hsl966

Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly

than another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one

other area of knowledge.

Theorists like Simone Lackner claim that “without science, there is no human growth, no

technological advances, no knowledge generation, and the world stagnates” (Lackner, 2014).

Meanwhile, mathematicians like Harry T believe that “mathematics is the bedrock of the

modern world” (Harry T, 2004) and is the fundamental tool that enhances other knowledge

areas. We are yet to find a conclusion to the lifelong debate of whether mathematics is

paramount to the natural sciences (Divya S, 2017). The competitive nature between these two

areas of knowledge makes them a great fit for this essay because the phrase “highly

regarded” indicates a hierarchy.

To answer this question we must first define “highly regarded knowledge”. Highly regarded

knowledge is the knowledge that is most indispensable, pragmatic, and valuable to the

knower in the context in which it is applied. It must also be most reliable and valid so that it

is effectively applicable. Next, we must unpack the meaning of solid justification. Firstly,

solid justification must be backed by clear evidence, thus adding weight to the argument.

Secondly, solid justification for an argument holds few to no assumptions, hence the premises

support the conclusion strongly. Lastly, solid justification should not be outweighed by

counterarguments, ensuring that the claim still holds.

Through this essay, I will be examining the methodological advantages and limitations within

the natural sciences and mathematics, and understand their impact on the reliability of

knowledge. This essay will also consider the pragmatic value of the two knowledge areas,

1
 hsl966

and explore the existence of the aforementioned hierarchy; finally, I will discuss the

dependent relationship between the natural sciences and mathematics.

There is justification to consider knowledge production in the natural sciences more highly

regarded due to its compelling and reliable scientific method of research. What makes this

method reliable is its demand for tangible evidence, repeated trials, and falsification (“Locke,

Berkeley & Empiricism”). Further, it requires reproducibility, which means consistent and

cumulative lines of evidence, only then is a theory or law accepted. For example, the

discovery of the universe’s age was developed by nine scientists and was tested by various

experiments over a period of 133 years (“The Scientific Revolution”). These nine scientists

built upon each other's knowledge and verified ideas through repeated trials, each time

acquiring the same results. This example implies that the accumulation of evidence proves

our trust in scientific claims, thus making scientific knowledge reliable. Moreover, the

scientific method's awareness of faults and desire to improve further increases the accuracy of

scientific knowledge. The estimated age of the universe was refined numerous times, even

Albert Einstein coined his prediction of a static universe as the “biggest blunder” (“The

Scientific Revolution”). Einstein’s cultural biases regarding the universe affected his

conclusion. However, once confronted with evidence that falsified his claims his theory

wasn’t recognized. This implies that the hallmark of the scientific method is that it challenges

biased beliefs with reproducible evidence that draws more objective conclusions. Thus, the

natural sciences can refine, expand and produce reliable knowledge, making it more highly

regarded.

However, the aforementioned justification may not be “solid” because it assumes that

evidence acquired after falsification is the ultimate truth. This may not be the case because

2
 hsl966

empirical evidence relies on sensory experience, which does not always accurately represent

the physical world. According to Gregory Berkely, the interdependence of primary and

secondary qualities in the physical world explains the human inability to accurately acquire

evidence through senses (“Locke, Berkeley & Empiricism”). For example, In 1922 Georges

Urbain “discovered” Celtium, however, wrongly categorized this element as rare earth

(Frederick- Frost, 2019). This was because of his mistaken interpretation of the scientific

evidence. This implies that scientific evidence obtained through senses is subjectively

perceived and may not be factual. The inaccuracy of these conclusions could have possibly

led to Celtium being used for the same purposes as rare earth metals (manufacturing

technology), which would inhibit technological development. We can therefore conclude that

the scientific method does not provide solid justification for regarding natural sciences more

highly because empirical evidence may not always be reliable.

On the other hand, there is solid justification to consider mathematical knowledge to be more

reliable because it is based on deductive reasoning, axioms, and proofs. Unlike the natural

sciences, mathematics does not generalize patterns of evidence but proves theorems with

absolute certainty that its claims will always hold (Perminov). When points on the

circumference of a circle are joined, different regions are formed. With each new point, the

number of regions doubles, however, through deductive reasoning mathematics realizes that

this pattern does not continue indefinitely, unlike the natural sciences. Axioms are the starting

point of this proof and are obvious assumptions that are self-evidently true (Mathigon, 2021).

