"One way to assure the health of a discipline is to nurture contrasting perspectives.

"
Discuss this claim with reference to disciplines from two areas of knowledge.

Generally, most disciplines seek to generate and improve knowledge. It is the hope

of academics, researchers, and scholars alike that their work advances current

understanding, progressing consensus within their field. Critical to achieving these goals

is the nurturing of contrasting perspectives. When diversity of thought is entertained,

a greater scope of investigation and inquiry results. Thus, the benefit of

differing perspectives is twofold. Firstly, disciplines tend to produce more robust

knowledge. Secondly, with more perspectives, knowledge is refined to a greater extent;

subsequently, stronger consensus is likely to emerge. On the contrary, others might

argue that differing perspectives simply create confusion. If the goal of many fields is to

build consensus, why would less popular theories and opinions be entertained? The

answer is the following: often when knowledge is challenged, understanding is

strengthened.

The claim in this title will be examined through the disciplines of biology and

economics. Both fields involve research, rely on quantitative techniques to explain and

prove concepts, and consist of a vibrant community of scholars that share findings. There

are also points of distinction. Biology seeks to understand natural phenomena, whereas

economics is concerned with human behavior. With distinct aims at understanding the

human and natural worlds, each discipline consists of unique characteristics, processes,

and conventions.

Biologists employ the scientific method to identify patterns and confirm repeated

results of natural processes. All experimentation in the natural sciences operates with the

understanding that natural processes repeatedly function in the same way. It is this

1
assumption that drives scientific process. Before any experimentation occurs, scientists

develop a hypothesis to predict a possible experimental outcome. Hypothesizing helps

scientists focus their experiment on the manipulation of a single variable. After collecting

data in which all variables are controlled except one, scientists draw conclusions,

accepting or rejecting their hypothesis. Ideally, since data is objective and concrete, it

should not be disagreed upon. However, since the process of data collection is rarely a

flawless one, there is usually discussion of an experiment's sources of error. To minimize

data subjectivity, scientists perform multiple trials and determine averages and trends.

Though not always possible, the scientific process is most effective when scientists strive

to eliminate subjectivity when determining results.

The scientific method is a universal process; however, hypothesis and data analysis

thrive when multiple perspectives are nurtured. In my IB Biology HL course, for example,

I performed an experiment with the goal of identifying the sugar that is most conducive

to yeast respiration. Using my knowledge of sugar structure and the process of

respiration, I used reasoning to hypothesize the results. My laboratory partner's

hypothesis was completely different, however, as she used her own distinct line of

reasoning. At this stage of the discovery process, contrasting perspectives are most

important. Since neither of us could predict the results of the experiment with certainty,

sharing a diverse array of perspectives informed both of us of the many factors that could

be at play. Similarly, both of us interpreted the results of the experiment differently. I

thought the sugar's structure influenced the metabolic rate whereas my lab partner was

confident that the concentration of enzymes was the reason for our particular results.

After further consideration, I came to the conclusion that an experiment that

differentiated between structure and enzyme concentration would be needed. If my

2
partner and I had not shared our different reasoning and interpretations, either of us

could have reached the reached a conclusion with the wrong justification. Having and

entertaining contrasting perspectives is critical to scientific study and the reason why

scientists publish their findings in journals.

Despite the importance of nurturing and sharing contrasting perspectives, not all

perspectives are created equal at every stage of the scientific process. Last month in my

IB Biology HL course, I studied a famous experiment by Matthew Meselson and Franklin

Stahl in which the objective was to determine if DNA replicated conservatively or semi-

conservatively. Initially, it makes sense for both theories to be viewed as equally valid

because there was no evidence supporting one more than the other. However, the

contrasting perspectives sets up a more effective experiment since the experimenter

knows to test for the point of distinction between a conservative and semi-conservative

strand of DNA Given this approach, the results proved that DNA replication is in fact a

semi-conservative process. At this point in the scientific method, the contrasting

perspectives are no longer of equal value as there is evidence supporting one and not the

other. While the perspective of conservative replication was seemingly proven wrong, it

should not be eliminated from discussions in the scientific community. There is value in

other scientists repeating the experiment to confirm the results. Moreover, keeping the

debate alive to some extent might prompt others to affirm the results in a different way,

which further strengthens the quality of the knowledge.

