The extent to which methodology determines the knowledge produced has been debated throughout the history of

knowledge. The methodology can be considered a sine qua non-condition for knowledge creation since it is commonly
acknowledged that the methodologies we use influence knowledge production. To ensure that the knowledge
produced is valid, reliable, and replicable, Individuals must apply specific processes, instruments, and techniques.

"Determined" refers to the extent to which the methodologies used have a direct causal relationship with the
knowledge produced. However, knowledge creation is a multifaceted process, and methodology alone may not
determine the knowledge generated. If the production of knowledge is not solely determined by methodology, what is
it impacted by? Other factors, such as imagination and personal bias, can be key drivers of knowledge creation. 

This essay will explore the different means by which knowledge is produced and will examine to what extent
knowledge production is influenced by various factors such as objective techniques and subjective interpretation. For
both areas of knowledge, the Natural Sciences, and the Arts, it will provide different arguments and specific examples
to address the question.

Firstly, in the Natural Sciences, it is a widely held view that the knowledge produced is largely determined by the
methodologies used. Science is derived from the Latin scientia, which means knowledge based on demonstrable and
reproducible data. Therefore, science aims for measurable results through observation, questioning, hypothesis
testing, experimentation, and analysis, a process known as the scientific method which has characterized the
development of science since the 17th century. Systematic empiricism is employed by scientists to conduct meticulous
observations in controlled conditions to test their theories. Then they apply rationalism to arrive at valid findings.
Evidence and justification are crucial to producing reliable and objective knowledge, not influenced by subjective
biases or preconceptions. According to Hoyningen-Huene, “Scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of
knowledge, primarily by being more systematic. What characterizes science is not that the methods employed are
unique to science, but that the methods are more carefully employed.” (Hoyningen-Huene, 2013).

To demonstrate this point, we can consider Mendel's approach to determining the principles of inheritance (1865).
Using the scientific method, Mendel conducted more than 30.000 experiments with pea plants over 8 years. To ensure
reliability, he controlled for external factors such as temperature and humidity. Based on the patterns he observed,
the data he collected, and the mathematical analysis of his results, he demonstrated that the inheritance of traits is
governed by genes passed from parents to offspring. Another example is Watson and Crick's (1953) discovery of the
structure of the DNA double helix by Watson and Crick (1953). They tested the hypothesis through experimentation.
They applied X-ray crystallography, chemical analysis, and mathematical modeling, and constructed physical models of
the DNA molecule that could be tested through further experiments. The scientific method was critical in determining
the DNA structure. Therefore, in both cases, the methodology employed had a significant influence on scientific
discoveries.

In contrast, it can be argued that knowledge produced within the Natural Sciences is largely independent of the
methodologies used. Because the scientific method emphasizes standardization, differences in the outcomes of
studies are more likely to be driven by changes in the independent variables rather than differences in research
methods. According to Dunbar and Fugelsang “Between 33% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are estimated to have
been stumbled upon, rather than sought out” (Dunbar, Kevin & Fugelsang, Jonathan, 2005). Alexander Fleming's
discovery of penicillin (1928) was not part of any systematic search or experimental design, he did not ask questions or
propose a hypothesis regarding penicillin. “I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident.”
The discovery was a result of his powers of observation and his ability to make connections between seemingly
unrelated phenomena. 

As scientific knowledge is open to interpretation, the methodologies applied are influenced by a variety of subjective
factors. The scientist, who is an integral element of the process, is subject to human subjectivity. Scientists’ theoretical
knowledge, training, experience, religious beliefs, political convictions, sex, and ethnic origin form a mindset that
affects scientific investigations. The scientist offers a perspective about the physical and theoretical worlds to the
research design, which influences what they examine, how they study it, and how they interpret the results. This is
evident in the case of the human genome project, a massive international effort to map the human genome using the
hierarchical shotgun method, (1990 - 2003). It generated enormous data, but the interpretation of this data was not
straightforward. Scientists interpreted the data in various ways, leading to varying conclusions about the role of genes
in human health and disease. Although they all utilized the same methodology, the project produced diverse results.
Therefore, the knowledge produced was not determined by the methodology employed.
In the Arts, the knowledge produced is the outcome consequence of the artist's creative process. Each discipline
within the Arts has a distinct methodological framework, which defines that artistic discipline. Music and dance, for
example, have a clear notation system. Color theory and composition are examples of underlying systematic rules in
visual arts. But artists enjoy some methodological flexibility through imagination and creativity. Brand contends that
creativity is a complex process that involves a set of rules-based processes, rather than being purely spontaneous or
unpredictable (Brand, 2015, 31-55). Imagination allows artists to push the boundaries of traditional techniques and
styles, and to develop new and unique ways of expressing themselves guided by a set of rules, such as the need for
coherence, feasibility, and relevance. These rules are not rigid or deterministic but rather provide a framework for
creative thinking. 