For example, “the angle sum theorem states that all angles in a triangle always add up to 180

degrees, regardless of the dimensions and in all possible cases” (Byjus, 2017). This

conclusion is built upon Euclid's seven axioms. This example implies that mathematics

makes reliable inferences based on universally accepted facts. Through logic and reasoning

3
 hsl966

mathematics proves its claims are possible in all cases, with no anomalies. Some might argue

that if axioms are proven wrong, then all mathematical theorems would naturally be falsified

too. However, axioms cannot be proven wrong because they are statements that we invent

and claim to be true (Mathigon, 2021). Through the foundation of axioms and methods of

deductive reasoning, mathematics produces knowledge that cannot be falsified. Thus, there is

solid justification to hold mathematical knowledge more highly than knowledge from the

natural sciences in terms of reliability.

The natural sciences have enormous pragmatic value and should therefore be more highly

regarded. Human life depends upon the discoveries of the natural sciences; the progression in

medical research has been linked to an increase in life expectancy. For example, Louis

Pasteur's discovery of pasteurization is responsible for keeping children alive (Wallentine,

2017). Pasteurization plays a significant role in preventing disease outbreaks creating a major

breakthrough in saving lives. From this, we understand that humanity’s existence depends

upon scientific inventions, without which it would be difficult to survive. What is interesting

about this example is that The World Health Organization reported disease outbreaks to be

the “biggest threat to mankind”, heightening the value of medical knowledge (Kiger, Cancio,

Kershner, 2010). Furthermore, humanity would stagnate to the old stone age without the

existence of scientific knowledge. For example, the “wheel was invented in Mesopotamia

during 3500 B.C.E” (Gambino, 2009). Knowledge about friction, leverage, and rotation from

physics was required to create this salient invention. Today, the wheel is used in almost all

mechanical devices: factory machines, watches, transport, etc. This suggests that scientific

knowledge has high pragmatic value because it supports human existence and increases the

quality of life, thus being highly regarded.

4
 hsl966

On the contrary, we cannot justify that the natural sciences hold higher pragmatic value than

mathematics because pragmatic value is subjectively measured. The aforementioned example

evaluates pragmatic value only in terms of human well-being, which is measurement through

the lens of the natural sciences. On the contrary, pragmatic value depends upon the

significance of the knowledge to its context. Mathematical knowledge, therefore, has high

pragmatic value because it is used in all facets of life. For example, while cooking my meals

every day I use concepts of measurement, unit conversions, and ratios. Furthermore, without

mathematical knowledge, I wouldn’t be aware of temperature changes and cooking time

either. Too much of certain ingredients or cooking time would result in unfavorable results.

Apart from cooking, mathematical knowledge is significant in budgeting, shopping, sports,

playing music, etc. From this, we know that mathematics and natural sciences can have equal

pragmatic value depending upon the criteria with which pragmatism is measured. Thus, there

isn’t solid justification to hold the natural sciences more highly than mathematics.

Although the essay title is indicative of a hierarchy, there may not be one because of the

dependency that natural sciences and mathematics have on each other. It is often said that

mathematics is the language of science. This is because the scientific method can only

produce scientific knowledge through the mathematical analysis of evidence. For example,

my biology internal assessment uses the scientific methodology which requires data tables,

forming graphs, and calculating coefficient values for the data sets. Only then can I form

scientific conclusions. Without the use of mathematical concepts, I would have unsupported

scientific claims with high possibilities of inaccuracy in reasoning. Therefore, scientific

observations are just theories until validated and analyzed by mathematical knowledge.

Similarly, mathematical knowledge depends upon the natural sciences to be valuable. For

example, the knowledge of algebra does not hold value until applied to disciplines such as

5
 hsl966

chemistry (Kneller, 2021). In chemistry, stoichiometric relationships are based upon the

knowledge of algebra. Without another area of knowledge such as the natural sciences

mathematical knowledge would not be needed and therefore, wouldn’t be highly regarded.

This implies that mathematics and science equally support each other and wouldn’t be fruitful

in isolation, therefore, there isn’t a hierarchy between the natural sciences and mathematics.