Both Biologists and Economists attempt to explain patterns; economists, however,

evaluate human behavior, not natural phenomena, and more frequently use models,

rather than the scientific method, to test their theories. Economic theory is developed

following a period of observation. Next, an Economist uses a model to represent their

3
findings. A model, generally, is a simplified way of communicating a relationship between

two or more concepts. In my IB Economics Internal Assessment, for example, I used an

Aggregate Supply and Demand Graph to model the aggregate effect of the United States'

new tax law. The graph allowed me to demonstrate, in a straight forward and convincing

way, how stimulated consumer demand would likely affect Price Level and real Gross

Domestic Product in the U.S. economy.

Since economics deals with human behavior, which can sometimes be irrational

and unpredictable, economic evaluation operates under two assumptions: that a stated

expectation is "on balance" and that a change occurs "ceteris paribus." Natural science

relies on repetition of natural phenomena, where as a human science cannot. Therefore,

the phrase "on balance" is used when an Economist evaluates the application of a theory

in the real world; to avoid oversimplification, this phrasing is necessary. Similarly,

"ceteris paribus," meaning "all things equal," is used express that all other variables,

besides the one being manipulated, are being held constant. In biology, it is possible to

control all variables except the one being manipulated; however, this is not possible when

economic theory is being tested. In the real world, multiple factors can change in a market

at once, making it difficult to understand the effect of one policy alone. As I observed in

my IB Extended Essay, which analy z ed the economic effect of a local development project,

it was difficult to evaluate the isolated effect of certain policies. For example, when

analyzing the relationship between income and spending, it was difficult to draw

conclusions because other economic factors could not be controlled. If, for example, gas

prices were to rise concurrently, then this would also impact spending. Economists

cannot hold gas prices constant when evaluating the relationship between income and

spending.

4
 Because economists do not have the benefit of controlling a variable in isolation,

the same study done many times can create inconsistent results. In contrast, in biology,

where variables can be controlled, results are more uniform. For example, in my

previously mentioned IB Economics HL IA, while one economist argued the tax change

would stimulate enough growth to offset the cost of the cut, the other could disagree.

Economists, more commonly than biologists, tend to disagree on the results of a study.

Therefore, contrasting perspectives are even more imperative in this discipline so that a

range of outcomes can be evaluated.

Though less common in economics, there are some findings that a large number of

economists agree on. For example, in my IB Economics HL course we discuss and

evaluate the economic strength of a given country using mathematical indicators such as

Gross Domestic Product, the Human Development Index, and the rate of unemployment.

The majority of economists agree that these indicators can be used to measure economic

health. Therefore, there is, to some extent, agreement on findings. However, some

economists prioritize or weight indicators differently; moreover, some use different

indicators than the ones mentioned. Though there is some standardization with economic

results, there remains a lot of different methods and combination by which an economic

situation is measured. Thus, contrasting perspectives on economic findings are necessary

in order to provide a robust and full evaluation of a specific situation.

In conclusion, both natural science and human science benefit when contrasting

perspectives are nurtured throughout the discovery process. Biologists use contrasting

perspectives to design more focused experiments. Economic debate leads to a fuller

evaluation. The processes of discovery within each discipline are unique. Biology utilizes

the scientific method whereas economics tends to utilize a more model based approach.

5
It is for this reason that both biologists and economists adapt procedures and conventions

that account for the unique qualities of their field of study. Finally, it is important to note

that while biologists should ideally agree on results, economists, given the field's lesser

ability to control variables, have greater mobility.

Word Count: 1504