Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PT3 (MAY 2022) : Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in…
PT3 (MAY 2022) : Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
definition :
Solid justification: supported with strong, validated and reliable sources and evidence
-
the title focuses on developing a supported and valid answer on whether or not natural science knowledge is more highly regarded than in other aok (the arts in this case)
the answer can be yes or no, depending on opinions, discussions and facts. as long as it can be justified with explanation, any answer is acceptable
-
The PT is questioning whether there is any solid justification in regarding an area higher than others
areas of knowledge
Natural science
a branch of science that deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.
-
arguments for
natural science can bring up more facts and definite results through scientific method - makes it more solid
-
-
-
-
example: there are theories and research works to support like the Newton laws. once they were established, they haven't been changed or proven wrong
arguments against
Arts are a more subjective field of knowledge, thus there are no things in art that are definitely wrong or definitely right. The field of arts encourage more discussions and exchange in opinion, thus resulting in development of human's thinking skills
natural science - based on observations, there is bias in personal perspectives , leads to subjectivity
There is also a possibility that the knowledge gain is wrong because of human error in the way that they produce the analysis
At this point in time, we tend to place much trust in the natural sciences. "Scientific proof" has almost become some sort of guarantee of the quality or veracity of knowledge. Unfortunately, this trust can be abused. It is worth remembering that knowledge from the natural sciences is not necessarily correct, simply because it is scientific.
example: The cosmetics industry may persuade you to buy their latest anti-wrinkle cream by fiddling with statistics and plastering "scientific sounding language" on the packaging of its products. Research funded by entities that benefit from its findings will often eliminate inconvenient data and truths. If a study (albeit indirectly) funded by a multinational oil company, for example, claims that climate change is not real, we have reason to doubt the quality of its knowledge. In this sense we should also approach "scientific research" on products sold by pharmaceuticals with caution.
-
If the research was done with a wrong interpretation, the way that the research was done will be going to a complete different direction and the knowledge gain is not true