Is Doubt the Key to Knowledge Essay Example for Free

Is Doubt the Key to Knowledge EssayAs a pupil currently taking the International Baccalaureate, I constantly question the differences between the several atomic number 18as of acquaintance which I study. In a period where technology shows constant developments which trigger new discoveries and establish new facts, a critical outlook is essential in order to assess the validity and limitations of knowledge claims that arise inwardly these handles. The twenty-first century has been c all tolded the grow of information, where individuals have the ability to communicate freely and where knowledge becomes increasingly accessible. This seems to lay down an environment where knowledge prospers freely, and where doubt is gradually becoming extinct. However, many still argue that this new age of information bombardment creates a false sensation of certainty, and a series of unsupported convictions. Al to the highest degree all champaigns of knowledge have a particular way of achie ving values of the true, when that is possible whatsoever. This is directly linked to the ship canal of knowing in Theory of Knowledge, ( perception, perception, language and reason) as well as through with(predicate) the methods each field uses in its attempts to explain something, or to reach truth.Furthermore, it is important to recognize the several paradigm shifts, as in the term first coined by Thomas Kuhn1, that change the perception and methods through which we acquire and interpret knowledge, as well as our definition of truth. Scientific certainty derives from countless experimentations and observations, and many debate whether scientific truth can ever be reached. History, on the new(prenominal) hand, is rigorously based on personal attend and interpretation of individual accounts, which allows for partiality and bias.This essay aims to evaluate and distinguish these two areas of knowledge, as well as determine the possible legitimacy and certainty that can be obtaine d from the knowledge claims produced in each field. diachronic analysis is one the most controversial areas of knowledge, possibly due its extremely ambiguous and uncertain nature. Historians whitethorn disagree over the causes and consequences of nearly any historical take downt. It is important to remember that chronicle is based on paradigms.As a result, it s almost impossible to find a particular period in history which has not been marked by disputes between historians, attempting to determine what actually happened. Thomas Carlyle, a nineteenth century historian and teacher at the University of Edinburgh, once stated that The history of the world is alone the history of great men, an allusion to The Great Man Theory, one of the many paradigms that have bent the shape of historical analysis. If we take the Second World war as an example, it seems as if the historical context of the war is seen through the actions of men such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Musso lini and Winston Churchill.An other(a) paradigm that can be observed in historical thought is the Rise and Fall concept, which tends to evaluate the history of empires and historical powers in terms of two phases the emanation and decline. Examples of this paradigm can be found in many titles of history books The Rise and Fall of the set apart Roman Empire2, The Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy3, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich4, amongst others. Furthermore, as we analyze the history of the Second World War, we also find correlations with another historical paradigm, best exemplified by the famous adage History is written by the victor.The argument proposed is quite clear those who triumph at War and reach power will inevitably influence and determine the course of history. In order to breach illustrate this claim, two extracts follow, concerning the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 the first, a broadcast by Winston Churchill to the British people, and finally a speech given by Adolph Hitler in Berlin, proclaiming the invasion of the USSR At 4 oclock this morning Hitler attacked and invaded Russia. () A non-aggression treaty had been solemnly signed and was in force between the two countries. ) Then, suddenly, without resolution of war, German bombs rained down from the sky upon the Russian cities. () Hitler is a monster of wickedness5 Winston Churchill, London, June 22 1941 National Socialists ()The German people have neer had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia ( ) Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist worldview to Russia.Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. () which were particularly frightening for Germans living in the affected nations. ) The purpose of this front is no longer the protection of the individual nations, but rather the safety of Europe, and therefore the salvation of eachone. May God help us in this battle. Adolph Hitler, Berlin, June 25 19416 Analyzing both speeches, the difficulties of validating a historical account become quite evident, since there are ever so several perspectives concerning a specific historical event. As it relates to the ways of knowing, history is extremely dependent on perception and language, making it particularly hard for historians in hindsight to corroborate one account over the other and recognise its legitimacy.However, offering a personal perspective, I would most likely tend to support Churchills account of the 1941 Nazi occupation of the USSR. Yet, after exposing the uncertainties and ambiguity of historical knowledge, I begin to question whether or not my perception would differ, had Hitler and the Axis forces won the war. Unfortunately, it seems that would most likely be the case. Science is widely regarded as one of the most reliable fields of inquiry. When copeing its potential for accurate and impartial conclusions , my initial response was to consider the scientific method the ideal, archetypal model of discovery.History seems simply too inseparable from human emotion and interpretation to produce a constantly indisputable account of facts, while science appears to be the most reliable and precise area of knowledge, solely based on rationality, empirical evidence and observable patterns. The scientific method, starting with a predicted hypothesis, followed by an experiment, collection and interpretation of data, which ultimately leads to a conclusion which could be repeat by any other scientist, gives the impression of being the perfect truth formula.On the other hand, when looking at the progress of science over time, it is important to veritableize that, together with the other areas of knowledge, real certainty can never be achieved in science. Even when scientific models survive repeated test which fail to disprove them, they cannot be universally accepted as truths, but only provision al truths that are simply given functional certainty. The Caloric Theory7, introduced by Lavoisier, was once a commonly accepted guess that was discredited in the 19th century by the mechanical theory of heat introduced by Carnot8, which by and by on evolved into the science of thermodynamics.This supports the claim that scientific truths only exist on their specific scope of pertinency9 Science progresses through trial and error, mostly error. Every new theory or law mustiness be skeptically and rigorously tested before acceptance. Most fail, and are swept under the rug, even before publication. Others, like the luminiferous ether10, flourish for a while, then their inadequacies accumulate till they are intolerable, and they are quietly abandoned when something better comes along. Such mistakes will be found out. Theres always someone who will witch in exposing them.Science progresses by making mistakes, correcting the mistakes, then moving on to other matters. If we stopped making mistakes, scientific progress would stop. 11In conclusion, it seems that uncertainty will always be an indissoluble part of every area of knowledge. We can also conclude that historical and scientific knowledge have an incredibly variant way of explaining and interpreting things, mostly due to the ways of knowing, or according to which filter each area of knowledge attempts to express their ideas, and draw conclusions.While many may argue that the main purpose of these areas of knowledge is to explain and generate answers, some would say that their aim is inquiry, and their purpose is to generate questions. If we analyze these fields in hindsight, it is hard to dispute the claim that what we now consider hard facts are simply theories waiting to be discredited by the progress of our existence. Although at first I found myself to be disappointed with my findings, I stand corrected.The pursuit of knowledge, the quest for truth, is a never ending cycle of discoveries, and most importantly rediscoveries. at a time we are certain of anything, we kill this cycle, we close the book, and the entire process loses significance and context. In the human compel for knowledge and higher awareness, as in the questions that generate the angst and sorrow of human consciousness, there can never be an unquestionable truth, an indisputable answer, for certainty is an illusion.