How Has Scientific Knowledge Changed Over Time

Knowledge, the key to progress, has proven to be a human being’s most powerful and significant weapon. We gain knowledge when we put our brain to work at the problems we need to solve in life. It doesn’t matter what we are trying to accomplish, whether it be creating a new technology or learning how to put together a puzzle, the matter of fact is that both request great examination and research to resolve and learn. Scientific research is a technique used to investigate phenomena, correct previous understanding, and acquire new knowledge. Knowledge could lead us to a possible cure for cancer, an alternative for fossil fuels, and the creation of a revolutionary technology. Nevertheless, all these benefits are a reason why

Michael Pollan says in his argument that the western diet is chiefly to blame for a majority of health deceases, he says “the scientist who blame our health problems on defiances of these micronutrients are not the same scientist who see sugar-soaked diet leading to metabolic syndrome and from there to diabetes, heart deceases, and cancer” (421) Due to all this negative impact to our health Pollan says that the food industry needs new theories to better redesign processed food and the medical community to make new drugs to beget deceases.

Dietary decisions are frequently impressionable and can sway between generations or cultures frequently. Often these shifts in the popular beliefs about diet are fueled by scientific studies or doctors, you can simply examine the impact of Dr. Oz T.V. program or remember the popularity of the Atkins diet to see how quickly these shifts can happen. One such claim that can be found is that, high levels of dietary cholesterol is the leading cause of heart disease and obesity. Katherine Pett of Nutrition Wonk examines a trend within the scientific community in which over simplification and misrepresentation can skew work that has existed for over half of a decade.

The traditional American diet was simple, it was homemade, it was composed primarily of minimally refined ingredients, it was low in added sugars and fats, with the fats coming primarily from animal sources, and required effort to produce, by comparison, the contemporary American diet is much more diverse it's composed a lot of “palatable” sometimes artificial materials, its commercially engineered and sold, it's composed of refined ingredients, it's high in added sugars and fats with the fat coming primarily from seed oils, and requires minimal effort to procure(Pillsbury). At the same time as modern medicine is conquered the leading killers of the 19 century such as infectious diseases modern culture has created a whole new set of epidemics that we must now cure.

Proof of Student Ideas: I will quote the student, explain their misconceptions and link findings to relevant academic literature.

There are numerous counts of evidence showing the processes of evolution and how species ultimately evolved over millions of years. One of the most compelling hypotheses behind evolution was presented by Charles Darwin with his study of the Galapagos Islands. His study showing the various different birds and their different evolutions they went through to be able to survive the changes of weather and relocation. The birds he studied had to change in order to survive, or as he simply puts it: “Survival of the Fittest”. Evolution is the changing of past organisms to diversify and have the ability to fit better in their environment and survive. Diving into the dinosaur cladogram, studies have shown that ancient dinosaurs, over hundreds of millions of years ago, evolved into our modern day birds, and not lizards as many suppose. It became apparent that there would not be enough food for a 9 ton dinosaur to consume on a daily basis forever. So evolution occurred and dinosaurs evolved to become more efficient so they could survive more effectively in their

Every so often a discovery is made that attempts to shake up pre-conceived notions of how the dinosaurs actually lived or how they came to be. On June 22, 2000, in Oregon, scientists announced the discovery of the oldest known animal to have feathers. Though no records indicate how the age of the animal was determined, the

We’ve been told in the earlier years by nutritionists that some food are more healthy than others, but only to be overturned by later studies. Pollan feels that this orthodoxy is very contradicting as Americans have been assured about how having a low diet helps prevent health issues, but only to be revealed by even more professionals that these foods actually have harmful effects on health, “Sooner or later, everything solid we’ve been told about the links between our diet and our health seems to get blown away in the gust of the most recent study” (Pollan). They have been told that these foods are of no harm, yet to only acquire health issues such as obesity later in their lives. For instance, my friends tried to only eat foods that affirm a low diet, however, it has barely done anything to their health and weight. Surprisingly, these supposedly “low-diet” foods doesn’t provide the vitamins enough for the body to function properly (Miller). It has been said that low diet foods makes people want to eat more than usual because these foods are mostly served in smaller portions that make people think that they are eating

