Knowledge Framework: Human Sciences

In the TOK class we have been exploring the  knowledge frameworks. In the group I worked with we were looking into the Human Sciences aspect.

The ‘knowledge framework’ is designed to help students explore, discuss, and form an understanding of each of the eight areas of knowledge.  It is designed to present various consideration points that that can then be used to compare and contrast the different areas of knowledge, as well as tying them to the ways of knowing.

 [Dunn, Michael. Knowledge framework for the human sciences (12th September 2013). theoryofknowledge.net. http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/the-human-sciences/knowledge-framework-for-the-human-sciences/ Last accessed: 8th February 2016]

When comparing the various areas of knowledge, we discovered that the natural sciences and history were generally similar to the methodology of the Human Sciences. Where extensive research and questionnaires are used as methods of gaining knowledge, with reference to many experiments which are also repeated for more accuracy.

Some experiments were used to prove theories was the main similarity we identified in the Natural Sciences group. The dissimilarity was the fact that the focus on the Natural Science was different in comparison to Human Sciences. The names of the area of knowledge was a big giveaway. Furthermore, I thought that human sciences often required a (possibly emotional) interaction with an audiences to gain knowledge.

We identified Math as an area of knowledge that fits into most of the areas of knowledge. For example, in my chemistry class or chemistry as an area of knowledge - we use numbers to gain information about moles and other aspects of stoichiometry.

Overall, the knowledge framework was an optimum way to compare and contrast the various areas of knowledge. The questions in each respective section enabled us to really study the A.O.K designated to us. Furthermore it gave a different perspective when comparing A.O.Ks.
  http://tslater.public.iastate.edu/kf/

Shared vs Personal Knowledge

Shared knowledge is accumulated by a group of people. For example, chemistry is a vast discipline built up over centuries by a large number of people working together. Individual chemists can contribute to this knowledge base by performing experiments. The results of this research are then written in the form of research papers and presented to peers for review. If there is enough corroboration of the results according to standards set by the chemistry community, they are accepted and become part of the corpus of chemistry knowledge.

This knowledge is passed on through technical articles written in specialist chemistry journals.

Personal knowledge, on the other hand, is not so easily shared. This might be because it is not so easily put into words. This type of knowledge depends crucially on the experiences of the individual whereas shared knowledge does not. Knowledge I gain through practice and habituation, such as the ability to play soccer, play video games, play the guitar dance and draw. Knowledge of my own personal biography through my memory.

Each type of knowledge is personal and is usually not communicated (and if it is, it is not accepted by the community) and so remains in the realm of personal knowledge, not shared knowledge.

Shared knowledge can influence personal knowledge. For example, after studying a lot about the heart and the effects of exercise on my body. I am able to gain personal knowledge which was influenced by the shared knowledge I gained by reading the biology text book. 

From an individual point of view, shared knowledge is considered to be a form of authority. Knowledge has authority because it has, in most instances, been validated by the procedures and methods of inquiry of the subject area concerned. The individual without option to these same procedures might feel that he or she has to take the authority on trust. An example here might be a patient trusting the judgment of the medical profession. 

Shared knowledge is accumulated by a group of people. For example, chemistry is a vast discipline built up over centuries by a large number of people working together. Individual chemists can contribute to this knowledge base by performing experiments. The results of this research are then written in the form of research papers and presented to peers for review. If there is enough corroboration of the results according to standards set by the chemistry community, they are accepted and become part of the corpus of chemistry knowledge. This knowledge is passed on through technical articles written in specialist chemistry journals.

Personal knowledge, on the other hand, is not so easily shared. This might be because it is not so easily put into words. This type of knowledge depends crucially on the experiences of the individual whereas shared knowledge does not. Knowledge I gain through practice and habituation, such as the ability to play soccer, play video games, play the guitar dance and draw. Knowledge of my own personal biography through my memory.

Each type of knowledge is personal and is usually not communicated (and if it is, it is not accepted by the community) and so remains in the realm of personal knowledge, not shared knowledge.

Shared knowledge can influence personal knowledge. For example, after studying a lot about the heart and the effects of exercise on my body. I am able to gain personal knowledge which was influenced by the shared knowledge I gained by reading the biology text book.

From an individual point of view, shared knowledge is considered to be a form of authority. Knowledge has authority because it has, in most instances, been validated by the procedures and methods of inquiry of the subject area concerned. The individual without option to these same procedures might feel that he or she has to take the authority on trust. An example here might be a patient trusting the judgment of the medical profession. 

"Shared and Personal Knowledge." TOK Essay. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. Date published and Authors' name was not published.

 

https://mariaalbatok.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/religious-knowledge-systems/

Response to the film Particle Fever

In class we watched a part of the film Particle Fever, about the CERN project, a collaboration of scientists from around the world who built a large hadron collider meant to assist scientists in proving a number of theories including the existence of the Higgs Boson or God Particle. 

I was impressed at the way in which science was used to bring up to 100 nationalities to work collaboratively; regardless of political views this was all about proving a theory and science. The film was able to teach people with very little knowledge about physics about such a complex theory. It was interesting to see scientists actually working through their problems and trying to find solutions. The use of the various W.O.K to confirm a theory that could really revolutionize science.  

When the experiment failed there were lot of emotions displayed, the disappointment and frustration was explicitly shown by the body language of the scientists. Although instead of letting emotion get in the way of gaining knowledge. The scientists were ever more driven to actually prove this theory. With the large amount of pressure placed on the scientists it was really exciting to see how scientists dealt with meeting deadlines.

I thought about how sometimes doing an experiment in chemistry is similar. We first have to plan the experiment, then actually do the experiment. Sometimes the right values are not obtained, but rather than allowing the wrong answer from stopping us. We keep trying till we get the right balance in order to get the right answer.

I found it interesting when some of the scientists chose to pray. It was odd, there has always been a clash when people mix science and the divine force. Generally, science had gone against some religious teachers in the past. Scientists are rational and use W.O.Ks to accept facts and theories and to put their faith into god after all their hard work was quite interesting. 

Overall, watching the film, I had an insight into knowledge creation in the natural sciences. Also illustrations of the WOKs used by theoretical physicists and those used by experimental physicists. Where theorists use math to test their theory. While experimental physicists actually have to do the experiment to gain the knowledge. They generally work together to confirm their theories.