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”

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,


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


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


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.


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


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

Documents

TOK – Science Essay