Posted at 09.10.2018
''Doubt is the main element to knowledge'' (Persian Proverb). From what amount is this true in two regions of knowledge? Some explanations of doubt highlight the state where the head remains suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them. Doubt makes us aware and allows us to assess the stability of the foundation of knowledge we are employing. Hesitation brings into question some notion of a perceived "fact", and could involve delaying or rejecting relevant action out of concerns for errors or faults or appropriateness. The concept of doubt covers a range of phenomena: one can characterize both deliberate questioning of uncertainties and an mental point out of indecision as "doubt".
Doubt could be the key to knowledge but till it doesn't make the individual reject everything he discovers. For example, if I mistrust that I am going to flunk in IB then it isn't a significant key to knowledge. If this motivates you and makes you examine like mad then it is. If it discourages you then it is not. So, doubt is only an integral to knowledge under certain circumstances. Additionally, there's always the danger of skepticism, that limitless tendency to suspect and question. Regarding to skepticism and question it ought to be pointed out that regarding to Cartesian skepticism there is an try to eliminate every notion that could be doubted therefore Descartes maintains only the basic beliefs from which he will gain further knowledge. So hesitation is the key to knowledge under certain circumstances.
Doubt makes us aware and we can assess consistency of the foundation of knowledge we are employing. In Science this implies questioning things (try to falsify). Every discovery begins with a point for uncertainty. We see and perceive the world with the help of our senses but we don't really know what is real. Natural Sciences are a quite reliable body of individuals knowledge, exactly since it is based on experiments and evidence and has at its bottom the medical method. To be able to test the concerns and lead to a conclusion we follow a clinical method. To begin with we ask a question which is associated with the doubt that people have and want to investigate. Then we assess information therefore we are resulted in form a hypothesis. From then on, we test our hypothesis by making use of an experiment in order to justify our hesitation or not. In the long run we see what occurred in the test and we attract a conclusion by either justifying our question or rejecting it. Avogadro, who was simply a scientist having examined mathematics and science, proposed his now famous hypothesis that equal amounts of gases, at the same temp and pressure, contain identical numbers of molecules and made the differentiation between atoms and substances, which today seems clear. However, Dalton turned down Avogadro's hypothesis because Dalton thought that atoms of the same kind could not combine. Because it was thought that atoms were placed together by an electrical force, only unlike atoms would be seduced alongside one another, and like atoms should repel. So that it looked impossible for a molecule of air, O2, to are present. Avogadro's work, even if it was read shows up never to have been known, and was pressed in to the dark recesses of chemistry libraries and disregarded.
In Knowledge we can never be 100% confident inside our results because during investigations many mistakes can occur so in retrospect doubting is reputable in science. There could be some possible errors in the use of the technological method (problems due to tools, biases, problems of deduction/induction) which might lead to a weird result of an experiment which would be confirmed by repeating the experimental procedure. A personal example is the fact in Chemistry class we had to observe water transportation in a celery stalk. Due to a mistake in the method that we used (we didn't stop the timer in the right time but later) the results came out to be odd and incorrect. So, we had to replicate the investigation in order to be more accurate as time passes and for that reason gain the results that people expect.
In an IB Biology category the aim of the analysis was to see whether there is an effect of differing awareness of a certain sugar solution on the amount of osmotic activity between your solution and a potato chip of given size or not. So, we implemented a certain method and then we turned out that our question, that was that the low focus of the glucose solution in the beaker the larger the mass of the potato will be, was justified. That is a hypothesis not really a doubt. It appears like a doubt though. This example makes us understand the fact that we cannot reach a point where everything important in a technological sense is well known because through the concerns we investigate and discover everyday new things that provide us knowledge.
All the aforementioned items are associated with ideas that are provisional. Provisional ideas are theories that are accepted until we reach a point where we reject them. What leads us to the idea of rejection is hesitation. Moreover, it ought to be mentioned that very much like provisional ideas is falsification. Falsification is again predicated on doubt. Falsification includes theories that are provisional and need justifications and proof in order to verify the doubt or not. At that time it ought to be mentioned an example of Paradigm shift which means that some established ideas which were doubted have been revised. Paradigm shift is a term utilized by Thomas Kuhn to describe a big change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of technology. An application of Paradigm shift can be seen in the natural sciences and it is the approval of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection changed Lamarckism as the mechanism for evolution.
Gregory Mendel, before he demonstrated the whole issue for monohybrid crosses he doubted it and made a falsification. His theory was seen as a provisional justification but after he gained data by crossing varieties of pea plants which had different characteristics, he showed his theory which is left in the annals of research as Mendel's Monohybrid Crosses. To conclude for one additional time this example shows that doubt is the key to knowledge.
