The Politcs of Disgust

Sense perception is commonly used in our daily lives as a way of knowing and verifying knowledge. Our reactions and emotions can affect moral beliefs. As well as I noticed sense perception reactions can keep us safe. Our reaction to certain odors for example can indicate if something may be harmful for us.

Disgust can protect us from poison - a primitive detector that helps us stay safe. It is relatively easy to make one feel disgusted. Although everyone has their own perceptions of disgust. Also like the limitations of sense perception, sometimes we may perceive something that is good for us as disgusting. In my case, salads are disgusting and kale is horrible, but it is really good for my body and it is not harmful to it.

Disgust can also be used to hate people. The common example of Nazis hating Jews. Disgust can also be linked to social groups. Disgust is very difficult to measure. Although scientists do use questionnaires and surveys to study how human beliefs can affect what we find disgusting or how easily one is disgusted. An interesting example I came across was tan experiment that looked at how people who supported different political parties are easily disgusted than others. The Cornell University found out that conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberal. 

I found it interesting that our beliefs and emotions can influence what disgusts us. It made me wonder: can what disgusts people be used to gather more knowledge about that person?

Obsolete Science. How is it disproved and what, if any, value might it still have in building new knowledge?

I was looking into obsolete science for my TOK presentation. Obsolete refers to a theory in science no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: a theory which has no meaning because it has been proven wrong. Most new knowledge in the natural science is created by falsifying theories.

I think obsolete science refers to the idea is that the knowledge that is disproved leads to more refined and accepted interpretations. Often as scientists learn that something doesn't work leads them to ideas that do work. I asked myself a few questions to help me answer the question. What counts as a fact in the natural sciences? Scientists use different methods to prove a theory is incorrect to generate a theory. Scientists can never be 100 percent sure about a theory because as technology develops new methods of falsifying knowledge are created. What ethical thinking constrains the methods used to gain knowledge? Generally, when proving a theory is obsolete, some of the experiments needed to falsify a theory can be unethical therefore hindering the creation of knowledge.

An example from my  biology class, we looked at vaccinations. Smallpox was the first infectious diseases of humans to have been eradicated by vaccination. This was done by a worldwide vaccination Programme in the 1960s and 70s. Smallpox was also the first disease for which a vaccine was tested on a human. Today Jenner’s tests would be considered ethically unacceptable as they involved child too young to understand the dangers who could not therefore give informed consent, and he had not first done tests to find out if the vaccine had harmful side-effects.

As new knowledge was being formed to further improve/ falsify old knowledge new theories arose to oppose the previous theories.

Another example from my biology class was the davson-danielli model. Davson-Danielli's model of a phospholipid bilayer sandwiched between two layers of globular protein was incorrect. The nonpolar protein portions would separate the polar portions of the phospholipids from water, causing the bilayer to dissolve. Meaning, the Davson-Danielli model is not only incorrect, but it is also impossible. Because no one could falsify their theory, it was accepted by scientists for about 30 years. Until the electron microscope and further new knowledge helped falsify this theory.

Overall, I feel like scientists can gain more knowledge from using past mistakes and falsifying theories to gain new knowledge. The use of new technology like in the case of new telescopes allowing scientists to disapprove the theory of a geocentric universe.