Responses 005 (2010-2011)
The fifth installment already? My, my, how time flies!
Question 5 in that long list is, "To what extent are the various areas of knowledge defined by their methodologies rather than their content?" It's a question that's quite related to the older one about whether areas of knowledge are discovered or invented.
In this case, however, the question can possibly be rewritten to read, "To what extent is an area of knowledge defined by 'how you know' rather than 'what you know'?" This means that, in order to answer it, you'd have to explain your judgement as to what position to take between two extremes. These extremes are: a) when you apply a certain methodology or approach to finding out things, all the things you find out in that way form a unified body of knowledge; or b) a unified body of knowledge consists of all the things you decided to put together.
The question's relationship to the discovery/invention problem is now more obvious. If you apply a methodology and discover facts by means of this methodology, and then say that your facts form an area of knowledge, this is the 'discovered area of knowledge' idea. If you have a lot of facts discovered in (presumably) different ways, and you put them together to form an area of knowledge, this is the 'invented area of knowledge' idea.
The answer is not a clear-cut one; that is why this question really does require a 'to what extent' in it. When scientists say that science consists only of knowledge obtained and justified by the scientific method, they are saying that the methodology creates an area of knowledge. When artists say that whatever they do is art, no matter how they do it, they are saying that the content defines an area of knowledge — you know it when you see it, it doesn't matter how it came about.
To some extent, you also have to ask yourself the question, "Is knowledge assembled from facts (like a house is made from bricks — haha, some of you might remember that question) or is knowledge constructed by a method, regardless of what that method produces?" For every area of knowledge, this will be different — and for some areas of knowledge, it will be hard to tell anyway.
The problem, I suppose, with this question, is that it requires a general argument which defines the situation and offers guidelines for dealing with any area of knowledge; you then need to apply that argument to a wide enough range of areas of knowledge. These example will then show how your argument works and help you give an answer to the question of to what extent one approach or the other defines an area of knowledge.
This question isn't one I'd tackle without a good working knowledge of how areas of knowledge are defined. Then again, all students of courses like the IB are supposed to have that working knowledge, instilled by months of working with highly intelligent and dedicated teachers who know all about the paradigms of knowledge construction/collation. Right?
Question 5 in that long list is, "To what extent are the various areas of knowledge defined by their methodologies rather than their content?" It's a question that's quite related to the older one about whether areas of knowledge are discovered or invented.
In this case, however, the question can possibly be rewritten to read, "To what extent is an area of knowledge defined by 'how you know' rather than 'what you know'?" This means that, in order to answer it, you'd have to explain your judgement as to what position to take between two extremes. These extremes are: a) when you apply a certain methodology or approach to finding out things, all the things you find out in that way form a unified body of knowledge; or b) a unified body of knowledge consists of all the things you decided to put together.
The question's relationship to the discovery/invention problem is now more obvious. If you apply a methodology and discover facts by means of this methodology, and then say that your facts form an area of knowledge, this is the 'discovered area of knowledge' idea. If you have a lot of facts discovered in (presumably) different ways, and you put them together to form an area of knowledge, this is the 'invented area of knowledge' idea.
The answer is not a clear-cut one; that is why this question really does require a 'to what extent' in it. When scientists say that science consists only of knowledge obtained and justified by the scientific method, they are saying that the methodology creates an area of knowledge. When artists say that whatever they do is art, no matter how they do it, they are saying that the content defines an area of knowledge — you know it when you see it, it doesn't matter how it came about.
To some extent, you also have to ask yourself the question, "Is knowledge assembled from facts (like a house is made from bricks — haha, some of you might remember that question) or is knowledge constructed by a method, regardless of what that method produces?" For every area of knowledge, this will be different — and for some areas of knowledge, it will be hard to tell anyway.
The problem, I suppose, with this question, is that it requires a general argument which defines the situation and offers guidelines for dealing with any area of knowledge; you then need to apply that argument to a wide enough range of areas of knowledge. These example will then show how your argument works and help you give an answer to the question of to what extent one approach or the other defines an area of knowledge.
This question isn't one I'd tackle without a good working knowledge of how areas of knowledge are defined. Then again, all students of courses like the IB are supposed to have that working knowledge, instilled by months of working with highly intelligent and dedicated teachers who know all about the paradigms of knowledge construction/collation. Right?
Labels: Epistemology, Knowledge, Odd Questions
etched with acid at 9:29:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home