The following essay is my response to the International Baccalaureate's Theory of Knowledge question title option for 2021-2022: "Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge." I chose history as the additional area of knowledge, as there is often debate concerning whether science or history is more important. All rights go to IB for this prompt and the subsequent triggering of my thoughts and opinion.
-
Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
It
was the intellectual Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who once declared that “science and
technology revolutionize our lives, but memory, tradition and myth frame our
response.” He compares two areas of human knowledge that shape who we are and
model our future – the natural sciences and history. This essay is hence aimed
to discuss the justification of the former area of knowledge as being regarded
more highly than the latter. Justification is an essential quality of a
knowledge that is defined as a justified true belief; the act of solidly
justifying involves reasoning for an argument that is well-founded. Moreover,
when one regards a certain knowledge “more highly” than another, one underlines
a value that is derived from the certainty, accuracy, as well as usefulness of
that certain knowledge. Value in natural science stems from the reliability in
its empirical methodology as well as from its ability to solve tomorrow’s
problems. In history, the fact that knowledge is created through the
interpretation of the past cultivates uncertainty and misunderstandings, consequently
undermining its value. Thus, knowledge in the natural sciences may be regarded
more highly than that of history due to its greater accuracy, implications, as
well as relevance to the modern world.
First,
concerning the natural sciences, there is indeed solid justification for
regarding knowledge in this area more highly than that in history, because of
its increased reliability and bearing to our world. Generally, scientific
theory is developed and validated by using empirical methods, which necessitate
the direct and present observation of real life. Specifically, through
inductive and deductive reasoning, the scientist makes broad generalizations
from specific observations, and then utilizes this to forecast specific and
defined results. Scientific knowledge therefore stems from unequivocal and
upfront evidence. The empirical methodology of science also requires peer
review, in which people collaborate and check one another’s ideas to expand
knowledge. This essential aspect of the scientific method, aimed to limit any ambiguity
within the scientific community, is underlined in essence by prominent thinker Isaac
Newton’s quote, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of
Giants.” All these factors hence contribute significantly to an area of
knowledge that, due to its methodology, is quite dependable. As a real-life scenario,
in the issue of climate change, scientists have used inductive reasoning to
conclude that the earth’s climate is changing through natural processes. The
validity of this was then tested by applying deductive reasoning by
specifically observing how the burning of fossil fuels accelerate the change in
climate. Thus, the scientist can conclude that human (non-natural) activity is
necessary to explain the current change in climate, since it cannot be
explained merely by natural processes. Through this methodology, one can begin
to understand a potential threat to mankind through the forecasting of results,
illustrating how scientific knowledge touches upon issues and predicts those
that are most grave and relevant to civilization while also suggesting
solutions to them. It is thus justified that natural sciences can be regarded in
a high esteem.
While
there is good justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences highly,
it may be prone to a lack of reliability – scientific methodology is sometimes susceptible
to erroneous data and exploitation, thus possibly undermining its value. Mathematician
Jacob Bronowski once said: “Science is a way of describing reality; it is
therefore limited by the limits of observation, and it asserts nothing which is
outside observation.” He implicitly points out the inevitability of ‘bad’
science potentially affecting society negatively. Particularly, scientists may
manipulate the standard scientific process of drawing conclusions; some may
deliberately create specious knowledge to seek financial gain or simply fame. Therefore,
the ability to exploit the method in which one creates science implies that scientific
knowledge sometimes cannot be regarded so highly. As a real-life example, pseudoscience
can perhaps be seen as the Achilles’ heel of the natural sciences; it appears like
actual science on its surface, but none of it is scientifically tested through
inductive and deductive reasoning. Some elders in my own extended family, for
instance, believe in astrology, because it is part of their popular culture. This
attractiveness of pseudoscience permeates widespread belief, offering people,
like some of my family, a flawed view of the world and ultimately an ignorance
to the truth. However, my argument here is limited; pseudoscience technically
is not true empirical science at heart. In the end, knowledge in the natural
sciences is founded – just like what Bronowski stated – on the principle of
observation, which is nevertheless more of a strength than a limitation.
