Tok Essay: "Only Seeing General Patterns Can Give Us Knowledge. Only Seeing Particular Examples Can Give Us Understanding." to What Extent Do You Agree with These Assertions?
“Only seeing general patterns can give us knowledge. Only seeing particular examples can give us understanding.” To what extent do you agree with these assertions?
In 2007, approximately 1.58 million scientific research papers were published, far more than one could possibly read in a lifetime. However, when I visited CERN last year, I was told that all of our present understanding of physics could be summarised in a few equations: General Relativity, describing gravity; and the Standard Model, which describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. Can we gain complete knowledge about the universe through seeking general patterns, in the form of scientific theories? Or are we forced to trawl through the masses of observed data and scientific papers to understand even a fragment of reality?
I will argue that to understand something, you have to be aware of the mechanism causing it, whilst I associate knowledge with facts. Consider an astronomer who has spent his lifetime meticulously recording the locations of the planets and stars. I would argue that this astronomer has amassed much knowledge by observing of many particular examples. Now consider a physicist who is familiar with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which models the movement of the planets and stars. We might argue that the physicist has more knowledge, since he can apply his theory to calculate the past and future positions of the planets. Imagine, however, that the astronomer had a time machine, which he used to measure the positions of the planets at all possible points of time. If one believed the role of scientific theories is simply to make predictions then there is no difference between the astronomer’s data book and the physicist’s model, which merely summarises the data. However, we could argue that scientific theories do more than predict; they explain. The physicist can explain how the stars and planets alter the geometry of spacetime that determines the motion of
In 2007, approximately 1.58 million scientific research papers were published, far more than one could possibly read in a lifetime. However, when I visited CERN last year, I was told that all of our present understanding of physics could be summarised in a few equations: General Relativity, describing gravity; and the Standard Model, which describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. Can we gain complete knowledge about the universe through seeking general patterns, in the form of scientific theories? Or are we forced to trawl through the masses of observed data and scientific papers to understand even a fragment of reality?
I will argue that to understand something, you have to be aware of the mechanism causing it, whilst I associate knowledge with facts. Consider an astronomer who has spent his lifetime meticulously recording the locations of the planets and stars. I would argue that this astronomer has amassed much knowledge by observing of many particular examples. Now consider a physicist who is familiar with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which models the movement of the planets and stars. We might argue that the physicist has more knowledge, since he can apply his theory to calculate the past and future positions of the planets. Imagine, however, that the astronomer had a time machine, which he used to measure the positions of the planets at all possible points of time. If one believed the role of scientific theories is simply to make predictions then there is no difference between the astronomer’s data book and the physicist’s model, which merely summarises the data. However, we could argue that scientific theories do more than predict; they explain. The physicist can explain how the stars and planets alter the geometry of spacetime that determines the motion of
Bibliography: Books: Aczel, A. D., 2006. The Artist and the Mathematician. High Stakes Publishing, London. Deutsch, D, 1997. The Fabric of Reality. Penguin Books, London. Deutsch, D., 2011. The Beginning of Infinity. Penguin Books, London. O’Shea, D., 2008. The Poincaré Conjecture. Penguin Books, London. Polkinghorne, J., 2002. Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. The Royal Society, 2011. Knowledge, networks and nation: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st Century. London. Lectures and talks: Dawkins, R., 2005. TED Talk ‘Why the Universe seems so strange.’ http://www.ted.com/talks/ richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html Accessed 28/10/13. Feynman R., 1964. The Messenger Lectures, MIT. http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/general/ feynman.html Accessed 28/01/2013. Millican, P, 2009. Oxford General Philosophy Lectures. http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/ general_philosophy Accessed 28/01/2013. Penrose, R., 2012. LMS Popular Lectures delivered on 26/11/2012, Birmingham. Shankar R., 2006. Open Yale Courses. http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200/lecture-7 Accessed 28/01/2013.