Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
there are significant problems withWhileas a demarcation criterion, itfalsificationas important as ever to be able to tell theremainsbetween science and pseudo-science.differencecan do this activity working on your own,Youa partner or in a small group. See if youwithmap out science, drawing its boundarycanother domains of knowledge, suchwithculture, religion and politics. If you areaswith others, each of you should makeworkingown map. Then consider the followingyourquestions.Where does science overlap with the other1.domains?2. What happens in the overlapping zones?Where is the boundary particularly clear,3.dotted or blurry? Describe whatwiggly,means and why you have drawn oritit this way.imaginedyou are doing this exercise with a partnerIfin a group, compare your maps and shareoryou identify as significant similarities andwhatbetween them.differencesthat you drew a map in the exerciseSupposingwhere science is distinct from other waysaboveunderstanding the world. Consider: how isofknowledge different from other typesscientificknowledge? Brainstorm a few claims youofmake as answers to this question. Keepcanmind that your claim should be somethingincan be disputed and argued with. Anthatwould be, “Scientific knowledge isexamplereliable as compared with other types ofmoresuch as knowledge from personalknowledge,experience”.else could we distinguish the methodology,Howand body of knowledge of science? Whyhistoryscience’s account of reality so often givenisauthority than other accounts?greaterIn your understanding, what makes4.knowledge different from otherscientificHow would you describe the relationship5.science and the unknown?betweenour map of science may look like,Whateverare always scientists working at the edgetherethat map, pushing the frontier. The 2018of“The Most Unknown” introducesdocumentaryto nine frontier scientists from differentusfields.terms: Cheney TheSearchUnknownMostIs there something that makes all of the6.activities and inquiries in thedifferentWhat did you notice about the ability of7.to talk about and understand eachscientistsHow would you describe the scientists’8.towards knowing and notattitudesone of those claims, construct anChoosingin favour of your claim. For theargumentabove, a supporting argumentclaimsay that the reliability of scientificmightis due to the methods used toknowledgeit. produceyour claim and argument with a partner.Shareconsider how you might improveTogether,claims and arguments, and what are theyourof a good argument.characteristicsI. ScopeI. ScopeFor discussion and reflectionHow would you map out the scope oftypes of knowledge?the natural sciences?documentary “science”?other’s work?knowing?Next, consider the following questions.Practising skills: Constructing arguments169
II. Perspectivessection explores the rich and varied roleThisperspective in the natural sciences. There areofperspectives about how science changesdifferenttime, and how it came to be what it is today.overhow scientists manage disagreements, and•they tend to disagree aboutwhathow experts and non-experts engage in•controversies about sciencepubliccritiques coming from perspectives on•that have a history of being excludedscienceknowledge has been instrumentalScientificenabling humanity, for better or worse,indominate the planet. It has been said thattois power. But what kind of powerknowledgeit? To look more closely at this, we turnisthe views of Francis Bacon, who is oftentocredited as having first said the wordswronglyis power”. Although he did not“knowledgethat word for word, it is likely he agreedsayit. withBacon was an influential statesman andFrancisin the 17th century who championedscholaruse of experimentation as a way to gaintheabout the world. Specifically, heknowledgethat scientific knowledge shouldemphasizedgained through empirical observation ofbein a systematic method that involvednature,scientists “exploring nature forscepticaltruths”. Bacon was fond of metaphorshiddenoften described the natural world inandterms, portraying masculinegenderedbravely venturing out and extractingscientiststruths “locked in nature’s bosom”. Thesethehave come under criticism fromwritingsobservers in recent years (see II.7 onsomecritiques of science). He also arguedfeministcalled “armchair theorizing”—that hadbewidespread in Western scholarship sincebeentime. His ideas are widely acceptedAristotle’shaving contributed to the developmentasthe scientific methodologies, and to theofof methodical systems ofdevelopment7.1 Titl pag for Novum Organum Sintiarum, 1645, byFigureBaon (1561–1626)Franismetaphors indicated on the title page of hisTheNovum Organum Scientiarum are significantwork7I I . P E R S P E C T I V E SZooming in, this section looks at:categorizing knowledge.from the scientific practice and discourse.II.1 Is knowledge power?against the use of conjecture—what mightand revealing (Figure 7.1). The page shows the170
- Page 125 and 126: became clear only decadespreservati
- Page 127 and 128: does it mean to think of land as a
- Page 129 and 130: II. Perspectivesof the original nat
- Page 131 and 132: Wilson, who is Opaskwayak Cree,Shaw
- Page 133 and 134: I ranted in my head. ‘There is no
- Page 135 and 136: we consider the contributions of TE
- Page 137 and 138: an authority and belief system that
- Page 139 and 140: III. Methods and toolsand mutual ai
- Page 141 and 142: IV. Ethicsthe only thing one can do
- Page 143 and 144: IV. Ethicsintellectual property has
- Page 145 and 146: 6andKnowledgereligionworld’s reli
- Page 147 and 148: I. Scopejudicial, economic, and pol
- Page 149 and 150: I. Scopein his view, involves this
- Page 151 and 152: I. Scopekinds of questions altogeth
- Page 153 and 154: II. Perspectivespractices of the cu
- Page 155 and 156: religious knowledge lose something,
- Page 157 and 158: what extent can we comprehend the w
- Page 159 and 160: II. Perspectivesone, it allows stra
- Page 161 and 162: the context of perspectives, it is
- Page 163 and 164: view has been criticized for being
- Page 165 and 166: David Thoreau was a naturalist, wri
- Page 167 and 168: III. Methods and toolsdisasters are
- Page 169 and 170: IV. Ethicswe have an ethical respon
- Page 171 and 172: IV. EthicsSinger described conseque
- Page 173 and 174: IV. Ethics1962, generals seized pow
- Page 175: recent human activity called scienc
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185 and 186: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 187 and 188: II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s pap
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193 and 194: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 195 and 196: II. Perspectivestechnical debates i
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215 and 216: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 217 and 218: I. Scopecentral cause of the profes
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225 and 226: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
II. Perspectives
section explores the rich and varied role
This
perspective in the natural sciences. There are
of
perspectives about how science changes
different
time, and how it came to be what it is today.
over
how scientists manage disagreements, and
•
they tend to disagree about
what
how experts and non-experts engage in
•
controversies about science
public
critiques coming from perspectives on
•
that have a history of being excluded
science
knowledge has been instrumental
Scientific
enabling humanity, for better or worse,
in
dominate the planet. It has been said that
to
is power. But what kind of power
knowledge
it? To look more closely at this, we turn
is
the views of Francis Bacon, who is often
to
credited as having first said the words
wrongly
is power”. Although he did not
“knowledge
that word for word, it is likely he agreed
say
it. with
Bacon was an influential statesman and
Francis
in the 17th century who championed
scholar
use of experimentation as a way to gain
the
about the world. Specifically, he
knowledge
that scientific knowledge should
emphasized
gained through empirical observation of
be
in a systematic method that involved
nature,
scientists “exploring nature for
sceptical
truths”. Bacon was fond of metaphors
hidden
often described the natural world in
and
terms, portraying masculine
gendered
bravely venturing out and extracting
scientists
truths “locked in nature’s bosom”. These
the
have come under criticism from
writings
observers in recent years (see II.7 on
some
critiques of science). He also argued
feminist
called “armchair theorizing”—that had
be
widespread in Western scholarship since
been
time. His ideas are widely accepted
Aristotle’s
having contributed to the development
as
the scientific methodologies, and to the
of
of methodical systems of
development
7.1 Titl pag for Novum Organum Sintiarum, 1645, by
Figure
Baon (1561–1626)
Franis
metaphors indicated on the title page of his
The
Novum Organum Scientiarum are significant
work
7
I I . P E R S P E C T I V E S
Zooming in, this section looks at:
categorizing knowledge.
from the scientific practice and discourse.
II.1 Is knowledge power?
against the use of conjecture—what might
and revealing (Figure 7.1). The page shows the
170