Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PT No 3 (Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the…
PT No 3 (Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than knowledge in another AOK?
Define :
Solid justification: Concrete explanation provided by evidence, claims and counter claims
-
Highly: Nat Science being more superior, holds more power to justify, as more intriguing than the other
Potential Questions?
- What way does it make Nat Science highly? Through methods of obtaining knowledge? One requires rigorous data collection, while one depends on creativity?
- To what extent is Arts not opened to being objective? Arts is always influenced by personal beliefs by the person who interprets it.
- To what extent does Art not depend on devices/ instruments to see the hidden meaning as compared to Nat Science
- Does Art become less superior because layman can interpret it as how they want it, but for Natural Science, layman usually avoid interpreting it at the cause of fear? Not familiar
- Does the nature of Art itself, being in the form of colours, drawings creates the nature of itself regarded as not highly enough as Natural Science which deals with figures and graphs.
-
Knowledge Framework
-
Scope: Science always has limitations and depends on the peer-reviewed or other journals, makes it confided to superiority due to being checked by other experts
Counter claim: Art on another perspective, is also peer reviewed in a sense that different experts who study art come together. Example: Analyse the the distinctive features of the art, effect of particular medium used
RLE
- Frida Kahlo's painting, El Autobus, different claims on the painting
- Global warming facts, and how the impacts can be seen through instruments, devices
- Similarities: The creation of Adam, incorporation Science into arts
-