Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in natural sciences…
Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in natural sciences more highly than knowledge in another area of knowledge?
Defining Key Term
Knowledge in Natural Science
a knowledge about natural world that is based on scientific method to prove any knowledge claims in it. Evidence and justifications are presented through table, chart and scientific data that can ensure the reliability of the knowledge
More Highly
the degree of reliability for justification of knowledge in area of knowledge. It can affect the acceptance of knowers towards the knowledge.
Solid Justification
reasons that are reliable and based on facts. It help people in accepting knowledge claims so they know the reason behind the claims
Understanding of PT
In my opinion, this Prescribed Titles asks whether justifications of knowledge in natural sciences are more reliable than knowledge in another areas of knowledge. I need to come out with evidence saying that natural sciences do have solid justifications that another area of knowledge and specific example to prove and differentiate the reliability of justification of a knowledge in both AOK. KQ: why does it matter to compare the reliability of justifications of areas of knowledge? Does it affect the acquisition of knowledge among knowers even though they are different subject matter?
-
-
Knowledge Claims
Justification of the knowledge in Natural Science are more reliable than justifications of the knowledge in History
Counter Claims
To some extent, Natural sciences can be less reliable. It will happen when observer effects were put into places which it can affect how the subject of the experiment or research behave and eventually make the results does not match with the expectation. For example, if people are about to check their blood pressure, they will feel anxious and their blood pressure will increase. Other than that, justification of knowledge in History also can be more reliable if historian reject biases in choosing their evidence. If historian were to choose evidences that support their claims, many historical knowledge would be undoubtful and people can hardly accept and trust the knowledge