“Given that every theory has its limitations, we need to retain a multiplicity of

theories to understand the world.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas

of knowledge.

Word count: 1598

Since young, I was taught that being open-minded was a virtue to uphold, and

that concept was exacerbated by being in the IB, where open-mindedness is listed as

one of the attributes of an IB learner. From this precedent, it would seem obvious that

retaining a multiplicity of theories would be beneficial for knowledge production.

Further examples in real life would solidify that claim. History lessons have taught me

the importance for a historian to evaluate different perspectives, as individuals may

hold certain biases. However, I doubted that the answer would be simple, leading me to

question the validity of this claim. It should be noted that a theory’s nature varies across

areas of knowledge. Applied in natural sciences, theories are the best explanations of

natural phenomena, where it is acceptable to have gaps when the theory cannot explain

existing data. It seeks to understand the external world by conducting repeatable

experiments, employing the scientific method to form plausible theories that try to

explain presented data. Historical theories represent an interpretation of the sources

presented by historians. Due to different opinions, the existence of biases and

subjectivity are persistent in theories. History aims to unravel the objective “truth of the

past” by maintaining a plethora of perspectives for comparison. By exploring the title

with these two AOKs, I will show that theories are inherently limiting and can be
encompassing, but theories retained will maintain objectivity and minimize the flaws in

the original theory.

A theory in natural science endeavours to provide the most logical explanation of

certain natural phenomena (Anticole, 00:00:46 – 00:00:53). The theory seeks to

incorporate most, if not all data, that fits under it, and that implies that knowledge gaps

may appear. As the theories in natural science aids to provide an explanation, it can be

encompassing when it is the best possible explanation at a certain point in time. For

instance, the Standard Model is a collection of theories developed in the 1970s that

describe the smallest experimentally observed particles of matter (Tate). It predicted

the existence of undiscovered particles, such as the Higgs boson (Staff). However, the

theory is considered incomplete as it doesn’t explain important features in the universe

such as gravity, dark matter and dark energy (Tate). Moreover, there is more evidence

that the Standard Model cannot be the ultimate explanation of modern physics.

Recently, scientists have found particles that are emitted from Antarctica that don’t fit

the Standard Model. They have tried calculating the probability that the unknown

particle being part of the Model, and it was less than 1-in-3.5 million (Letzter). This

shows that the Standard Model, as an example of a theory in natural science, has major

flaws when it comes to explaining modern physics. Here, it is shown although scientists

have found important evidence that suggests that the Standard Model does not satisfy

as the explanation of these unknown particles, they still “retain” this theory as it is the

only theory now that best explains the smallest experimentally observed particles of

matter. As such, they hold onto it until a better explanation is derived from other
scientists, and students now learn about the Model for simpler understanding of these

particles.

Although it has been established that theories in science are inherently flawed as

it only provides the best possible explanation at a certain point in time, there are

theories that have been replaced by others through the scientific method and years of

research. However, these “discarded” theories should be retained as some elements of

these theories may be used to help understand the world. Lamarckism, the theory that

suggests the inheritance of acquired characteristics, has been taken over by Darwinism

and Mendelian inheritance. Both theories have been proven by scientists using the

scientific method repetitively that it is, most probably, the way that organisms evolved.

Does this mean Lamarckism can be discarded and forgotten? It would be rather

presumptuous of us, as scholars, to disregard a whole theory as some aspects of a

replaced theory may be able to explain what the current theory cannot explain observed

phenomena. Epigenetics, the study in inheritable changes in gene expression without

modifying the underlying DNA sequence (Epigenetics: Fundamentals, History, and

Examples), resembles Lamarckism in some aspects, stating that traits that don’t exist in

your original DNA sequence can be inherited or modified such that those genes are

expressed and your body has those functions that weren’t passed down by your DNA

sequence. Furthermore, drugs are made based on epigenetics and approved by the FDA

to treat cancer (Approval of First 'Epigenetic' Drug for a Solid Tumor Is Milestone). This

example illustrates that retaining previous theories, or rather a multiplicity of theories,

allows the current theory to be continuously questioned and eventually falsified, or

enabling improvements or enhancements to the current theory. Other discarded

theories, such as previous atomic theories like the plum pudding model and the Bohr
model (Compound Interests), or the battle of Kepler’s to Copernicus’ to the geocentric

universe (Superseded Theories in Science), have their uses where people can

understand the chronological development of history itself, and see the arcs of

paradigm shifts to our current position. Hence, retaining multiple theories can restrict

the number of limitations of the current theory, enabling knowers to understand how

the discovery of the external world came to be.

History, in contrast, is the attempt to study the past objectively. Here, the

limitations of each historical theory are apparent: although the role of historians is to

provide an objective view into the past, there will be an inherent bias to their theories

due to their backgrounds, values, and opinions. To avoid this, multiple theories arise to

encompass every aspect of an event fully and to determine an event’s cause, course,

consequence and significance. One example is the historiography of the determination

of Mao’s intent during the Hundred Flowers Campaign. There had been much debate

whether the Campaign itself was a deliberate attempt to draw out his opponents or he

had genuinely been ready to receive criticism and had just received the shock of his life.