To conclude, in my opinion, there isn’t solid justification to consider knowledge from the

natural sciences more highly than mathematics. Although the natural sciences produce

knowledge from a compelling scientific method, the evidence acquired from this method may

not be reliable, because it is derived through sensory experiences. Knowledge from

mathematics may be more valid because of the use of proofs, deductive reasoning, and

axioms. However, the value and significance of mathematics depends upon its use in the

natural sciences, and similarly, the production of knowledge in the natural sciences depends

upon mathematics. Therefore, I believe that the natural sciences and mathematics should be

equally regarded and a hierarchy must not exist.

6
 hsl966

Works Cited

Admin. “Angle Sum Property of a Triangle (Theorem & Proof).” BYJUS, BYJU’S, 30 Aug.

2017, byjus.com/maths/angle-sum-property-triangle/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

“Axioms and Proofs | World of Mathematics – Mathigon.” Mathigon, Mathigon, 2021,

mathigon.org/world/Axioms_and_Proof. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

Carpi, Anthony, and Anne E Egger. “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge.” Visionlearning,

Visionlearning, Inc., 25 Mar. 2011, www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-

Science/49/The-Nature-of-Scientific-Knowledge/185. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

CrashCourse. “Locke, Berkeley, & Empiricism: Crash Course Philosophy #6.” YouTube, 15

Mar. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-s4JrymKM. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

Frederick-Frost, K. M. “Henry Moseley and the Search for Element 72.” Chemistry

International, vol. 41, no. 2, 1 Apr. 2019, pp. 23–27,

www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ci-2019-0205/html, 10.1515/ci-2019-

0205. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

https://www.howstuffworks.com/about-patrick-j-kiger.htm, et al. “10 Scientific

Breakthroughs We Literally Couldn’t Live Without.” HowStuffWorks, Dec. 2010,

science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/5-scientific-

breakthroughs-we-couldnt-live-without.htm. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

7
 hsl966

“How Humanity Gave Itself an Extra Life.” The New York Times, 2021,

www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/magazine/global-life-span.html. Accessed 13 Nov.

2021.

“Maths vs Science - Which Is More Important for Common Life? - Eon Education.” Eon

Education, 23 Aug. 2017, www.eoneducation.com/maths-vs-science-which-is-more-

important-for-common-life/index.html. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

Perminov, V. Ya. “On The Reliability Of Mathematical Proofs.” Revue Internationale de

Philosophie, vol. 42, no. 167 (4), Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 1988, pp. 500–

08, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23946767.

“R/Askscience - Have There Been Axioms That Later Have Been Proven False?” Reddit,

2015,

www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/30xokb/have_there_been_axioms_that_later

_have_been/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

Smithsonian Magazine, and Megan Gambino. “A Salute to the Wheel.” Smithsonian

Magazine, 17 June 2009, www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-salute-to-the-

wheel-31805121/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

“Stoichiometry | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki.” Brilliant.org, 2021,

brilliant.org/wiki/stoichiometry-in-progress/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

8
 hsl966

“Teach Chemistry: The Math of Chemical Reactions—Stoichiometry.”

Rapidlearningcenter.com, 2021,

Wallentine, Cynthia. “Pasteurization Has Saved Millions of Lives, so Why Do People Want

to Drink Raw Milk?” WonderHowTo, WonderHowTo, 2 Mar. 2017,

invisiverse.wonderhowto.com/news/pasteurization-has-saved-millions-lives-so-why-

do-people-want-drink-raw-milk-

0176399/#:~:text=Pasteurization%20Saves%20Lives,the%20years%201912%20to%2

01937.. Accessed 22 Nov. 2021.

“(2) What Would the World Be like Today, If the Industrial Revolution Had Never

Happened? - Quora.” Quora.com, 2021, www.quora.com/What-would-the-world-be-

like-today-if-the-Industrial-Revolution-had-never-happened. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

“Why Math Is so Important - ProQuest.” Www.proquest.com,

www.proquest.com/openview/a4bd96e39637e3882a723b568a5e45bb/1.pdf?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=182. Accessed 13 Nov. 2021.

“Without Science the World Stops - AR Magazine.” AR Magazine, 15 Mar. 2014,

magazine.ar.fchampalimaud.org/without-science-the-world-stops/. Accessed 13 Nov.

2021.