|
Note
|
This is my Theory of Knowledge Essay with a few edits. Please don’t plagiarize my essay. |
From a young age, humans are curious beings; the simple question of "why" is perhaps the question parents hear most from their toddlers. And when we got explanations to our "why?", we mostly assumed what a superior told us was "true"; correct and in accordance with. However, as I got older and learned more things, I realized not everything told to me was true (in fact, sometimes quite wrong). I wondered, if something untrue, was still beneficial to my advancement of knowledge. However, I have come to realise that good explanations - that allow for a majority of society to understand a concept, without the need for specialized knowledge - should not be judged on their validity in determining their value. In the Natural Sciences and Religious Knowledge Systems, explanations do not have to be 100% true to provide good and sometimes better explanations (than true explanations). Thus, to what extent do Natural Sciences and Religious Knowledge Systems have to be based on true explanations to be good? I believe to a certain extent that the validity, or trueness, of an explanation is important; however, whether it is true or not should not determine if an explanation is good, rather how the explanation benefits society, and sometimes, this occurs when explanations are not entirely true.
Science
The Acid/Base Theory
In the Natural Sciences, there are many complex phenomenons that are quite difficult to actually understand. Thus, to what extent can imagination be used to understand and teach complex scientific phenomenon? Such an example of this occurred in in my Chemistry IBHL class. When I first learned about acids and bases in junior high, I was taught the Bronsted Lowry theory of acids and bases, and used my imagination to picture the acid giving off a hydrogen ion to the base. This imagination aided me throughout high school. However, I later learned about Lewis theory, which explains that the base gives off a pair of electrons to the acid; an almost 180 degree flip from the Bronsted Lowry theory! Although the Bronsted Lowry theory is not true, I still use the theory to this day in modeling acid/base behaviours; for instance, in my biochemistry class we model amino acids with or without hydrogen atoms based on the pH. In our modern age, the world continually progresses; thus, knowledge in every discipline continually evolves, with Natural Sciences at the forefront of this everyday change. However, the discoveries that scientists make usually requires a great deal of knowledge to understand, knowledge much of society does not have the time or privilege to possess. Thus, through imagination, explanations in science can still be good, without being true. And often, these basic, but not entirely true explanations, serve their purpose in regular life. Complexity is not necessary everywhere in life, and sometimes, a general understanding of certain topics is all that is needed.
The Atomic Model
A counterclaim I will now examine centers around the theories of the model of the atom. When I first learned Dalton’s billiard ball model in grade 10, it was quite easy to see that this model was wrong. Then I learned Bohr’s model. Simply put, it describes electrons orbiting around a central positively charged center. I’ve probably drawn hundreds of these Bohr models for the first three rows of elements in the periodic table. However, in my chemistry HL class, I learned about the quantum mechanical model of the atom: this theory states that there is an electron cloud surrounding a positively charged nucleus, with some areas having a higher density of electrons. Electrons move in random motion, none of that orbit stuff. Did that mean I didn’t even need to draw all those Bohr models? After learning about various atomic models, one may argue how close we can get to the "most true" answer is the whole purpose of science, and that a wrong explanation is simply useless to society because it contains a fallacy, seen clearly with the inaccuracies of the Dalton and Bohr model. Thus, these "outdated" theories should no longer be taught. However, providing complex explanations, such as the Schrödinger’s quantum model, which some may find hard to understand, is not always the best way to explain something. To visually understand that Boron has 5 electrons, should we explain the quantum mechanical model to someone in junior high? Does it add value to the 10th grader’s understanding to tell them that the first two electrons are in 1s, the second two electrons are in 2s, and the last electron is in 2p? Or does the Bohr model suffice? Only a few individuals possess the knowledge to understand such theories: these "true" theories that are full of complicated mathematics. This would destroy the whole purpose of scientific exploration because if people do not embrace new discoveries, hard work goes to waste; the Bohr model, can provides a good explanation for someone who does not need to understand why an electron in 2s behaves differently in 3s in their everyday life. Thus, in the case of Natural Sciences, I believe that good explanations do not always have to be true. In fact, they may contain errors, yet still serve the purpose of providing scientific knowledge to everyone in society.
