Upload
hasan-palejwala
View
118
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
TOK – Science Essay
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does
it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
In order to answer this question successfully we first have to establish a clear definition of what
the title is asking, but before this is possible we have to have a strong understanding of the key
terms and their definitions. Knowledge is an acquaintance or awareness of information and
facts. Knowledge can be acquired in a number of different ways and from different areas of
knowledge. With this in mind, the question is asking us to evaluate the claim that scientific
knowledge or knowledge acquired through science is the supreme form of knowledge. I feel
that science is not the supreme form of knowledge because it only aims to explain a very
limited aspect of the world: the natural world. Some people may argue that science is the
supreme form of knowledge, because it follows an orderly method, and it is an objective area
of knowledge whose results are always constant and unchanged by human interference. The
knowledge issues that this question is addressing are, to what extent is scientific knowledge
objective and how does this compare to other areas of knowledge, and how does our inability
to question science present a limitation in our thinking.
Our perception of science as always objective is often wrong, as scientists too are affected by
their emotions. Scientists are perceived as systemic, organized and emotionally detached from
their work, however this perception shows a major misunderstanding of science, as science too,
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
can be manipulated by emotion. An example that illustrates this is the MK-ULTRA project.
During the cold war, American became paranoid about Russia as a threat, and scientists
developed a project known as MK-ULTRA. The project involved injecting subjects with LSD and
other drugs in order to get them to perform actions for the military. It was considered a kind of
brain control. Two people died during the project and all the files were destroyed in order to
hide it. Through this we can see fear of the Soviet Union taking priority over logic, and only
because of this fear could such a project have gone forward. This is the same as any other
scientific advancement, as the idea of success can often blind a person to ignore the
consequences of their actions; where the goal justifies the means. In this sense, science is just
as subjective as any other area of knowledge as emotion is a driving force behind knowledge,
and this in turn leaves the possibility of biased results. However some people may argue that
using one off instances from the past to label science as subjective as wrong as it only shows a
minor proportion of the scientific community. Science, like any other area of knowledge is
bound to make mistakes - especially during a time of war- but to use these mistakes to ruin the
reputation of scientific knowledge is an even greater mistake on our part as science is not only
subjective or objective, but it can be both.
For us as thinkers to never question science shows a weakness in our thinking process. Our
perception of scientists as systematical and emotionally detached can lead us to blindly accept
the information they present, as we cannot think of a better explanation and we see them as an
unfaultable source of knowledge. This however is far from true, as there have been many cases
where science has been wrong. In 1869 DNA was first discovered, however for several year
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
after this, scientist believed that all DNA function was carried out by proteins. It wasn’t until
1953 that scientists fully understood the functions of DNA. For science to have been wrong for
so long about the molecule that human life is built upon, demonstrates that science, at times
can be wrong. This information however, is only relevant when we look at it as a stepping-
stone for knowledge now. We have to understand that science is not always right and that to
not question it is a limitation to our thinking. If we compare science to history we will notice
that historical evidence is questioned much more frequently than scientific knowledge. This is
because science is built upon repeated testing and observable physical results whereas History
is based upon eyewitness accounts and documents. We tend to accept scientific claims
because they are justifiable and therefore understandable, where in reality scientists can alter
hypotheses to fit results or mold results to fit a hypothesis. In History however, claims are
justified by human sources that are perceived as less reliable because of the fact that they can
change their view, whereas in science, results tend to remain constant. For this reason we are
less likely to question science and more likely to question History, as scientific justification is out
of our hands. By not questioning science, we give a false authority to science and scientists,
where anything can be done or said, because nothing is questioned. We have to understand
that if something was thought of as scientific knowledge 150 years ago, but discovered to be
false almost 100 years later, then anything we are told by science today could be just as wrong
so and without questioning we would be left with this misconception for the rest of our lives. In
contrast to this view, some people may argue that science has been wrong, but only many
years ago. Nowadays, scientists have to go through a much more rigorous process when
collecting data, they also have more advanced technology and they go out to disprove each
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
other’s findings which make it harder to make mistakes. Although it is possible for multiple
scientists to make the same mistake so the falsification process does have its own flaws.
Although science’s aim is to explain how the world works, it is limited in the fact that it only
explains the natural world. The criterion of demarcation refers to the lines that are drawn in
science. These lines limit the area’s into which science can explore. Lines are drawn between
science, pseudoscience, philosophy and religion. Therefore it has to be understood that science
is only one area of knowledge and there are many other perspectives to the same piece of
information. These lines in science create boundaries between ideas that could link together,
therefore removing any possibility of this. By creating boundaries in science we are saying that
science is an isolated area of knowledge where in fact there are many similarities between
science and other areas of knowledge. The false notion of science having a specific “scientific
method” gives the impression that scientific knowledge is collected in a unique and unfaultable
way, whereas in fact scientific knowledge is collected in many different ways. A lot of scientific
knowledge is collected through simply observation, and the same can be said for history or
economics. In this sense there is no “superior” way in which scientific knowledge is formulated.
Knowledge is just an awareness of facts and can only be appreciated if it is looked at from
different viewpoints. To state that science is the supreme form of knowledge, shows a
misunderstanding of knowledge because, you are ignoring the fact that scientific knowledge is
only one out of many forms of knowledge and can only explain a limited area of the world.
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
It is important to understand the nature of science and scientific knowledge because its
common perception can often be misleading. Science has its flaws just like every other area of
knowledge, and we need to be able to question these flaws in order to have a better
understanding of the knowledge that it provides. Our misconceptions of science tend to make
us blindly accept everything they say. We have to understand that science is not always
objective and without questioning it we give it a false authority by which anything spoken by
science becomes true. A survivor of Auschwitz can best illustrate this idea with a quote,
describing Doctor Mengele - “I have never accepted the fact that Mengele himself believed he
was doing serious work — not from the slipshod way he went about it. He was only exercising
his power. Mengele was a doctor who became mad because of the power he was given.
Nobody ever questioned him — why did this one die? Why did that one perish? The patients
did not count. He professed to do what he did in the name of science, but it was a madness on
his part”
It is difficult to decide upon any area of knowledge to call supreme, as to address an area of
knowledge as “supreme”, we concede that it is superior in every aspect, whereas in fact no area
can be superior in all ways as they all try to explain different areas of knowledge and they use
different, but also similar ways in which to absorb this knowledge. Regardless, it is clear to say
that science is not the supreme form of knowledge, but rather just a form of knowledge.
Knowledge cannot be classified as better or worse, as scientific knowledge is just as true and
justifiable as the knowledge of literature or history. Each area has its own justification and
flaws, and these have to be questioned. Almost every area of knowledge will be clouded with
“For some people, science is the supreme form of knowledge. Is this view reasonable, or does it involve a misunderstanding of science and knowledge”
emotion, as we are emotional beings. Areas of knowledge are not unique in the way the
retrieve knowledge, therefore to consider an area as having a supreme method, illustrates a
misconception of knowledge. Knowledge is all around us and by labeling superior ways in
which to retrieve this knowledge, we are limiting are own potential.
Word Count - 1595