Essay on What Classifies as Common Knowledge in Science and History

Science should not be seen as a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the organized analysis of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a means of examining nature. In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. There are other ways of learning knowledge about nature; nevertheless science is the only way that results in getting hold of of reliable knowledge. Dependable knowledge is material that has high viewpoint of accuracy because its certainty has been defendable by a reliable technique. Reliable data is called standard correct idea, to distinguish reliable facts from belief that is false and unjustified. Every person has beliefs, nonetheless not all facts is steadily true and acceptable. Science is a method

Facts are statements that are indisputably true. Truthful statements are authentic because they are widely accepted to be accurate and fit reality. When answering the question “given access to the same facts , how is it possible that there can be disagreements between experts in a discipline?”, one must consider the definition of an expert. For the sake of this paper I am defining an expert as someone who excels in their field , and constantly evolves their knowledge as their field progresses. I believe that disagreements between experts when presented with the same facts, occur because of bias. Bias is a sway towards one side or view of a situation or statement. Therefore I ask , how does someone’s personal bias affect their interpretation

Experts in the same discipline typically agree with one another as they have the same facts and knowledge. However, when experts disagree with one another in the same discipline, it may cause contradiction between experts. Disagreements come in many different forms such as different opinions, facts, how one perceive things and one’s standard of right or wrong. In certain disciplines, such as history and art are filled with a multitude of disagreement as the two area of discipline are bias and subjective. Thus, different experts may see things differently in one discipline which can also be called area of knowledge. In history, self-serving bias and historical revisionism can alter the interpretation of evidence and influence the perspective

The general definition of science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments. On the contrary, it is much more than that. Much like art, it holds a sense of subjectivity. It is an abstract paradigm that requires the input of one’s personal beliefs and values to help it progress. It is much more than just facts and theories of how the world works, but also a prime representation of the ethics and beliefs of the scientists that help mold it today. Science is a database for factual knowledge on the natural world, furthermore, it also incorporates the environment it has created. The environment consists of the particular people, behaviors, and struggles of the scientific community. Even though science incorporates many thoughts and ideas, it does not contain other ideas. Science does not hold a moral category. It does not define what is considered right and what is considered wrong. It merely provides information on certain ideas for further understanding. Any theories and applications of it can lead to other subjects. This idea also applies to what the acquired scientific knowledge is used for. Even though the ideas of complexity and subjectivity are present in both science and art, the concept of aesthetic should only be important for art. Despite requiring organization and general cleanliness, science does not need to pass the eye test. Science should be represented through proper data and its analysis and the non factual features need to have a rational reasoning. To judge or base an idea on its appeal does not equal to

In today's context, science is viewed as the "correct way of thinking" and thus the genral public believes whatever that is proven true by science only. Any topic that is not justified by science would therefore be deemed as an incorrect way of thinking.

In general, traditional knowledge adopt a more holistic approach, and do not separate observations into different disciplines as does Western science (Iaccarino, 2003). Moreover, traditional knowledge systems do not interpret reality on the basis of a direct cause and effect, but rather as a world made up of complex web of interactions (Freeman, 1992). The problem is how to study and analyze traditional knowledge and belief systems.

Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.

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

I chose this question since it has actually stayed with me for the whole TOK course. I found it very difficult to find a link, for example, of perception in math or how reason could fit into art. A network suggests that more than one way of knowing can collaborate within another in order to gain knowledge in a particular Area of knowing. The statement implies that not using a network of WOK to gain knowledge is unwise. Thus, I wish to examine how we best acquire knowledge in Natural Sciences and History. My two central knowledge questions are, how reliable is it to use only one way of knowing in one Area of knowledge in order to gain knowledge? and Is it essential to use a network of ways of knowing to acquire good knowledge?

Knowledge can be defined as information gained through sense perception, emotion, language and reason, while it is defined by Plato as “justified true belief.” The claim that knowledge takes the form of a combination of stories and facts is however not accurate in history and biology. First, it brings up the questions of what are stories and what are facts. Stories are accounts of past events from somebody’s perspective, while a fact is the truth. When looking at the two areas of knowledge, they each favour one side of the combination over the other. For example, knowledge from history mostly takes the form of stories, while knowledge from biology mostly takes the form of facts. This distinction between the different types of knowledge leads to the knowledge questions of “How do we obtain knowledge in the different areas of knowing?” and “To what extend is knowledge in certain areas of knowledge subjective or objective?”

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?

The nature and process of science are a collection of things, ideas, and guidelines. “The purpose of science is to learn about and understand our universe more completely” (Science works in specific ways, 3). Science works with evidence from our world. If it doesn’t come from the natural world, it isn’t science. You need to be creative and have flexible thoughts and ideas if you want to be a scientist. Science always brings up new ideas and theories and if you aren’t flexible to those ideas you can’t be a scientist. Science has been in our world for a long time. It is deep into our history and our cultures. The principals of science; are all about understanding our world using the evidence we collect. If we can’t collect evidence on something we simply cannot understand it. If we don’t understanding something about our world, science says that we can learn about it by collecting evidence (Science has principals, 4). Science is a process; it takes time. You don’t immediately come to a conclusion for your hypothesis a few minutes