Religon
Another Area of Knowledge I will examine is Religious Knowledge Systems. Religion is mostly based on explanations from texts and oral teachings, such as the Holy Bible in Christianity. I myself have been educated in a Western Catholic school system which regards the Bible as a historical text. However in the Bible, there are many fantastical events that simply would require magic (or something like that) to occur in today’s society. Thus, to what extent can reasoning dispute that religious explanations have to be true to be good? Although some biblical stories are realistic, some stories contain inconsistencies. Many of us would use our knowledge, and reason that if the creation story were true, that all of the world’s population would be born by incest, because God only put two individuals on earth. Thus, in the case of religion, reasoning invites the idea that true explanations are not necessarily the best. By viewing the Bible as an allegory or a metaphor, rather than a historical text, we can all draw deeper meaning from its content. More of society can relate to the Bible, such as those who are scientific thinkers. For instance, the creation story now draws a different meaning. The seven days are symbolic of the long process, rather than a mere week. The presence of only Adam and Eve is symbolic of the idea that we humans are all related to each other by our feelings, our desires for happiness, and more. Therefore, in such a text-based Area of Knowledge that is usually heavily based on being true, sometimes, true explanations are not the best for explaining the unknowns of life. Through metaphors, explanations are no longer historically true, but they integrate into society more smoothly and allow more people to apply the Bible to their own lives.
However, others may argue that the Catholic Bible and many other religious texts are legitimate historical records. However, to what extent is this true? As a student, I find it very difficult to ignore the scientific evidence we have today and believe the events of the Bible occurred. For instance, I learned that the story of Noah’s Ark, which states that all humans were killed in a flood, except for Noah and the animals he saved; however, through reasoning, many would find this story highly illogical and absurd. Most of the stories of the Bible are simply too extraordinary to occur, and those who believe in the Bible as history may force their views onto others. In a rapidly changing world, such controversial biblical stories often cause uproar, causing debate about abortions, stem cell treatments and much more, resulting in the loss of these scientific advancements for all of society, impacting individuals who do not align themselves with religion, but are forced to live with rules governed by religious bodies. Furthermore, whether religious texts are true life events will always remain unknown to us. Therefore, these reasons compel me to believe that good explanations do not have to be true. For the Area of Knowledge Religious Knowledge Systems, everyone chooses to understand a religious text differently. When I was attending Catholic school, I found it extremely difficult to relate to these stories, because many would contradict my moral compass or sound completely absurd. In my opinion, applying the parables as metaphors for life, rather than true events, allows for more individuals to relate to the Bible and aid us in life, rather than contradict life.
Since doing the ToK program, I began to wonder about the point of being taught old, invalid scientific theories. However, I am glad I learned these theories, because without learning them, there would be holes in my knowledge. Additionally, these models provide insight into the ever constant human endeavor for progress that I have come to appreciate and hopefully pursue in my own life. Furthermore, in the case of Religious Knowledge Systems, I was taught to believe that Biblical events were true and I rebelled against the Bible because the events would contradict my scientific beliefs. However, as I got older, I began to view the Bible differently, and by using the Bible as an allegorical text, rather than a history textbook, I was able to extract meanings and messages that provide meaning and understanding in my life.
In conclusion, through the Areas of Knowledge of Natural Sciences and Religious Knowledge systems, I firmly believe that good explanations do not have to be true. When evaluating the "goodness" of an explanation it’s trueness should only be one factor that determines its value. By teaching complex scientific theories to the general population, most will react with frustration, rather than enthusiasm; thus, I am grateful that teachers have taught me theories that are not completely true, because my enthusiasm is nurtured, I am motivated to continually gain knowledge. Furthermore, using the Bible as a metaphor invites everyone to interpret messages to their own personal understanding, allowing for the inclusion of all. Therefore, how explanations can change the lives of society should dictate its "goodness".