Historians like Jung Chang, who had been personally affected by Mao, vehemently

accused him of having an ulterior motive for launching the Campaign. On the other

hand, other spectators, such as Jonathan Spence, proposed the viewpoint that Mao had

initially wanted genuine intellectual constructive criticism towards the party but didn’t

expect the campaign to backfire (Peter). As shown, there are a multiplicity of theories

on the Campaign, and with them, we can have the full scope of whether Mao had been

intentional or other events like this. Without the multiplicity of theories present, the

single side of a story becomes unchallenged dogma. Maintaining multiple theories has

given us a multifaceted view of the cause of the event and can help us gain an objective
view towards the event as the theories helped minimize each other’s limitations, as

argued above.

As multiple theories arise with each event in history, retaining these theories

may be difficult due to the number of perspectives that we need to consider. However,

holding on to these theories can help foster disagreement on how an event is portrayed.

This drives people to find the objective “truth” of the event from those theories, which is

beneficial to the production of knowledge and enhances the understanding of the world.

Photography has played a large part in historical events, and controversial pictures such

as “Bloody Saturday” and “Napalm Girl” have brought awareness to these events

depicted. “Bloody Saturday” portrays a baby crying on the side of a railroad track when

the Japanese invaded Shanghai in 1937. This picture rose awareness in the West for

Japanese violence against the Chinese during that period. However, Japanese

nationalists claimed the photo as staged and denounced it, and even put a bounty on the

photographer’s head (MilitaryHistoryNow.com). “Napalm Girl” portrays a naked girl

running and crying due to napalm burns when the South Vietnamese Air Force bombed

the North Vietnamese troops near her house (Harris), which became an iconic war

photo that has won the Pulitzer Prize. However, there are records that even Nixon

doubted the authenticity of the photo (Ahler). These somewhat controversial opinions

further push people to recognize war photos’ authenticity and understand that these

events have happened in the past and reduce the photos’ deniability. Furthermore,

these controversial theories encourage people to get to know more about the photo’s

background and further raise awareness and understanding of our history. To conclude,
retaining multiple theories will lead to disagreements on how events are portrayed in a

certain angle in history and gives the incentive to understand the whole story.

To sum up, theories are inherently limiting and have a chance of being

all-encompassing. However, other theories retained maintain objectivity and minimize

the flaws of the original theory. In natural science, this means that although there are

important theories that single-handedly explain natural phenomena to us so that we

understand the external world, other “discarded” or “replaced” theories can still

contribute to the current main theory and improve it or inspire scientists to derive a

totally new theory which contributes to the multitude of paradigm shifts that we have

had in scientific history. In history, this means that although in every event there will be

a dominant school of thought, there are always alternative or opposing perspectives

such that we get the full picture, eliminating the subjectivity and bias that plagues this

AOK. Furthermore, it assists us in understanding how human development has its

impacts on the world. This conclusion brings us many possibilities in how we

comprehend knowledge in different areas, where we have to acknowledge that there is

a balance between the main theory and the other retained theories, and how this

balance ebbs and flows over the production of shared knowledge.

Bibliography:

Ahlers, Mike. “Nixon's Doubts over 'Napalm Girl' Photo.” ​CNN​, Cable News Network, 28

Feb. 2002, edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/02/28/vietnam.nixon/.

Anticole, Matt, director. ​What’s the Difference between a Scientific Law and Theory? - Matt

Anticole​. ​YouTube,​ 19 Nov. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU.

“Approval of First 'Epigenetic' Drug for a Solid Tumor Is Milestone.” ​Dana Farber Cancer

Institute​, 4 Feb. 2020,

blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2020/01/approval-of-first-epigenetic-drug-for-a-solid-tumo

r-is-milestone/.

Compound Interests. “The History of the Atom – Theories and Models.” ​Compound Interest,​

16 Oct. 2016, www.compoundchem.com/2016/10/13/atomicmodels/.

“Epigenetics: Fundamentals, History, and Examples.” ​What Is Epigenetics?​,

www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/.

Harris, Mark Edward. “Photographer Who Took Iconic Vietnam Photo Looks Back, 40

Years After the War Ended.” ​Vanity Fair​, Vanity Fair, 29 Mar. 2017,

www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/vietnam-war-napalm-girl-photo-today.

Letzter, Rafi. “Bizarre Particles Keep Flying Out of Antarctica's Ice, and They Might Shatter

Modern Physics.” ​LiveScience​, Purch, 27 Sept. 2018,

www.livescience.com/63692-standard-model-broken-supersymmetry-new-physics.html.

MilitaryHistoryNow.com. “‘The Shanghai Baby’ – The True Story Behind One of History's

Most Heartbreaking Photos.” ​MilitaryHistoryNow.com,​ 2 July 2019,

militaryhistorynow.com/2016/04/15/the-shanghai-baby-the-true-story-behind-one-of-h

istorys-most-dramatic-photos/.
Peter. “Hundred Flowers Campaign - Historiography.” ​Padlet,​ 28 Jan. 2020,

padlet.com/cunninghamp1/Hundred_Flowers.

Staff, ScienceAlert. “What Is The Standard Model of Particle Physics?” ​ScienceAlert,​

www.sciencealert.com/the-standard-model.

“Superseded Theories in Science.” ​Wikipedia,​ Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Jan. 2020,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science.

Tate, Karl. “Strange Quarks and Muons, Oh My! Nature's Tiniest Particles Dissected

(Infographic).” ​LiveScience​, Purch, 7 Apr. 2011,

www.livescience.com/13613-strange-quarks-muons-nature-tiniest-particles-dissected.ht

ml.