Wesley College
TOK Essay “Over time, knowledge has become more accurate.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Charlie Joyce Word Count: 1317
000612 0087
To properly address the statement “over time, knowledge has become more accurate”, one must first understand what the statement is concerning, and properly define the relative terms. Firstly, knowledge can be defined as the concept of humanity’s understanding, or perception, of reality. Secondly, for knowledge to become more accurate, it must further correspond with reality. Thus, the statement that “over time, knowledge has become more accurate” can be rephrased as the question of whether humanity’s understanding of reality has become more accurate with respect to reality as time has progressed. Once rephrased, a clear answer emerges that humanity’s understanding of reality has indeed become more accurate.
In the present day, we have a greater understanding of our world and the events that take place in it, both past and present, than we have had previously. This can be shown through examining the discipline of natural science. However, it must be taken into account that if knowledge is to be defined as a collective understanding of reality, then what if the collective perception of reality is based in a way of knowing in which it is not possible for knowledge to achieve greater accuracy - the accuracy of knowledge is absolute. Ultimately in interpreting the statement as a question of the increasing accuracy of our collective knowledge to reality, to formulate a proper response it is necessary to determine what way of knowing a society bases their perception of reality on, and whether this way of knowing can become more accurate. This will be analysed through the examples of the Natural Sciences and Religion. The accuracy of humanity’s understanding of the reality of our world and our universe has been greatly increased by the study of natural sciences. Throughout history, the accuracy of our knowledge of the natural world has been progressively
000612 0087
built upon the understanding held by our predecessors. An example of this can be found in humanity’s knowledge of elemental and atomic structure. In 420 BCE, the Ancient-Greek philosopher Empedocles theorised that all matter was made up of four elemental substances: earth, fire, air and water. This view was independently arrived upon by many ancient people, including Indian, Mayan and Chinese. In 300 BCE the Greek philosopher Epicurus theorised the existence of indivisible and indestructible atoms, from which all matter was made, however this view did not become widely circulated. This was followed by nearly 2,000 years of little progress towards greater accuracy, however the understanding of the nature of metals increased. In 1605, Sir Francis Bacon published The Proficience and Advancement of Learning, which led to the eventual development of the empirical scientific method. Empiricism – the practice of basing our knowledge primarily on sensory experience1 – had a significant effect on increasing the accuracy of scientific knowledge. In 1661, Robert Boyle published The Sceptical Chymist, which rejected the long-held alchemic consensus of the 4 natural elements. It instead theorised the existence of elements as being the indivisible blocks of which matter was built on, which could not be broken down by chemical reactions. Boyle’s work begun the practice of modern chemistry. Over the following centuries, discoveries were made of many different elements, which in the early 19 century resulted in the theory of th
atomic mass. This was used to arrange known elements into the periodic table, from which unknown elements could then be theorised. However it was not until the 20 century that subatomic particles were discovered, and so the accuracy of our knowledge increased.
11
Psillos, Stathis; Curd, Martin (2010). The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (1. publ. in paperback ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 129–138. ISBN 978-0415546133.
th
000612 0087
The progression of chemical understanding is reflective of the progressive nature of humanity’s understanding of natural sciences. Over time, scientists and researchers have built upon the understandings of those who came before, and through this have developed greater accuracy in their knowledge of the natural world. Furthermore, the empirical nature of modern scientific study has meant that greater accuracy in knowledge can be achieved through the requirement of evidence based theories. However, the statement that “over time, knowledge has become more accurate” can only be said to be true when a society bases their collective knowledge on a way of knowing able to become more accurate, such as the natural sciences. For societies where religion and faith determine what they perceive their reality to be, and thus base their knowledge from this perception of reality, knowledge cannot become more accurate as it is absolute. For example, in a society where the western empirical methods of natural sciences are utilised, said society’s understanding of something as ever-present as the Sun is able to become more accurate. Indeed, knowledge about the origins, makeup, role and future of the Sun has become far more accurate over the past centuries, and further observations and discoveries continue to be made in relation to this. Contrast this to the Ancient Greeks, who believed that the sun was the Titan Helios, who rode his ‘chariot of the sun’ across the sky each day. While this knowledge was not true to reality, it was true to the Ancient Greeks’ perception of their reality, and was completely accurate to this perception. In summary, if a society’s knowledge of their perception of reality is absolute, then it cannot become more accurate over time. This raises the question over whether knowledge can instead become less accurate over time. Given the prior argument of the absolute knowledge of a society’s perception of reality, then if said society changes their perception of reality to utilise a
000612 0087
way of knowing where there is not absolute knowledge, then is the collective knowledge of that society thus becoming less accurate to reality, as their perception of reality is becoming not absolute. This process is affecting much of the modern world. With the growth of natural sciences and further developments in that field are substantiating an empirically-based view of society, much of society is turning away from religion. Their personal perceptions of reality have been based in their religions, and their faiths, and this has meant that their knowledge of their own realities have been absolute. It has been impossible for knowledge which is grounded in absolute faith to become more accurate. However with the decline of religion, largely in western countries, and in the growing acceptance of natural sciences as a way of knowing and perceiving reality, these individuals are challenging their perception of reality and thus the accuracy of their knowledge. While their new perception of reality is potentially becoming more accurate to reality itself, the change from absolute accuracy of knowledge in a religious-based way of knowing to non-absolute accuracy of knowledge in a natural sciences based way of knowing means that the accuracy of their knowledge has become less accurate. Ultimately the statement “over time, knowledge has become more accurate” can only be truly answered when there is an understanding of what knowledge the statement is concerning. On one hand, if it is knowledge of the natural sciences as substantiated through empirical methods, then it is certainly possible for knowledge to have become more accurate over time. However for societies where empiricism isn’t what knowledge is based on, and instead a perception of reality is built on faith in said society’s religious traditions, then knowledge cannot become more accurate over time as it is substantiated on the perceived absolute truths of reality. Moreover, when a society transitions away from a religious way of knowing to a scientific and
000612 0087
empirical one, then their own knowledge has become less accurate as their perceptions of reality has gone from being absolute to requiring empirical evidence. Overall there is not a definitive answer to the question this statement raises, of whether knowledge becomes more accurate over time, but instead based on the collective way of knowing it is possible for knowledge to become more accurate, remain absolute or become less accurate as time progresses.
000612 0087
Bibliography "Chemistry History". Columbia.edu. N.p., 2017. Web. 9 June 2017. Niiniluoto, Ilkka. "Scientific Progress". Plato.stanford.edu. N.p., 2017. Web. 8 June 2017. Saiget, Robert, and Barbara Demick. "Tiananmen Square Anniversary Sparks New Crackdown". Sydney Morning Herald 2009. Web. 8 June 2017. Steup, Matthias. "Epistemology". Plato.stanford.edu. N.p., 2017. Web. 8 June 2017.
