Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

Theory of Knowledge Essay

Essay Question 4: “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes

discarded tomorrow”. Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in the
natural sciences and human sciences.

Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond

Candidate Number: 004582-0008

Centre Number: 004582

Session: May 2014

Word Count: 1581

Page 1 of 7
 Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

Our knowledge of the world constantly changes and sometimes, that which was once accepted as

correct, is proven to be false. In this case, I ask can we ever be certain our knowledge if, in the

future, it could be discovered that we have based our lives and decisions on incorrect knowledge?

Human sciences can be defined as the study of human behaviour, whereas the natural sciences

study the physical world and natural phenomena. The knowledge issues that I identify regarding

this question are: to what extent is knowledge in the natural and human sciences certain and

permanent and, to what extent is ‘new’ knowledge more accurate than the knowledge it replaces?

Issues arise when discussing the words “accepted” and “discarded” because the basis on which

knowledge is 'accepted' varies in both areas. For a theory to be ‘accepted’ in the natural sciences,

consistent supporting evidence must be found and the theory must be published and reviewed by

other natural scientists. However, in the human sciences, it could be argued that the process is less

rigorous so many theories can exist alongside each other. Also, ‘discarded’ could mean

completely rejecting a theory, although often knowledge is modified, meaning only some aspects

may be discarded. Thus, this essay will explore the different variables that affect knowledge being

replaced or discarded in both areas of knowledge. The varied theories in the human sciences allow

for an accumulation of alternative knowledge claims. Conversely, in the natural sciences, the

scientific process, when followed, gives knowledge certainty. What causes change in the natural

sciences is a paradigm shift; such hypotheses force us to dismiss previous theories.

Arguably, we can be more certain of knowledge in natural sciences because of the rigorous

procedure knowledge does through before it is 'accepted'. This procedure means theories cannot

exist alongside each other, unlike in the human sciences, as it would be rare for contradictory

theories with sufficient supporting evidence to be suggested. The process of a scientific theory

being 'accepted' is called the scientific method. The first stage is observation and hypothesis

creation. Predictions of possible findings are made and hypotheses are proven through

Page 2 of 7
 Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

experimentation. To ensure the reliability of these findings the experiment is then replicated and

peer reviewed, finally, the data and theory are published. If the results do not support the

hypothesis, it is revised and the process repeats itself. When DNA was first discovered, the theory

of its double-helix structure underwent the scientific method. Linus Pauling suggested that DNA

was structured in a helix, and James Watson and others predicted that this would mean DNA

would be 'x-shaped' when viewed with X-rays (Judson, 1979). Franklin’s X-ray diffraction images

confirmed that the DNA was 'x-shaped', therefore a double helix (McElheny, 2004). Finally,

evidence supporting the DNA theory was published and the knowledge still has not been refuted.

This example demonstrates that if the initial procedure for knowledge acceptance is rigorous, it is

less likely that the information will be discarded later. Therefore, it may be more reliable and

certain knowledge. Thus, the procedure that knowledge claims undergo to become accepted in the

natural sciences makes it more certain, reducing the likelihood of new knowledge replacing older

theories.

However, it could be argued that knowledge in the natural sciences is not always entirely accurate,

despite the scientific method, due to scientists’ biases. When natural scientists form a hypothesis

they often want their theory to be proven and accepted so they may influence their experiment to

collect supporting results. For example, stopping the experiment once they have collected enough

supporting data or prolonging it until desired results are found. This highlights the flaws of using

experimentation to produce knowledge in the natural sciences, possibly leading to less accurate

knowledge that is more susceptible to replacement.

Also, often in the natural sciences, theories exist that are not fully accepted as knowledge, for

example the Big Bang Theory. Although this theory is widely regarded as 'true' in the scientific

community, some criticise it because the circumstantial evidence used to support the theory is not

testable. As a Christian, I find it inappropriate that the Big Bang Theory is often taught in schools
Page 3 of 7
 Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

as ‘true’ although it has not been fully proved and thus is not yet 'accepted'. So, I believe that

knowledge can sometimes be falsely accepted without sufficient evidence in the natural sciences.

In this case, such knowledge is more susceptible to change, being no more accurate than the

knowledge it replaces.

In the human sciences, it is arguably harder to be certain of which theory is ‘true’ due to human

scientists’ difficult in isolatating single factors while experimenting. In my Economics course I

learn about the Neo-classical and Keynesian view of markets and government intervention.