As a culture and as individuals, we no longer seem to know what we should and should not eat. When the old guides of culture and national cuisine and our mothers’ advice no longer seem to operate, the omnivore’s dilemma returns and you find yourself where we do today—utterly bewildered and conflicted about one of the most basic questions of human life: What should I eat? We’re buffeted by contradictory dietary advice: cut down on fats one decade, cut down on carbs the next. Every day’s newspaper brings news of another ideal diet, wonder-nutrient, or poison in the food chain. Hydrogenated vegetable oils go from being the modern alternatives to butter to a public health threat, just like that. Food marketers bombard us with messages that this or that food is “heart healthy” or is “part of a nutritious meal”. Without a stable culture of food to guide us, the omnivore’s dilemma has returned with a vengeance. We listen to scientists, to government guidelines, to package labels—to anything but our common sense and traditions. The most pleasurable of activities—eating—has become heavy with anxiety. The irony is, the more we worry about what we eat, the less healthy and fatter we seem to become.

The author claims how the scientific theories also benefit the medical community as well. The author quotes, “Still, medicalizing the whole problem of the Western diet instead of working to overturn it” (Pollan422). This quote argues how people talk about the Western diet as being a problem, but do not try to change it in any way. I agree with Pollan’s point, that the medical community uses this as an opportunity to promote their new medicine. People would rather spend more money in the medical industry, than trying to quit their habits of eating processes to foods. Americans would rather pay more for drugs to help prevent diseases than eating more natural food and preventing the problem from occurring in the first place. Medical communities tend to focus more of their attention on introducing their new treatment, rather than advertising on prevention of these diseases. Americans are persuaded and blinded by these advertisements, that they do not realize that this can all be prevented by a change in diet. Although I agree with Pollan’s point about the medical community, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that it is the exact same as the food industries. The medical community makes more money based on how effective the food industries’ new product is. The unhealthier the food is, the more people will have to pay to get drugs to prevent diseases.

Since I was a child in elementary school I was always interested in the sciences. To me it never seemed to matter what type; it could be space science, biology, or even chemistry that I would awe over. Without reading and writing I would never be able to accomplish the understanding that I have today about science; without it I would be in complete ignorance of how evolution and biology worked, or why baking is just palatable chemical reaction, I would have never been able to expand my knowledge outside of what the classroom taught me. I remember when I was still in elementary school all I wanted to learn about was the ocean, but there were no topics of discussion that even narrowly correlated to that subject; I was left

While nutritionism is suppose to scientifically guide us to eat healthy, Pollan points out that there is no scientific evidence to back it. Instead, he provides research conducted by Harvard nutrition scientist that proves the opposite. "In the public's mind [...] words like 'low-fat' and 'fat-free' have been synonymous with heart health. It is now increasingly recognized that low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences." (Pollan 43). In Based off these observations, Pollan uses inductive reasoning to draw the conclusion that nutritionism is more harmful then helpful.

The inductivist account of science recognizes five steps which are essential to scientific progress. First, scientists compile a large body of facts from observation and experiment. Using the principle of induction, these facts can be generalized to form the basis for a theory or law. Then, once a theory has been developed, scientists can use the theory as part of a valid logical argument to make new predictions or explanations of phenomena. According to Chalmers, the inductivist account has “a certain appeal” to it, namely, that all of scientific progress can be seen as the result of five fundamental leaps of thought (54). “Its attraction lies in the fact that it does seem to capture in a formal way

Imagine going to the doctor’s office and as you walk in, you see the doctor smoking a cigarette! The doctor continues to check you and gives you medicine that was made in the 1900s. Most people would agree that changes in scientific knowledge is for the best, but some people just won’t allow for change. For example, some people think that the Earth is flat, notwithstanding all the evidence put against them. As scientific knowledge changes over time, society has adapted to the new knowledge for the better. For instance, we have medical knowledge. If medical knowledge didn’t change, we wouldn’t know how to make new medicine. Some people like to keep to the older ways like smoking. Once in a while, there comes someone who won’t use any medicine

In the science of paleontology, the history of life is studied. Paleontologists study fossils to learn the past ecologies, evolution, and the origins of humans. In order to understand the processes that have led to both the origination and destruction of organisms since life began, paleontologists incorporate both scientific knowledge and studies. Fossil findings are critically important for confirming predictions of evolution theory. Of the many discoveries that are made yearly to add depth to the understanding of evolution, an example is a recent discovery of a creature they named Tiktaalik. The Tiktaalik was uncovered to be a transitional animal between shallow-water fishes and limbed animals. The creature supports the idea that it emerged from both mammals and reptiles, suggesting that the two are related. These findings support prediction of evolution, contradicting the belief that God