuable than the ethical issue, this issue would be ethical. In other words, if the product is not as valuable as the ethical issue, this issue would be unethical. However, in the art area, because of the product as the result of an ethical issue is hard to measure in terms, the ethical judgments are more depended on the personal judgments. Which the personal judgments are mainly depended on three different parts: the position of a person; the educational content of a person; and the emotional judgments. They are all related and none of them is absolute.
Knowledge has always been a parameter through which human progress has been measured, Knowledge could be an aspect gained from a fact or a situation present. The production of knowledge relies on different ways of knowing, sense perception, emotion, reason and language. The production of knowledge differs from each human being leading to acquiring of personal knowledge and contributing to the shared knowledge. Society also plays a role in influencing the production of knowledge through various judgments that it passes on the manner in which knowledge is produced. Ethics is a set of principles which are morally right and are used to govern people’s actions and on the basis of that judgments are passed, rules made and norms are established. This leads us to the issue : to what extent does compromising ethical judgement lead to useful knowledge in natural science and arts.
From the Marxist perspectives “the purpose of the intellectual activity is not merely to understand the world, but to change it”(123). Althusser expresses this Marxist conception of art as a blend of scientific and ideological elements when he says, “the peculiarity of art is to
According to Hunt and Vitell (1986)1, ethical judgment is the process of considering several alternatives and choosing the most ethical one. In my opinion, ethical judgments are the moral principles that justify the values of certain behaviors. Ethical judgments can be very subjective for different people because people use their own cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, personal perspectives and life experiences to make judgments. The question arises: how do we justify what ethical judgments limit methods in art and nature science? The way to justify and who justifies the judgments brings different results in limiting methods in art and nature science. Most of the ethical judgments reduce the amount of methods in the production of knowledge; however, a few expand the methods to create art and explore natural science. People usually use reasoning to address ethical judgments, but at the same time personal emotions also affect their judgments.
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
Both the arts and the sciences have completely different methods to create knowledge, thus the effects ethical judgments have on the arts and the science are different. Ethics limits the production of knowledge in both the arts and natural sciences, however, in the arts ethical judgments do not limit the methods available in the production of knowledge, rather it limits the propagation of knowledge. On the other hand, ethical judgements do limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in the natural sciences, because ethical judgments are self regulated in the natural sciences by reason because of the role of ethics in the methods.
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.
Art and science (to be more specific, natural science) are essential parts of our society and areas of knowledge, as are ethics. One must wonder what impact our ethical judgements, our decisions based on moral principles, have on these two. Our morals are the laws and standards that we make and believe in. Ethical judgements often limit the production of knowledge from the natural science as well as from art; however, art can be born out of ethical judgements. Ethics are often deeply involved in anything we do and in much of our knowledge. We ask ourselves if something is ethical or not based on one system of morality of another. Individuals who are proficient in the natural sciences often confront ethical roadblocks that seem to hinder human innovative progress. The same has been and continues to be seen in the arts. Artists are often tempted not to follow through or even begin with projects that they believe to be immoral according to their own beliefs or the beliefs of others. Such art is often censored if it ever is produced; however, it is our morals that allow us to create art and separate it from the rest of the world. Our ethical judgements limit and create much of the art that is (or could have been) around us today.
Often, scientists are tasked with the role of providing evidence to support theories or to predict future outcomes based on scientific research. This methods or research are usually accepted in natural sciences like chemistry and physics. This is because unlike social science, they usually use formulas, well laid out structures and methods (Guttin, 2012). However, when it comes to social science, researchers usually work using theories by formulating hypothesis, and researching to prove or disapprove the theories. When doing this, social science researchers usually become advocates in certain circumstances. This paper highlights some of the pros and cons of scientists becoming advocates, and gives examples of when social scientists become advocates and situations where they observe objectivity.
"The method of political science is the interpretation of life; its instrument is insight, a nice understanding of subtle, unformulated conditions."