Michelangelo employed a very specific methodology when painting the vault of the Sistine Chapel (1508-1512). Firstly,
he imagined how he wanted to convey the story of the creation of the universe. Second, he applied extensive planning
and coordination to ensure that each component of the painting blended seamlessly with the others. Lastly, he
employed the fresco technique to create durable and long-lasting large-scale murals and utilized oil painting
techniques to achieve a wider range of colors and textures. In "The Birth of Venus" (1485), Botticelli, through the
methodologies used, carefully planned and executed every detail using a detailed sketch which served as a guide. He
then used the "sfumato" technique to build up the colors and create a sense of depth, dimension and luminosity and
employed the "chiaroscuro" technique to create a sense of three-dimensionality and realism resulting in a precise and
realistic depiction. The examples described illustrate how the methodology determined the creative process and the
final output, hence influencing the production of artistic knowledge.

However, another angle of this debate indicates that artistic knowledge cannot be learned or taught through a set of
methodologies. Artistic knowledge arises organically from the creative process itself. It is shaped by a complex
interplay of factors, including the artist's vision and expression, the cultural and historical context of the artwork, and
the audience's interpretation and reaction to it. While methodologies are important for determining broad categories
of artistic knowledge, they are not as important when it comes to knowledge derived from specific works of art. Two
artists using the same standardized methodology structures can create vastly different works of art, each with its
unique meaning and emotional impact. For example, Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque shared the same principles
and techniques of the art Cubism, but their artworks had distinct styles and aesthetics. Picasso's "Les Demoiselles
d'Avignon" (1907) features angular and sharp-edged forms that are almost aggressive in their depiction of the female
figures. Meanwhile, Braque's "Violin and Palette" (1909-10) is more subdued and organic, featuring soft, muted colors
and a more naturalistic representation of objects. The artists create vastly different works of art due to their individual
approaches, preferences, and aesthetics.

Seago & Dunne argue that the methodologies used in creating art do not determine the knowledge produced. They
contend that when art students are compelled to use methodologies like those used in other fields, they risk losing the
elements of imagination, originality, iconoclasm, energy, flair, and wit that have characterized the best art school
culture since the 1950s (Seago & Dunne, 1999, 11-13). The aesthetics of artistic knowledge are not standardized or
determined by the rules of their methodology. The production of knowledge in art is highly subjective and context-
dependent. Therefore, methodologies determine to a small extent the knowledge produced.

In conclusion, the relationship between methodology and the knowledge produced is complex. The methodologies
used in natural sciences and arts play a significant role in shaping the final output, but it is not necessarily always a
determinative one. Because these fields are subjective and interpretive, other factors such as creativity, personal
biases, critical thinking, cultural norms, and experience can influence the knowledge produced.

The scientific method is a systematic and rigorous approach to knowledge production in natural sciences that allows
researchers to make objective observations and draw conclusions based on empirical evidence. However, it is
important to consider that the interpretation of the information is prone to subjective influences and cultural biases,
that can affect knowledge creation. 

Similarly, artists create their work using techniques that involve experimentation, iteration, and reflection which
provide a framework and allow artists to build upon the work of others who have used similar techniques. However,
art is experiential and emotional and the best art comes from an intuitive and organic creative process, where the
artist is not bound by methodologies or rules.

Ultimately, knowledge creation is a multifaceted and complex process influenced by a wide range of factors and the
role of methodology in determining knowledge creation is a matter of ongoing debate.