Knowledge and Science
Due Date: Friday, March 7thChoose one of the following questions to explore in your Blog/Journal entry.
Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge?
How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past?
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?
Remember, A journal entry should be based on a concrete, real life situation (RLS). A RLS can be a response to a personal experience, a topic learned about in school (outside of TOK), a current event, or some form of media (TV show, movie, book, artwork, etc.). This doesn’t necessarily have to be something that happened to you. Your decision about what to write about is up to you.
In your response, you should:
Briefly explain the RLS that you are responding to.
Identify the relevant knowledge question: I will provide a list for each area we are focusing on
discuss your thoughts and ideas on that question.
discuss the connections to TOK. You can discuss the implications of your thoughts or talk about perspective, culture, the definitions of truth, knowledge, or belief, or reflections on the knowledge community you are a part of. Choose a key concept to connect to.
Connect your discussion back to your real life situation.
Rubric
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?
ReplyDeletePublished knowledge in the present day, is made up of ideas and results of previous test that would lead to the results as we know them today. From that, we could assume that all published knowledge could become absolute in the future, unless proven helpful in later discoveries. One example of this would be the Diagnostic and Statistic Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM). This is a textbook documenting various examples of mental disorders found in abnormal psychology. From its first publication in 1952, there have been various evolutions of the document, as abnormal psychology was given more time to study. This textbook is important in the fact that this, along with other ideas published by Sigmund Freud, was believed to be the most accurate information about various mental disorders. In the sixteen years between the first DSM textbook and the second form, misinformation that would be harmful to psychiatrists was seen as the strongest available information for the time being. The question in itself could never turnout fully correct. With the vast amounts of discoveries made throughout history, present knowledge could never remain the strongest. It's with this that even with the vast amounts of updated information in each DSM textbook, there will always be new information to come out.
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?
ReplyDeleteHumans tend to have recency bias when it comes to evidence. The thought process is likely that this new evidence comes from more information and advanced thinking. This thinking is much like the phrase “Innocent until proven guilty,” in the way that this evidence is innocent and acceptable until something else is proven. An example of this is the evolution of medical procedures. These procedures have undergone grand changes as humanity has evolved and advanced. Some cases include the normalization of hand washing, resulting in less germs being spread and causing issues during operations or, for a more personal connection, the evolution of the cataract surgery, going from crouching, in which the blurred lens is essentially just pushed down or to the side, to more advanced surgeries that actually remove the cataract and replacing it with an artificial lens. At each given time, the most recent procedures were considered acceptable and were the operations being performed. However, after something new was discovered or invented, these practices began to decrease and fade away. In most cases medically, these changes are due to advancements and are for the better of people, however, may have the unintended consequence of leading people to believe that anything new in the field is better and/or more accurate. These people who blindly follow medical advancements assume that these new procedures have been invented or found using greater or more knowledge, however, fail to accumulate said knowledge themselves, leading to an obscurity between believing that the newest discoveries are of a higher quality and knowing that they are. Recency bias is not inherently bad and if these procedures are in fact more effective, they’ll persist and continue to aid people, after all, it’s the reason we still wash our hands after any potential interaction with germs or why I can get an actually effective surgery to fix my awful vision.
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?
ReplyDeleteWhile recent evidence can be valuable, it is a mistake to assume it is always the strongest. The strength of evidence depends on factors like methodology and the context of the field, rather than just its recency. The strength of evidence also depends on the methods used to gather it, the reliability of the sources, and the potential for bias. For example, the controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine and autism began in 1998 when a study led by Andrew Wakefield suggested a link between the vaccine and autism. This led to widespread fear and a decline in vaccination rates, however, subsequent studies found no evidence to support Wakefield's claims, and his study was later discredited and retracted. Despite this, the controversy lingered, with many people continuing to distrust vaccines based on the initial evidence. The MMR vaccine-autism controversy exemplifies how people can give disproportionate weight to recent evidence, especially when it aligns with their fears or beliefs. The study done by Wakefield had a significant impact on public perception, and even though more recent, credible research disproved the connection, the damage to vaccine confidence persisted. This suggests that our acceptance of new evidence may sometimes be influenced by factors like confirmation bias, rather than a careful evaluation of the quality of the evidence. In TOK, we explore how knowledge is acquired and the role of different ways of knowing. In the case of this controversy, emotion and perception were powerful ways of knowing influencing public belief. The fear surrounding autism and perceived risk of vaccines affected people's willingness to accept scientific evidence. This situation highlights the role of authority in shaping knowledge. Even though studies disproved the connection, the authority of the initial study and the media's focus on it influenced public opinion. Ultimately, in some cases, the most recent evidence is not automatically the strongest or most trustworthy. While newer research might be more reliable, it does not always replace older, more emotionally charged beliefs immediately.
How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past?
ReplyDeleteIt might benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with it's past when the past knowledge surrounding the area is harmful or does not benefit society. In science, the human body and the way people work has always been studied. However, some areas of study went about trying to better the human body/population with unethical and harmful ways. Eugenics was created by racist scientists trying to "improve" society following their own version of Darwinsism. Eugenics was used to enact racist policies and hurt millions of people during the holocaust and world war II. It would benefit science to sever ties with an area of knowledge like eugenics because it has more harmful effects than good. Scientists should try to find ways to better humanity without racist motives that hurt people. By moving past harmful sciences, better areas of knowledge that actually benefit society can be studied. In addition, using the knowledge we gained from harmful sciences can help us learn what not to do and be used as a guide in science on ways to research that will actually benefit people
Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge?
ReplyDeleteThere is a heightened responsibility to acquire knowledge depending on the area of knowledge; specifically, if there is an issue concerning public safety that corresponds with an area of knowledge, that should be prioritized over something less pressing. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a moral obligation in the natural science community to explore cures, prevention methods, and ways to reduce harm. Multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson + Johnson, shifted towards research for a vaccine that would build immunity against the virus. There was a heightened level of research for this vaccine because it was a mRNA vaccine, which is rare among vaccines as a whole. There was also research in the area of history, pertaining to past pandemics and epidemics, to see what the best way to move forward is and how it would affect the economy and population. During this time, there was more of a responsibility to acquire knowledge in the areas of natural sciences and history rather than other areas, such as the arts.