Neoclassical economists rationalise that markets should be left to adjust themselves into

equilibrium, whereas Keynesian economists argue that governments should intervene to solve any

problems. It seems human scientists cannot find precise information to determine one theory as

correct because it is harder for them to control the multiple external factors. In the example of

Keynesian and Neo-classical approaches, economists cannot experiment to determine the correct

theory as it would be impossible to only change levels of government intervention in an economy

and view the effect. In such a situation, many other economic factors would inevitably affect

results. I have experienced confusion with these competing theories as no definite answer is

provided as to whether the market should be left to correct itself or not. Thus governments may

also have difficulties using the knowledge when deciding whether to intervene or not. In

comparison, natural scientists can more easily conduct experiments involving just one

independent and one dependant variable, perhaps suggesting knowledge in the natural sciences is

more accurate. Therefore flaws in knowledge acquisition in the human sciences may in fact mean

that the knowledge claims are less certain.

It could also be argued that 'tomorrow's knowledge' in human sciences is not necessarily

beneficial because an accumulation of theories means that there is more knowledge competing,

creating more uncertainty regarding the ‘truth’. It is possible that two contradictory theories can
Page 4 of 7
 Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

both be proven because research involving changes in humans’ brains can only determine strong

correlations but not complete certainty, leading to less discarding of knowledge in the human

sciences. For example, in my IB Psychology course I learnt about models of memory. Previously,

there was just one main model, the multi store model of memory proposed by Atkinson and

Shiffrin. Then Baddeley and Hitch proposed a new model; the working memory model (Law et al.,

2010). This addition of a new model to the field of memory has not helped us to know the true

way memory works; but simply increases uncertainty for both theories. Therefore, as more

theories are developed and older theories are not discarded, the ambiguity increases. Thus, as new

knowledge is suggested in the human sciences, it could be said to cause backward steps in pursuit

of the correct theory.

Up to this point I have favoured the natural sciences' approach of only one theory existing,

however a human scientist could argue that the presence of many theories increases the likelihood

that at least one is correct. An accepted theory in the natural sciences may in fact be false and

therefore all other knowledge and applications based on that theory are also invalid; a realisation

of this would require a complete theoretical revolution. Whereas if a theory was proved to be

incorrect in the human sciences, there would essentially be other proposed theories about the topic,

so a complete paradigm shift may not be necessary. It could also be argued that in some areas of

the human sciences it is easier to isolate single factors and develop certain theories. The above

example involving views of government intervention is a macroeconomic issue, which consists of

many influencing factors, however in microeconomics it could be said that smaller topics have

fewer confounding variables. For example, when determining the theory that as price increases

demand decreases, it is perhaps easier to collect evidence for this theory, i.e. change a product’s

price and observe the effect on demand. Thus, knowledge certainty in the human sciences could

depend on which areas of the subject the knowledge involves.

Page 5 of 7
 Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

While writing this essay, I am aware of the biases I hold towards the issues raised, which affect

the nature of my arguments. As a student I am very conscious of the curriculum changing and

certain aspects of knowledge being discarded from syllabuses. It challenges me to think that when

I leave formal education, students may be learning newer knowledge than I did, meaning that

perhaps in a few years my education will become increasingly 'out of date' or inaccurate. However,

an older person who has perhaps witnessed this change taking place regarding what they learnt in

their schooling could disagree, arguing that the knowledge we learn has relative accuracy and

relevance to the times in which it is learnt.

It seems that in both the natural and human sciences knowledge is constantly being adapted. The

difference between them is that theories in the natural sciences are more subject to complete

rejection and replacement – a paradigm shift – because only one theory is accepted about a topic

at one particular time, whereas in the human sciences theories are able to exist alongside each

other. Yet, through exploring these arguments, I believe that ultimately knowledge is more certain

in the natural sciences and that even when theories are replaced, the new knowledge is moving

closer and closer to accuracy.

Word count: 1581

Page 6 of 7
Candidate Name: Sarah Diamond Candidate Number: 004582-0008

Works Cited

Judson, H.F., 1979. The Eighth Day of Creation. pp.137-38.

Law, A., Halkiopoulos, C. & Bryan-Zaykov, C., 2010. Psychology developed specifically for

the IB Diploma. Pearson Education Limited.

McElheny, V.K., 2004. Watson & DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution. Basic books.

Page 7 of 7