tok+essay+final

Faris – See some teacher comments at close of essay below.

[|Faris's-Essay Assessment Criteria.docx]

“What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” (Michael Shermer). This is a quote that is arguably perceived differently based on personal understanding and reasonable conclusions. To analyze such a bold statement one has to first understand what is science, what are human activities, what does the statement “belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” mean?

Firstly science, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (Apple dictionary). Second, human activities, human activities in this case are considered ways of knowing because science cannot be compared to, for example, running, but can be compared to human activities that are used to know something, or find something out. Basically the interpretation of human activities here is areas of knowing, such as, mathematics, arts, ethics, and history. These are what are meant by human activities, activities being the production of these areas of knowing; in math for example, solving the equations to understand would be the activity. Thirdly, “belief in the provisional human nature of all conclusions”, what does that mean? Well, provisional is simply something that is stated or arranged or purely existing now that can be adjusted or changed later in the future, it is temporary. Also the word nature here would refer to essence, therefore the statement is simply saying “…its belief in the temporary essence of all conclusions” the conclusions are temporary and science is the core of all these conclusions. An example would be in paradigms and one that stands out is the shift from a Newtonian perception of the universe to an Einstein general relativity theory view. With this in mind one can know that science creates a shift in the perception of the world because of the multiple paradigms of the past. Also, one has to consider the word belief, while belief is a personal way of knowing, Shermer makes science believe that it changes and adjusts itself for clarification of a previous conclusion.

Now the assumption that science believes itself to be the provisional nature of all conclusions is not true and the assumption that it is believed to be the main distinction between all other areas of knowing is far-fetched because in all areas of knowing one will discover a specific adjustment to a conclusion in each area due to its independence from science and that a change in this temporary conclusion can affect another area of knowing.

Michael Shermer made a powerful statement in stating science is distinct from all other areas of knowing because it believes it is the temporary essence of all conclusions. This is not the case, stating the fact that when one talks about the provisional nature of //all// conclusions it is saying that science believes to be the only area of knowing that can change the conclusion of any information. Then this would include all areas of knowing, this would then denote that all areas of knowing would not change without an adjustment in science. However, this is not the entire case. Considerably a paradigm in science can cause effects in other areas, however, most areas of knowing are independent, most of the time, from the scientific field. For example, if one were to consider the area of knowing, art, and state that the changes in art are due to science one could easily argue that art is not dependent on science. To prove this, consider the past one hundred years and all the changes in the arts in comparison to all the paradigms and changes in the sciences one will conclude that the changes in art are relatively independent to that of the scientific field. For the past one hundred years the styles of art have shifted from cubism, surrealism, pop art, photorealism, and digital art. As for science there has been a paradigm shift and there hasn’t been one since Einstein published his paper on the general theory of relativity in 1905! Now let one consider this paradigm shift in the early 1900s and one can recognize that there has only been one adjustment to a previous conclusion (from Newtonian to Einstein’s theory) and almost four or five changes in the styles of art. So how can one state that science is the temporary conclusion of the styles of art when in fact art had many changes to it in only one hundred years. Therefore, one can infer that science is not unique, in the sense that it is the only one to have a provisional nature of //all// conclusions. If it were so then art would be dependent on science and only when there is a change in science there is a change in art and this is clearly not the case. Since art, being an area of knowing, is independent of science then how can science be an essence for a temporary conclusion in art for over the past one hundred years? It isn’t because of its independence from the other areas of knowing.

Although to say that science is effectively the only way of knowing due to the interpretation of the quote, indicates the plausibility that one alteration in science can have an effect on all conclusions. Why one would say this after an argument of independence is because a radical change in science or a paradigm shift can cause a change in the perception of the world. If one were to consider the same example of Newtonian perception of the world to an Einstein relativity theory perception, how will one then look at art, or any other areas of knowing? If one were to take mathematics for example, and examine the development and advancements in math one can conclude that there was some effect created by the scientific paradigm. In the Newtonian era mathematics was a growing subject, from basic algebra, algorithm, to geometry, trigonometry, and basic calculus. As time proceeded, mathematics developed as a unique area of knowing, a new language. This was in the Newtonian era, and now in the Einstein relativity era “new” math is needed in order to understand concepts. Since math is a form of language that is used to interpret and understand concepts it is easily linked with the paradigm shift in the understanding of the world. Now consider the other area of knowing, art. Have the styles of art been adapted to satisfy the Einstein relativity era or were they bound to come about regardless of the new worldview?

If science is the main source of all areas of knowing then that indicates that it is the only area of knowing. If science is different from all other human activities because it believes it is the one that has the ultimate power to change conclusions made then it is stating that all areas of knowing are dependent on science. To restate, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The words physical and natural world, play a key role in defining science. The word world implies that science is the binoculars which we look through to understand the world. Therefore, a change in science will affect all areas of knowing because of its world connection. However, it will not affect all areas of knowing at the same time because other areas of knowing require personal ways of knowing, which the world and science have no part of.

Faris

__“What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” (Michael Shermer).__

SUMMARY: ‘Science’ on one hand and ‘other human activities’ on the other, are different activities but both, as areas of knowing, involve changes and adjustments to conclusions. In other words, the finding of temporary conclusions is constant in human efforts to know things.

Areas of relative strength: · Clear effort to define terms · Strong restatement of the initial question – in layman’s terms · Bold thesis statement separated as paragraph three. · Clear statement about the logic of using different WOK’s in different situations. Well said.

Areas of relative growth: · Careful re-reading, ideally out loud, of the core logic paragraphs might help you simplify your argument. In the lengthy paragraph comparing Art and Science there is the potential for confusion as initially is seems you are defending an argument linking the two fields. In the end it is clearer that you are simply identifying Art as an area that contains as many or more temporary conclusions (historically) as Science. · Bravo on the efforts to contextualize the argument with Einstein’s thinking and the math subject review. Keep in mind the value of specific, everyday examples as well. If one is looking for temporary conclusions (truths) in Math examples abound, in both theory and in practice. · Finally, if Sagan has his baloney meter, then each of us might do well to carry our own ‘jargon-o-meter’ on the hunt for statements that might sound effective but beg for a chance to hit the earth with both feet. Example from your final paragraph: “To restate, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Great line. Down to brass tacks it means: ……. · When you get to university you will get more and more practice refining and simplifying your arguments and backing them with evidence. Keep up the hard work! cct