Indeed in mans never ending quest for knowledge, the situation has arrived where there are several ways through which we suck up knowledge, each look more reliable than the others according to different view points. These sources of knowledge are referred to as Areas of Knowledge, which can be defined in T.O.K. as subject areas into which knowledge is often classified. The Natural Sciences and benignant sciences are truly devil of the most well know and patronized areas of knowledge. More often than not the significance of these two areas of knowledge is so great that we are compelled to think of them as somewhat contradictory. However, determining which of the two is better, is an extremely difficult caper as both have their advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, I believe that it is a matter of perspective, but with regards to which is the more reliable I would need the natural sciences.
In the words of Galileo Galilei In incredulitys of science the office staff of a thousand is not worth the humble ratiocination of a single individual.
This to me is truly relevant to the question as it highlights one of the fundamentals of the Natural Sciences; reasoning. Reasoning can be defined as using logic to rally to credible conclusions and through this definition the reliability of the knowledge we gain from the natural sciences is evident. This knowledge is gained not only from reasoning, but excessively from observation and experimentation which altogether gives the scientific method in the natural sciences. Based on the scientific method, it is evident that onwards something is legitimate as scientific knowledge it must support repeated scrutiny by the scientific method. For instance, if somebody sees a (or thinks they have seen) a loch ness monster, it cannot be immediately accepted as scientific knowledge. The...If you want to get a honorable essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment