Rebeca Serrano IB TOK Mr.

Ducharme P4

That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge

This phrase captures the actuality of science without quite capturing its essence. An essential statement might read: Knowledge represents our best understanding at any given time. It is true that due to the frequent technological advances humans have been able to discover new theories which constantly replace previous ones; for example, scientific experts used to believe in spontaneous generation, which stated that organic matter could be produced form inorganic matter. However, scientist Francesco Redi proved, through deductive reasoning, that nonliving matter could not form living organisms ("Francesco Redi and Controlled Experiments"). Redis experiment is a representation of how current theories can quickly change and morph every knowledge claim previously established. The concept of theories constantly supports the essential statement. A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics, the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with

one another. Yet, the quest for knowledge (via the scientific method) acknowledges that no picture is complete, no system is completely understood, and no explanation is finalized. Even our most established paradigms are still called theories (i.e. the Theory of Gravity) which conveys the idea that any given knowledge might, and most likely will, be replaced by a deeper understanding. Even though I cannot predict what discovery is going to be made or what fact is going to be overturned, we can be certain that at some point, in a near or far future, knowledge will grow or change over time. When I was in primary school, I was taught that there were nine planets in the solar system; since then, astronomers have spotted over 800 planets around other stars and discarded Pluto as a planet. Therefore, our understanding of the solar system was completely changed in less than 20 years and we know take this discovery as factual. These claims now lead to the following issue: how much of our previous knowledge have we invented and how much have we discovered and edited? Invention can be debatable; more than invent throughout history we have given meaning to different elements that already existed in nature. Nonetheless, with our intervention in nature none of the technology we enjoy today would exist. If we look at electricity for example, more than two and a half centuries have passed since Benjamin Franklin and others proved lightning was a form of electricity ("Benjamin Franklin's Inventions") yet, its core elements meaning electron flow, had already been around for thousands of years. What Benjamin Franklin did was look closer and the dig deeper into the matter, coming up with statements that would later give a meaning to his discoveries by presenting lightning. A better way of evaluating the question is by changing the word discarded by modified. Scientist would not be able to come up with more completed and more

updated theories without firstly having looked at a basic concept. Following this line of thought we can study theories that have a solid basis but have been transformed to fit current ideas or technological advances. Classical mechanics is the study of the motion of bodies following the principles put forward by Sir Isaac Newton in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) ("What is classical mechanics?"); classical mechanics was the first branch of Physics to be discovered, and is the foundation upon which all other branches of Physics are built. Hence, classical mechanics is our solid basis onto which other experts have established their own theories and hypothesis according to their knowledge at that time. Newtons explanations remain valid up to this day and will be interpreted as facts until somebody proves this studies obsolete and changes them. Furthermore we can also note how one Area of Knowledge contradicts and often attempt to dismiss knowledge claims present in another one. Creationism, for example, refers to the religious belief that a superior deity or God-like figure had the power to modify the physical world and its functioning ("NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools."); experts in the natural sciences believe that creationism is invalid. By using Darwins theory of evolution they have explained that the human being is the result endless adaptations of primitive organisms due to environmental causes and natural selection. In this case, Darwins theory of evolution is not used to modify creationism but to discard it completely. Nowadays, these two models still arise serious polemics but more and more people, we may suggest due the challenging of religious education, are beginning to accept evolution as the sole model to be followed. Two main ideas, therefore, are confronted. Firstly is the traditional view that scientific knowledge progresses in a linear and cumulative manner. The example given

before represents the transition from the medieval superstitious view of the universe to Newtons mechanistic view of it. This suggests that that scientific theories must describe the truth of nature as exactly as possible; that truths of nature are just waiting to be discovered and described coherently by scientists; that new, better theories do not negate or contradict the old theories, but subsumes them and are a better description of nature than the previous theories. The ultimate goal of science becomes the search for truth, better predictive power of theory and the subsequent control over nature that this gives. Secondly is the paradigmatic view that scientific knowledge progresses in a revolutionary manner. In this way of thinking is a fundamental skepticism about scientific knowledge as the ultimate explanation for everything that happens in our daily lives. Instead, we are asked to think in terms of the idea that science is a puzzle solving activity; it does not seek to describe truth, but to engage with piecing together how the natural world works within a context of cultural, social and economic and scientific constraints that form the working paradigm or set way of doing science at the time. Thus normal science progresses in a cumulative way but revolutionary science challenges this approach. However it is possible to look at how we obtain new knowledge as a combination of the two. New scientific knowledge, or a revolution, occurs when a new theory solves puzzles better than the old theory, not due to the fact that it is a more accurate representation of reality, but because new knowledge replaces incompatible knowledge. In conclusion That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow is not always the case. Even if there are confronting theories, which do not share any basic knowledge, most of the knowledge we discuss today is the product of many different theories. As we burrow down into details with ever more

accurate measurements, we constantly find new patterns that contradict what we thought we knew about the system being studied. Sometimes these new details cause us to fine tune our theory. Sometimes they force us to replace it with a new theory. This view however does not mean that out current knowledge is invalid or unreliable; it suggest that the progress of knowledge is a very volatile subject that changed quickly and often

Works Cited

"Benjamin Franklin's Inventions." Ushistory.org, 2013. Web. 5 Nov 2013. <http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/info/inventions.htm>. "Francesco Redi and Controlled Experiments." Scientus.org, 2013. Web. 5 Nov 2013. <http://www.scientus.org/Redi-Galileo.html>. "NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.." Ncse.com, 2013. Web. 2 Nov 2013. <http://ncse.com/creationism>. What is classical mechanics?." Farside.ph.utexas.edu, 2013. Web. 10 Nov 2013. <http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node3.html>.