Arguments: Scientific vs. Romantic
Does science give us real knowledge?
(TOK essay)
&
Remington
11(2)
Student number: 3091
Word Count: 505 After reading the source, I have gathered the information that according to positivists, the main reason they believe that science gives us ‘real knowledge’ is because the knowledge stated by scientists is knowledge that has almost been proven to be 100% true, because the experiments are very reproducible. In the positivist mindset, every experiment made is a step closer to getting the reason of life and all of that stuff that has not been answered yet. Positivists claim that science is a tool that helps us adapt and evolve and gain ‘real knowledge’.
Romantics however, also believe that science is a tool, but they believe that it is but a tool that can help us in many ways for instance to make our lives better, but cannot give us the answers that are most important. Such as why are we here? What is love? And what is passion? What is the purpose of life what does it mean to be human and have feelings? Etc. This is a very intriguing theory, it can be very interesting to explore and I find it quite fascinating, it would be a nice way to see things. But even though science cannot prove it, romantics cant either.
I believe that the strongest argument made by romantics is that science doesn't give us what we really want to know; it only helps us know how certain things work. This argument is strong because it is in a way, true. Science can’t answer those questions, we do not know why we have different personalities, and we have no clue whatsoever. But, we still do not know the full capability of science. Maybe one day, science will give us the answers we really want. I agree mostly with the positivists. Because to me as an individual, science has helped me a great load. For example, I love to exercise. After exercising, it is common to get some minor injuries. Bruises, sore tendons/muscles etc. but science has helped me
(TOK essay)
&
Remington
11(2)
Student number: 3091
Word Count: 505 After reading the source, I have gathered the information that according to positivists, the main reason they believe that science gives us ‘real knowledge’ is because the knowledge stated by scientists is knowledge that has almost been proven to be 100% true, because the experiments are very reproducible. In the positivist mindset, every experiment made is a step closer to getting the reason of life and all of that stuff that has not been answered yet. Positivists claim that science is a tool that helps us adapt and evolve and gain ‘real knowledge’.
Romantics however, also believe that science is a tool, but they believe that it is but a tool that can help us in many ways for instance to make our lives better, but cannot give us the answers that are most important. Such as why are we here? What is love? And what is passion? What is the purpose of life what does it mean to be human and have feelings? Etc. This is a very intriguing theory, it can be very interesting to explore and I find it quite fascinating, it would be a nice way to see things. But even though science cannot prove it, romantics cant either.
I believe that the strongest argument made by romantics is that science doesn't give us what we really want to know; it only helps us know how certain things work. This argument is strong because it is in a way, true. Science can’t answer those questions, we do not know why we have different personalities, and we have no clue whatsoever. But, we still do not know the full capability of science. Maybe one day, science will give us the answers we really want. I agree mostly with the positivists. Because to me as an individual, science has helped me a great load. For example, I love to exercise. After exercising, it is common to get some minor injuries. Bruises, sore tendons/muscles etc. but science has helped me