That Which Is Accepted as Knowledge Today, Essay Example

 “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow.”

Natural scientific theory is based on the continued act of proving and disproving hypothesise. Through testing hypothesise, new scientific knowledge is established. Ethics involves the body of knowledge that deals with moral principals. In terms of scientific knowledge, this statement is particularly pertinent, due to the rapid progress of science. Therefore, it is legitimate to affirm the possibility of a ”partial or momentary truth”; this is how the German philosopher Karl Popper described the knowledge of Western civilization because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper held that empirical theories are characterized by falsifiability – continuous research for the error.

My main knowledge issues are “Is knowledge in ethics provisional/discarded?” and “Is knowledge in science provisional and discarded?” My simplified response to this issue regarding science is yes; but in regards to ethics, I feel knowledge is provisional/discarded but it’s also not. The question this raises is how are knowledge claims discarded and how are they not discarded? This debate reminds me of truth as it’s understood in childhood verses how it’s perceived in adulthood. For example, when one is a child they are often convinced that Santa Clause is a real person. Along with the real truth of this delusion, comes the initial discovery that parents aren’t always truthful and result in the questioning of many other facts that have gone unquestioned. When I started my IB and began questioning my beliefs. This raises the question of whether all knowledge is an illusion and whether all authority should be questioned. This natural progression is very similar to scientific method through which paradigms are a falsified and new ones are established. Likewise, knowledge claims in ethics are consistently revised to make way for new moral norms. For example, when I first started attending school, I held on to my family’s beliefs and the teachings of my church concerning homosexuality but I found voicing those views publicly would have adversely affected my professional goals by limiting network of friends and professional relationships. As I grew to know more about the issue facing the community, my thinking shifted more to their struggle on a human level.

Are knowledge claims in natural science provisional?  Yes, proof of this can be seen with the numerous knowledge claims that have been changed. For example, for decades young students were taught growing up that there were nine planets in the solar system. None were known to exist outside it. Since this fact was established, astronomers have discovered over 800 planets around other stars. This also doesn’t account for over thousands more suspected potential solar systems. Pluto was also downgraded to a “dwarf planet.” Claims of knowledge based on perception and reasoning may be tested and criticized by others very easily and on a constant basis. This means all knowledge based on perception is open to interpretation and less likely to retain fallacies. For example, if one person says all glass is indestructible, another person simply needs to break a glass to prove them wrong.  Perception and reasoning are also fundamental parts of scientific method, which has proven to be a valued resources for identifying paradigms within the scientific community.

There are ways in which knowledge is not discarded in science. One example can be seen with the periodic table of elements, as it hasn’t been discarded and accounts for the fundamental elements on which a large body of scientific knowledge is acquired and based. Another example of how knowledge is not discarded in science can be seen in the defining argument of  Arbesman’s “The Half-life of Facts” (Arbesman, 90).  The notion that half of all established knowledge is discard as time progresses, it implies that there is always a constant body knowledge that survives through the ages intact.  The question this raises is how does one know what knowledge claims in science will be discarded and which ones will hold true?

Another  knowledge issue in science that arises is how does a person know whether they are using dishonest premises from the past to build and develop new knowledge? For example such knowledge issues like heliocentrism vs current view of solar system, Miasma vs germ theory, / newtonian physics vs relativity and quantum physics all demonstrate examples of scientific knowledge that at one point was the standard of its day but then discarded as it was falsified by more valid theories.   Further more, The theory of evolution of natural species was outlined in the essay “The Origin of Species,” published in England by Charles Darwin in 1859. From that point, we can say that a new era for natural sciences as well as for social sciences began, so much so that, there was a corresponding impact on the history of that period.

In sum, knowledge in science is discarded once it has been falsified. If certain established paradigms are not discarded, then the respective knowledge it supports remains intact. At  the  same  level  ethics involves the body of knowledge that deals with moral principals. The most complicated aspect associated with knowledge claims in ethics is that they are not absolutely universal. The understanding of what’s morally or ethically right can change from person to person because it is subjective.

Therefore we can be uncertain regarding certain knowledge issues and consequently we can ask to ourselves: how does a person know when accepted knowledge is absolute and timeless, and when it is responsible to be changed  as new thinking emerges? An example of this can be seen with story that my grandfather told me several years ago in which  he questions whether people of the past should be judged for behaviour that would be considered morally inappropriate today. At the time, violence and acts of oppression were referred to as ‘discipline’ or building character.  This is how language was used to justify unethical practices.  His main point is that everyone in their era believe they have a firm understanding of right and wrong, but things that seem morally acceptable during one period can hugely change over time. My grandfather  used the example of being punished in school,  in fact,  at the age of 9 he was punished and repeatedly beaten in school, but today that same form of discipline would land those teachers in prison. Another  prime example of something that is the issue of slavery. For centuries slavery was a prosperous  industry in the western world. Today, slavery is viewed in the western world as being a morally unethical. The Emancipation Proclamation, The Civil Rights Act, and employment regulations have created a modern society that identifies itself as more morally sound than when slavery was a prosperous activity. However, today there is still a big large gap between the wealthy and the poor throughout the world in some of the most affluent democratic societies. This makes it easy to imagine a future where what is perceived as modern day capitalism and the gap between the elite and the working class might be seen as unethical and discarded with the same way with which people are against slavery today. This is a prime example knowledge as it relates to ethics can be discarded as social paradigms change.

However a personal example in my  life can be seen in the transition that occurred with how I view homosexuality. Growing up in South Italy, in very conservative and religious surroundings, my personal experiences led me to identify homosexuality as unacceptable lifestyle.  New more diverse experiences and scientific knowledge  led me to changed my mind about homosexuality, now it is  normal and acceptable for me. My way of thinking was converted through my way of knowing. Originally, my community influenced how I perceived homosexuality. As my community was religious and conservative, my views were heavily influenced by those surroundings. When my community expanded, I began to perceive the ideology of my family as a minority view within my community but also as one that was less informed and ethically impractical in my daily life. This paradigm shift in my personal perspective of a knowledge issue and the ethics behind it was a conflict between culture- bible and reality.

In conclusion, I can say that  knowledge is discarded when certain facts are falsified in science or  paradigms are changed in consideration of the moral ethical standards of the day.  This can most likely be attributed to the fact that much knowledge relies on  second hand accepted knowledge. Authorities establish standards which become the knowledge claims shared within society. As these authorities are discredited or their claims are falsified through the acquisition of new knowledge claims, previous knowledge becomes inconsistent in relation to new discoveries. This is fundamental to the process of how knowledge claims are discarded within science. Likewise, in ethics, immoral ways of thinking may go unnoticed when they show no real threat to the progress of society; but as communities find their growth is hedged by a certain issue it starts to impact people on an individual level. As more individuals change their way of thinking concerning certain issues, the community follows trend.

The knowledge issues I believed as a child were based on the authority of my parents and my religion. Today, I have grown to question the certainty of those beliefs and I understand that due to vulnerabilities in ways of knowing knowledge claims are often discarded. This means what I believe is only as valid as my Ways Of Knowing, making much of what I believe provisional.

Work Cited

Kuchment, Anna. “The Half-Life of Facts.”Scientific American 307.4 (2012): 90-91.