Conclusions and Implications
If we evaluate the importance of knowledge, based on how applicable this is, we can indeed, regard the knowledge in natural sciences more highly than the knowledge in arts. The knowledge in natural sciences in fields such as chemistry and biology is helpful to understand the world that surrounds us and therefore find quick solutions to prevailing problems. Based on this, knowledge is very applicable and should therefore be very highly regarded. Nonetheless, one of the implications of this can be that as "scientific proof" involves such a rigorous method including peer review and observation, people tend to place too much trust in scientific knowledge and it has almost become a guarantee of the quality or veracity. As almost nobody questions its validity, people could abuse this trust and use it for their benefits, such as lucrative purposes, applying false knowledge to "solve" problematics. Another implication could be that there is some kind of bias in the production of scientific knowledge such as anchoring bias. this way, scientists could rely too heavily on the first piece of information found, this leads to interpreting newer information from the reference point of the anchor, instead of seeing it objectively. This can skew judgment, and prevent scientists from updating predictions or knowledge as much as they should.
Knowledge in the natural sciences can sometimes be more highly regarded than knowledge in arts, nevertheless, sometimes it can also be the other way around. Both areas of knowledge have flaws and implications in the production, dissemination, and application of their respective pieces of knowledge, this is why it is important to assess thoroughly when should the knowledge in an area of knowledge should be more highly regarded than in the other. It depends on the criterion and on the perspectives of the interpreter.