Knowledge can be described as the possession of information in a psychological form that has been obtained through reason, perception, emotion, or language; it is a justified true belief. Knowledge can be classified as solidly justified if there is adequate evidence to support it. The knowledge must be consistent with previous data and clarified with regard to language and logic. Knowledge can only have solid justification if there is no contradiction or counter-evidence ensuring the given argument is irrefutable. To be justified, the knowledge must be proven as fact.
Due to its evaluative role, justification is often used synonymously with rationality. Epistemic justification is the right standing of a person`s beliefs with respect to knowledge; although this can be defined in various ways. For example, a person`s actions might be justified under the law, or before God. People may rationalize their actions around their epistemic status, regardless of whether this just refers to the right belief or responsible belief, or whether it plays a normative or naturalistic role, it is thought of as essential when regarding knowledge.
This essay explores some of the reasoning behind regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than historical knowledge discussing the methodology used within these areas of knowledge and how this influences how people regard the knowledge. It will look at whether this reasoning is justified and if this just changes depending on the person. This essay will also discuss how the perspectives of people influence how knowledge is regarded, discussing how these perspectives come about and what changes them.
Knowledge in the Natural Sciences may be regarded more highly due to the application of research. Seeing the results of Natural Science experiments in day-to-day life would make people regard the knowledge more highly having personally experienced its effects. One example of this is the COVID-19 virus, due to Natural Sciences; a quick development of vaccinations was invented to counter the limitations set with its arrival such as quarantine. In terms of the application of Natural Sciences, the opinion of Natural Sciences depends on the perspective of the person in question. Those with the same culture would likely share the same views, and having the same morals and beliefs may mean they would act similarly thereby having similar experiences.
Culture is not solidified but is a dynamic set of customs that are influenced and affected by geographical locations and human interactions. The incongruence in culture, and thereby the inconsistency of perception, is becoming less obvious. With the production of the internet and the advancement of technology, societies, and cultures are becoming interconnected and intermingled. For example, in more traditional cultures such as China, homosexuality is disapproved of, whereas in a young and liberal global culture, it is greeted with social acceptance. With the onset of globalization, culture is becoming less and less prevalent in forming individual perceptions as humans are forming a globalized and collectivized culture. For this reason, whether there is solid justification in regarding Natural Science knowledge more highly than other areas of knowledge depends on the cultural experiences of that person in question as their culture influences what they believe classifies as solid justification.
On the other hand, some areas of Natural Science are not applicable to the workings of society, for instance, theoretical physicists. All forms of Natural Science involve creating laws and theories which take decades to prove. Theoretical physicists are dedicated to investigating these theories, one such theory is the Multiverse theory. The multiverse theory suggests that our universe might not be the only one but that there may be several entirely different universes distantly separated from ours and each other. On account of the difficulty in proving this the multiverse theory remains one of the most controversial theories in science. Often people have disproved scientific theories believing them to be imaginary due to the lack of physical evidence. Theories in physics take centuries to prove and require a deep understanding of the subject to determine how realistic and accurate the theory is. Due to the in-depth scientific understanding required to understand scientific language and theories it is likely that experts in the field would regard Natural Science highly.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Having an in-depth understanding of science may mean that society is more likely to trust the opinions of experts regarding knowledge in the Natural Sciences despite the lack of physical proof. This would be because previous scientific theories were originally believed to be unrealistic but proven over time true. For example, when Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution many believed his theory was inaccurate because of their religion and the believability of other theories at the time. However, over time more evidence came to light that dismissed these theories and proved Darwin`s theory. As stated previously, for knowledge to be justified it must be consistent with previous data. The theory of Evolution along with other theories such as Einstein`s relativity has been proven as fact over time due to improvements in technology and previously uncharted information. Therefore, Natural Sciences may be regarded more highly by the majority in society if their trust in natural scientists has not decreased.
The justification regarding historical knowledge highly depends on the methodology used to obtain the information. Historians obtain information by viewing both primary and secondary sources. Unlike other areas of knowledge, there is no firsthand perception of events therefore these sources must be used to obtain knowledge. They often use cognitive tools such as imagination and perception to evaluate whether the information from the sources is logical or not. Due to the retrospective perception, historians can be easily fooled because they are not seeing things as they actually happen. This means they need to be able to trust their ways of knowing, namely; language, reason, and emotions to decide what is and isn`t true.
A primary source gives direct access to the subject of research ensuring that the material is untarnished and intact. This gives confidence to the researcher that the knowledge has not been misinterpreted making it more reliable. It can include government documents or maps, archaeologists often use primary sources in the knowledge they provide as they personally find the source. Being able to track and attribute the source back to where it originated gives more credibility to the provided knowledge. For example, a book like the Diary of Anne Frank would be considered a primary source as the information provided has not been interpreted and it is clear where it emerged from. For this reason, historians would regard historical knowledge more highly as there are no assumptions made before the knowledge is created.
However, primary sources are not readily available, original documents may be too old that they became unusable. For example, old documents from Taiwan are written in Pazeh, a language lost to time, affecting the validity of the knowledge as nobody would have enough context to understand it. Furthermore, relying on primary sources means relying on your personal knowledge and interpretation. This may not be sufficient in really extracting as much value as possible out of the original materials. This may make the knowledge regarded less highly as it is more difficult to understand.
Secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other researchers analyzing, interpreting, and describing content from primary sources. One example of this may be student textbooks, these are specific to the needs of students making them more understandable. Despite being previously interpreted, the fact that secondary sources use other sources to support the knowledge ensures that the provided knowledge is justifiable making the knowledge be regarded more highly.
In conclusion, there is solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than other areas of knowledge, specifically history. The general consensus of society is that for knowledge to be regarded highly it must be irrefutable. However, for the knowledge to be considered irrefutable depends on the perspective of the person in question. Experts in this field would regard natural science knowledge more highly believing the knowledge is irrefutable having personally gone through the process of gathering it. Due to the education system, the majority of society may think in a similar way having a basic understanding of the methodology involved. Unlike history, knowledge in the natural sciences is based purely on the physical proof so cannot be easily disregarded. Its methodology involves a smaller number of people; therefore there is a smaller chance of the evidence being tampered with. It uses techniques such as microscopes to increase the accuracy and reliability of its knowledge ensuring the knowledge is factual. However, methodology in history involves a large amount of human interaction. The interpretations of historians are subtly based on their personal thoughts so provided evidence is never the exact same despite the researched secondary information. Ultimately one can conclude that people rely on an abundance of physical evidence when regarding knowledge as justifiable. Unlike many other areas of knowledge, evidence in the natural sciences has been researched and counter-proved to ensure the provided proof is solid.
Stuck on your essay?
