Prompt: How can we judge when evidence is adequate?

The object chosen: "Tower of the Winds" from Athens, Greece.

The consistency and replicability of evidence are critical. “The Tower of Winds” houses a
Clepsydra which has calibrated markings and an entrance through which water flows to
precisely record the passage of time. The historical community during the 1st Century B.C.
relied on the nature of physics and raw materials to provide them with consistent and yet
accurate time readings for them to carry out scheduled daily activities. The Clepsydra was
simplistic yet effective, allowing the concept using water and gravity to be replicated by other
various communities like the Islamic community who then created their own version of a
waterclock.

Consistency is developed through repeated measurements that portray the same results. In this
case, if the entire Clepsudra system is closed and stable, the flow of water from one place to
another should remain at a constant speed and hence be able to show repeated results. The
consistent results are what makes humans agree that the evidence is adequate and the natural
phenomenon of water and gravity further brings out the replicability of the concept of a
clepsydra.

The consistency and replicability of evidence do not necessarily mean the evidence is deemed
correct and adequate. Our knowledge of time solely relies on our belief in the concept of a clock
as there will never be a clear line where the knowledge of time is deemed correct and wrong.
For example, we will never know that the current time is let's say 5 p.m. without the help of a
clock, but digital clocks and physical clocks are all human-made, hence the time we use in our
everyday lives is not necessarily “correct”. What humans rely on is the replicability of man-made
clocks and the consistency of time that is shown on the clocks, meaning that at any point in
time, all the clocks in a given time zone should show the same exact time. Only when this
happens then the evidence can be considered adequate.
Object: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn.

The credibility of the source the evidence was taken from. This book uses a variety of reliable
sources to support its claims and offers historical case studies as well as references to historical
works by historical figures like Issac Newton and Charles Darwin.

Adequate evidence should come from a credible source as the source directly impacts the
reliability and trustworthiness of the presented information.

Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" substantially draws on a variety of

reliable sources to back up its claims and offer historical case studies. Thomas S. Kuhn makes
reference to a wide range of scholarly works and publications authored by distinguished
researchers in many different fields. These include the writings of historical figures like Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, and several others.1

Kuhn emphasizes that institutions, people, and expertise all contribute to the advancement of
science. Respected research organizations and well-known scientists' work is given more
credence, and their conclusions are frequently received with greater acclaim. This emphasizes
how crucial the source is in establishing the sufficiency of the evidence.

The notion of "paradigms," which are prevailing systems of assumptions, hypotheses, and
techniques that direct scientific inquiry within a given discipline, is introduced by Kuhn in the
book.2 Scientists working inside a paradigm have a propensity to adopt similar presumptions
and methods, which can result in groupthink. When fresh data appear that contradicts or

1 David Kaiser. In retrospect: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Nature. 11 April 2012. Accessed on
4 August 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/484164a#:~:text=Fifty%20years%20ago%2C%20a
%20short,history%20and%20philosophy%20of%20science.
2 Eric Gregerson. Thomas S. Kuhn. Britannca. 14 July 2023. Accessed on 4 Agusut 2023.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-S-Kuhn#ref168963
challenges the dominant paradigm, this thinking may cause resistance. As a result, evidence
that originates from unorthodox or less well-known sources may be received with skepticism.
The assumption that the source is actually significant is shown by this resistance to the facts.

The socio-cultural context of the source is also crucial in determining its credibility, as "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions" demonstrates.3 According to Kuhn, the social background
affects which research issues are given priority by scientists. Researchers are part of certain
social and cultural contexts, and these contexts influence their interests and the issues they try
to solve via their study. The researchers' representation of the source of the evidence is key in
establishing the reliability of the source.

Object: Camera Obscura

The methodological soundness of the evidence is critical. The “Camera Obscura” experiment is
conducted by Ibn al-Haytham who engineered a scientific method with precise steps adapted
from existing scientific methods.

The "Camera Obscura" experiment was one of Ibn al-Haytham, widely known as Alhazen,'s
most well-known experiments. Ibn al-Haytham employs a methodologically solid scientific
approach. The experiment is a keystone piece of optics and the scientific process, embodying
careful observation, hypothesis formation, and empirical research.4 This commentary examines
the experiment's use of major methodological soundness principles, highlighting its importance
in the field of knowledge creation.

3 Edward N. Zalta. Thomas S. Kuhn. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. August 13 2004. Accessed on
4 August 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#CritInfl
4 Lee Lawrence. Ibn al-Haytham: Testing is Believing. AramcoWorld. 2 April 2023. Accessed on 4 August
2023. https://www.aramcoworld.com/Articles/March-2023/Ibn-al-Haytham-Testing-is-Believing
The camera obscura experiment by Ibn al-Haytham provides proof of the value of methodical
observation in scientific inquiry. In a dimly lit space, he carefully studied the behavior of light and
its interactions with surfaces, laying the basis for his questions and seeing patterns that
revealed important insights. He utilized controlled testing to adjust factors like hole size and
projection surface distance to demonstrate causal linkages and prevent erroneous findings.5 His
assumptions were founded on a thorough grasp of light and optics fundamentals. Its
methodological soundness is demonstrated by the experiment's repeatability, which enables
others to repeat it and promotes transparency and independent findings verification.

His investigation relied heavily on mathematical analysis, which used geometrical concepts to
explain how the inverted picture formed. He demonstrates the scientific spirit of inquiry by being
open to new information and modifications, which is a vital component of a sound scientific
methodology. In conclusion, the camera obscura experiment of Ibn al-Haytham is a potent
illustration of excellent scientific investigational methodology.

He established the basis for the scientific method via methodical observation, hypothesis
formation, controlled testing, reproducibility, mathematical analysis, and a dedication to
falsifiability. His work emphasizes the importance of these ideas in expanding our knowledge
and is evidence of the ongoing importance of methodological rigor in scientific research.

Word count: 934 words

5 Pippo Carmona. The Birth of Science in a Darkened Room. History Today. 4 April 2019. Accessed on 4
August 2023. https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/birth-science-darkened-room#:~:text='%20Al
%2DHaytham%20experimented%20by%20making,by%20passing%20through%20the%20pinhole.
TO JOHN :

TO SPECIFY THE COMMUNITY DOMAIN IN WHICH THE KNOWLEDGE IS BEING

CONSTRUCTED.

BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY DOING SCIENCE, INSTEAD YOU ARE COMMENTING
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
THE SECOND ORDER IS COMMENTING ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE
IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM, MUST SPECIFY THE DOMAIN OF KNOWLEDGE
SPECIFYING COMMUNITY IS GOOD SO OTHER COMMENTARIES CAN MAKE CLEAR
DISTINCTIONS

ASKED ABOUT OBJECT: COMMENTING ON THE OBJECT IN CONTEXT WITH

ANSWERING THE PROM.

OBJECT DOES NOT NEED TO BE PERSONAL AND MUST BE SPECIFIC