Regarding the area of knowledge of history, there is
solid justification for viewing it as less highly that scientific knowledge, in
that it is inherently uncertain and thus more unreliable. Literary critic Paul
de Man articulated that “The bases for historical knowledge are not empirical
facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or
revolutions.” The methodology in acquiring historical knowledge hence involves
the historian identifying specific sources, like text, regarding historical
events and then put them into context, linking events to create historical
trend. However, what subsequently arises is the historian’s interpretation of a
particular historical source that becomes exposed to their personal bias, implying
disagreement between historians and in due course unreliability. This creates a
difference in perspective, wherein it would seem that each historian has their
own version of the past. On this justification, it is apparent that historical knowledge,
because of its underlying doubt, cannot be regarded in a high esteem. There are
several illustrations of historical uncertainty due to the actuality of
contradicting perspectives, one for instance being the ambiguity over the true
cause of the American Revolution. The typical textbook perspective asserts that
the American Revolution was caused by several exploitative British impositions
which eventually angered colonists, while many historians may argue that it was
caused by events like as early as the French and Indian War. Therefore, the
ambiguity and possible paradox that multiple perspectives provide in history
make it harder for one to know a definite truth and have historical knowledge
that is entirely objective. Rather, the subjectivity of history undermines its
‘high’ regard.
However, there is some justification that historical
knowledge can be regarded ‘highly’ if one were to consider how humans utilize
it to learn from their past mistakes. Philosopher George Santayana’s once said
that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” There is
effectively no present without a past, and it is history that is the knowledge
of the past. Santayana underscores how history allows one to understand the
patterns of human civilization, and one can use this to their advantage when
considering the future. As such, the pertinence of history in terms of human
affairs gives it some value to bear in mind. As a real-life scenario, slavery
is a historical topic from which humans have both benefited from and been degraded
by. Through events like the American Civil War, people began to understand the
unethical and dehumanizing nature of slavery, and so humans have naturally
moved away from it. Humans have therefore learned from their past mistakes; it
is most probable that slavery will not be practiced again because of the
adversity it has caused. These standards and patterns that historical knowledge
cultivate model humankind’s future, justifying why history may be highly
regarded. Nevertheless, Santayana did also assert that “History is a pack of
lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.” Thus,
the inherent unreliability in history perhaps overshadows its value here.
The question itself of whether there is solid justification
to regard knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than that in history retains
some weaknesses. The question would be better answered if the wordage “more
highly” were to be communicated in a less ambiguous manner. The diction in
“highly” connotates superiority, so the question assumes that one area of
knowledge is perhaps ‘better’ than another. However, this is not an appropriate
way to characterize an area of knowledge; evidently, the view of one area of
knowledge being unassumingly superior to another is a subjective and
controversial argument that will likely not have “solid justification.” Therefore,
I have interpreted “more highly” to describe value in terms of the rigor of
scientific knowledge compared to historical knowledge. This way, providing
“good justification” for my argument – being in favor of knowledge in the
natural sciences versus knowledge in history – would be more achievable.
Knowledge in the natural sciences is created through the direct
observation of the world and is subsequently quite accurate. Dissimilarly, knowledge
in history is created through one’s interpretation of a source from long ago
and is as such frequently contentious. This is solid justification for the
argument of regarding scientific knowledge “more highly” than historical
knowledge. Nonetheless, while science may be seen as a more certain and
overshadowing area of knowledge compared to history due to its reliable
empirical methodology and vast applications, it has its cons – its methodology
is limited and prone to misusage. This is the same case in history, in which
the inevitability of countless perspectives on a historical issue due to a
historian’s cognitive bias creates uncertainty. Thus, history is perhaps less
approachable than science. Still, history allows us to see ourselves as before
in order to shape who we are now and who we will be – it creates precedent that
humans build off of. It is apparent that there is some justification for why
history can be regarded more highly than science, but there is solid
justification for why science can be regarded more highly than history.
Bibliography:
“Quote
by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.” Goodreads,
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1199803-science-and-technology-revolutionize-our-lives-but-memory-tradition-and.
Newton, Isaac. Received
by Robert Hooke, England, 5 Feb. 1676, England.
Bronowski,
Jacob. “Science is a way of describing reality; it is therefore limited by the
limits of observation, and it asserts nothing which is outside observation.”
Man,
Paul de. “Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary
Criticism.” Literary History and Literary Modernity, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, 1971, p. 165.
Santayana,
George. “Reason in Common Sense.” The Life of Reason: The Phases of Human
Progress, vol. 1, London Constable, 1906, p. 284. Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/thelifeofreasono00santuoft/page/284/mode/2up.
“Quote
by George Santayana.” Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/650898-history-is-a-pack-of-lies-about-events-that-never.
Comments
Post a Comment