Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
How can we reconcile the relentless drive to pursue knowledge with the…
How can we reconcile the relentless drive to pursue knowledge with the finite resources we have available? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge (History).
History
Key Words
Perspectives: Historians have different views on the nature of past events -> disagree over many things e.g., was Stalin worse than Hitler --> IMPORTANT FOR DIFFERENT POVs
Definition
-
Use of AOK = Used to find patterns, understand why things happen, how to prevent thigns etc.
Finite Resources = Source material from Historians (secondary) and from people involved in events (primary)
Examples
Scarcity of source material/ reliable source material --> no written evidence, possibly false --> many limitations
Lack of evidence feeds curiosity, in tu8rn feeding drive for knowledge?
-
Lawrence of Arabia IA, Sea Peoples + Bronze Age Collapse, Americas before Columbus, societies that didnt write historical records
Can only rely on records/ past evidence in most cases -> cannot fully verify due to the existence of diverging opinions + often times historians dont experience the events they are writing about, and then again people who do are bound to have different experiences
Varying POVs: Does disagreement fuel the drive for knowledge -> wanting to disprove a theory/ wanting to know the truth
-
Is the nature of a source definitive of its value? (primary secondary) -> does it create a limitation/ represent finite resources -> secondary sources are just compilations of primary sources and retrospect
Despite these factors, there are events that are generally accepted as common notion: e.g., the Holocaust, who wins wars etc. -> what makes these events more universally agreed upon? is drive for knowledge affected (increased or decreased) by general consensus?
HOWEVER, people still dispute things that are deemed general consensus -> Holocaust deniers, Taiwan and China on who is the real china -> how can divergence exist ? proof of drive for knowledge being relentless as people are willing to dispute a majority held claim?
Holocaust, Chinese Civil War, Second/First World Wars, Moon Landing
-
-
Natural Sciences
Key Words
Evidence: does pre-existing evidence limit the rate of new knowledge? A previous conclusion has to be proven wrong several times for it to be debunked, but this is time consuming and slows rate of knowledge.
Definition
-
Finite Resources = Improving on already existing knowledge, there is a limit of previous scientific records + records or ideas/conclusions are continually disputed and changed as new evidence emerges
Use of AOK = exploring the world around us to understand it's natural processes and how we can use these as resources to benefit us
Examples
Biology, Chemistry, Physics
Financial Limitations -> limiting factor for many projects e.g., going space is expensive, only 681 people have been to space -> despite limitations, we continue to reach further -> relentless drive for knowledge about space and the universe
Theories on Start of Universe e.g., Big Bang -> No records, only hypothesises -> are our theories reliable based on there no being a concrete discovery -> event happened millions of years ago yet people still have a drive to find out how it happened
-
Definition
Relentless Drive = Want, need, cant be stopped, inherent to human nature, motivation to learn
Pursue = Want, Chase, Voluntary --> learning, curiosity
Reconcile = Associate, Relate
Resources = Tools, Sources, Books, Studies, Experiments, Perspectives, Accounts, Evidence
Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Arts
Is improving technology necessarily evidence of improving art knowledge? -> e.g., keyboards and computers simplify music -> you can play guitar without knowing how to play the guitar + you dont have to know how to read music sheets and notes anymore -> many modern singers, rappers dont have "classical" musical experience
More accessible, dilluting knowledge?
Improved Technology: Art can be made more and more detailled and realistic -> compare to paintings in 1800s and before, evolution of art is that it gets better and better as more tools become available
-
-
Natural Sciences
Improving Technology: e.g., telescopes -> the more we improve telescopes, the more of space we see
Resistant Bacteria: Antibiotics constantly improving, but bcteria quickly become resistan e.g., colinin antibiotic (considered last resort) on its last variant -> we have no more improved colinin -> bacteria will eventually become resistant to all the antibiotics we have if we overuse them -> is the lack of alternatives symbolic of decreased knowledge?
Already existing knowledge: does pre-existing knowledge provide limitations in the act of improving on the knowledge? e.g., having to disprove it etc.