In Mathematics like in other topics, we built on things that we previously discovered or proved. We built on axioms which can be self-evident assertions. We take axioms without question and from these we may use the guidelines of logic to work through problems. An example of an axiom is that, an odd quantity is lots which may be written as 2n + 1, where n is a whole number. We're able to not gain knowledge if we've doubt on a simple assumption. On the contrary some theorists think that having without doubt can lead to error in some instances. They think that just a little sense of question can mean that someone is open-minded and can gain further knowledge.
But in pure mathematics, everything (reasoning, axioms, mathematical structure) is at the regulations and conventions. Everything is deductively reasoned, as soon as something is proven, it is true no subject that space and time. Therefore, doubt in mathematics is definitely not the key to knowledge. But again sometimes depends on how we define 'uncertainty'. If we for example 'hesitation' that something in mathematics absent and trying to find it, we will surely bring the development of the knowledge.
One such example is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt G¶del is most well-known for his second incompleteness theorem, and many people are unaware that, important as it was and is within the field of mathematical reasoning and beyond, this end result is only the middle movement, as they say, of any metamathematical symphony of results stretching from 1929 through 1937. These results are: the Completeness Theorem; the First and Second Incompleteness Theorems; and the uniformity of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) and the Axiom of preference (AC) with the other axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel place theory. The first incompleteness theorem expresses that no steady system of axioms whose theorems can be outlined by an "effective technique" (essentially, your computer program) is with the capacity of proving all factual statements about the natural numbers. For any such system, there will be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are improvable within the machine. The next incompleteness theorem demonstrates if such something is also capable of showing certain basic facts about the natural quantities, then one particular arithmetic real truth the machine cannot prove is the steadiness of the machine itself.
Pythagoras theorem based on trigonometry was first of all proven by Euclidis, a famous mathematician in Old Greece but because of his rapid death another few doubted about the framework of the theorem and for that reason they reconstructed his theory centuries after his fatality. This example shows us that doubt is the key to knowledge because the couple guided by their doubt continued the theory and therefore extended the mathematical knowledge.
Cartesian doubt is methodological. Its purpose is by using hesitation as a path to certain knowledge by finding those ideas which could not be doubted. ] The fallibility of sense data specifically is a topic of Cartesian uncertainty. There's a question on whether hesitation in Ethics can or cannot be a key to knowledge. Critic and uncertainty in ethics take a look at our decisions in our everyday living and our actions from private and personal to open public and politics. Sometimes uncertainty in ethics tries to provide us with helpful information for moral decisions and generally options. Ethical axioms are examined not very differently to the axioms of knowledge. Truth is what stands the test of time. As an example, let us suppose that abortion on demand is incorrect. We want to collect relevant research and information to test whether our opinion is reasonable and valid. A good way to justify our perception is to state that abortion is incorrect because abortion is murder and so murder is incorrect too. Obviously I should illustrate the truth of the fact that abortion and murder are incorrect and for that reason to claim that abortion which is incorrect holds true because the infant is alive and murder occurs because the life is taken unnecessarily.
The philosopher Kant has worked with Ethics and uncertainty and has stated that to be able to judge an act, we have to first think about what concept governs the act and to picture what would happen if someone obeyed the principle. Kant also shows that we assess on whether the take action is good not by discovering if it produced good effects but by experiencing if a constant world is produced. Furthermore another point that should be mentioned on ethics and uncertainty is the ethical theories. Philosophers developed theories that help a person to explain morally right behaviors. One particular theory is the Deontological theory which says that folks have a work to avoid actions that obligation will be dependant on the type of the action itself, therefore individuals should perform their duties whatever the consequences, people have a duty to refrain from bad tendencies and the bad action will be dependant on the type of the action. This theory can be employed to real-life situations where individuals have the option of doing right or wrong. The individuals should avoid the bad patterns no matter which the results are.
In both regions of knowledge we justify the fact that hesitation is not always the key to knowledge. Actually in the next part of knowledge (mathematics), we noticed that doubt can be considered a key to knowledge regarding to this is that we give to 'question' as a term. Which means starting statement of the essay, whether 'uncertainty is the main element to knowledge' is right but it should also be added 'under certain circumstances'. What we'd do overall is to begin with not to question everything around us because on the main one hands we gain knowledge from uncertainty but on the other hands, some things are deductively reasoning and once they have been proved, they may be true for all time no matter space and time.
Word Count number:2. 079