The Impermanence of Knowledge

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

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

| The study of knowledge: What constitutes knowledge, the nature of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible

Many people of 20th century though, turned for truth in the logic of science. It had made many things simpler for them and had offered them a better standard of living. Even so, as Cat’s Cradle demonstrates, their is both a good and evil side to science. When it is used with careless negligence, the results of manipulating nature can be formidable. It is a tool, and must be used with respect for others. Because of this, there is ultimately a limit to the truth many people search for in this field; although we can advance through science and exploration, it doesn’t take into account human ethics and morals. It therefore doesn’t offer meaning, and it doesn’t offer happiness. One must search for those realizations from

Imagine in 40 years, human beings and aliens live in the same planet, a huge scientific and cultural revolution must occur to interchange the knowledge and ways of pursuing and interpreting knowledge between the two living things. In order to peacefully live on the same planet, there must be some consensus towards methods of interpretation for the community to accept new theories and reject old ones. In the essay by Dr. Minos Talgia in The New Yorker, the author describes a community where the old theories like general relatively and quantum physics are rejected, methods like the Hypothetical-deductive method is also reject. Instead, the community comes to a consensus to accept all theories by the aliens in the empirical science, which is

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Do you agree?

Different realities also exist within different areas of knowledge. Therefore, it can be said that the appraisal and consequent classification of the true value of produced knowledge can not be limited to the degree of difficulty with which said knowledge was produced, and

Knowledge, in itself, is nothing. It can even be a burden we are gathering tirelessly and than we carry it through a lifetime, climbing obstacles, overcoming challenges, our knowledge barely helping, and sometimes pulling us back instead.

Knowledge is defined to be facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. There are two categories that fall under knowledge; personal knowledge and shared knowledge. Shared knowledge refers to what “we know because.” It can also be defined as communicated and constructed knowledge; within culture, social norms, and semiotics. Personal knowledge refers to “I know because.” An expanded definition of personal knowledge refers to personal experiences, values, and perceptions. Shared knowledge changes and evolves over time because of methods that are continuously shared. It is assembled by a group of people. Personal knowledge, on the other hand, depends crucially on the experiences of a particular individual. It is gained

Throughout the course of history, scientific discoveries have led to the birth of new knowledge. Humanity’s increase in knowledge has helped to achieve new heights of understanding in a variety of fields such as medicine, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. While some of these achievements in science can generate much prosperity, some technology has created significant amounts of controversy. The Honors 2400 class entitled The Chernobyl Incident has granted me over the course of the semester the opportunity to analyze these scenarios and understand the challenging questions that are associated with the pursuit of knowledge. From many examples discussed in class, I understand the importance of limiting knowledge, the discoveries that humanity should or should not pursue, how individuals pursue confined questions, and who is ultimately responsible for approving or disapproving of these scientific questions.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

Through the constant pursuit of knowledge, people began to put a greater emphasis on empirical evidence rather than religion and its faith in the unobserved, and parts of these sacred texts began to be ignored and upon the discovery of new contradicting information, even re-interpreted. In the Age of Enlightenment (1600-1800), there was shift from accepting traditional beliefs to challenging them. This raises the knowledge question, to what extent has knowledge in the natural sciences become more objective and less dependent on religious knowledge over time?

Disagreement may aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences because disagreement leads to new discoveries. Disagreement is about gathering reliable knowledge as well as using this newfound knowledge, and occurs when a group fails to reach a consensus over the logic of an argument. Knowledge is composed of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Two areas of knowledge that are impacted by disagreement are human science and natural science. Human science is the study of human behavior and how humans gather information. Natural science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world. In order for a disagreement to occur, one must be familiar with the subject and have his or her own prediction that is different from the norm. Therefore, to advance knowledge in the areas of human and natural science, people must disagree. The roles of logic, reason, and emotion will be investigated to see how they are used to help gain new knowledge in both human and natural science.

Knowledge can be accepted or refuted, hence what determines accepted knowledge? I believe ‘accepted knowledge’ is that which has been tested whereby sufficient evidence has been collected to support certain knowledge claims. However, it is important to consider times when knowledge has been refuted. Despite strong belief that we possess objective facts, through research and technological progresses, such facts become re-interpreted in light of new evidence and discoveries. Personally, discarded knowledge refers to theories or laws being dismissed as new-found information proves more accurate. However, knowledge can also be amended as it is evolves. Knowledge is often discarded or amended due to technological progresses or changing social trends. Taking both a natural and a human science in IB, I feel that knowledge is more readily discarded in the natural sciences whereas in the human sciences knowledge is amended as certain theories evolve. This suggests that knowledge is not static hence leading to the main knowledge issue which will be explored: “To what extent is knowledge within the human and natural sciences provisional?