Essay title General notes

1. “The quality of Key words- quality of knowledge, best, measured, how many (quantity- the more the better), accept
knowledge is best The title is implying that the best way to measure the quality of knowledge in an AOK is by taking into
measured by how account whether people accept it or not. The larger the number of people, the better the quality i.e
many people accept majority wins. Find the various methods to measure quality in different AOKs and pit it against
it” Discuss this claim acceptance of people to determine whether this is the BEST APPOACH? What could be the pitfalls of
with reference to two such an approach? Discuss how easily can people’s opinion be swayed?
areas of knowledge. Quality of knowledge – subjective.
How do different disciplines determine their quality of knowledge?
What factors play an important role in this process? Is it applicability, validity, or public acceptance,
Number of what else?
people that Measured:
Can quality be measured?
accept What criterions are used by different AOKS to determine the quality of knowledge?
knowledge is a Objectives disciplines such as maths, sciences- Peer review, falsification, evidence
measure for its Subjective disciplines- Arts, Ethics.
quality Accept:
Why do people accept knowledge? What factors are responsible for acceptance of knowledge in an
AOK- evidence, authority figures, and metaphysical (intuitive) knowledge. In NS, evidence (reason), in
RKS- belief (faith)
What kind of evidence makes knowledge more or less acceptable? Why empirical evidence does top the
list although we know the limitation of our senses? What about rationalism- knowledge via reason- is
such knowledge more accepted than intuitive knowledge.
What role do beliefs play in influencing the opinion of people?
Should knowledge rely on acceptability- what about scenarios when scientific knowledge is opposed by
religious authorities or worse religious knowledge superseding scientific knowledge because more
(religious) people believe it and accept it
Is this the best method to determine quality or there are other more reliable methods- which ones, why
are they more reliable?

Brexit- based on public referendum (majority),

AOKS: 1
Natural sciences- establish the factors that determine quality to prove that acceptance relies on evidence
in this AOK i.e more the evidence, more people accept and not the other way around.
Look for examples knowledge is considered to be good in spite of opposition from other AOKs- RKS,
We could begin by exploring the phrase: Health of a discipline. health means well being
How to measure it? Are there common criteria to do that? Does it impact the quality of knowledge generated?

How do you define the health of a discipline- something which is constantly growing and updating itself or
something that has stood the test of time and remain unchanged. Under what circumstances /How can
disciplines be healthy or unhealthy. Define the criteria in the introduction. Is NS healthy and RKS not? Why?
Health may mean different in different AOK's
Health of Physics may be dependent on how well it is able describe the natural phenomenon Whereas it may be
something else in arts. Can we say that it is quality of knowledge with regards to that discipline?

Health can be positive as well as negative.

Health is negative when there is no scope for improvement

Nurture contrasting perspectives- to encourage different opinions/ stances. Which disciplines encourage different
perspectives; which ones don’t? why? Examine the knowledge in the respective disciplines and determine which
one has healthy knowledge?

Knowledge grows when there are conflicting claims as it acts as fuel for validating a perspective (analysis and
evaluation, personal experiences, judgements, opinions). Without nurturing of contrasting perspective a
discipline does not develop.Contrasting perspectives=conflicting claims( when it is not easy to reach a
compromise/consensus)

2
Contrasting perspectives to assure health of a discipline (Quote)

 Foundation of science is open debate and transparent and repeatable scientific method
 The contrasting perspectives need to be novel, contrasting perspectives for their sake only does not
assure health of a discipline

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_11
Competing ideas: A perfect fit for the evidence
We've seen that evaluating an idea in science is not always a matter of one key experiment and a
definitive result. Scientists often consider multiple ideas at once and test those ideas in many
different ways. This process generates multiple lines of evidence relevant to each idea. For
example, two competing ideas about coral atoll formation (island subsidence vs. formation on
debris-topped underwater mountains) were evaluated based on multiple lines of evidence,
including observations of reef and atoll shapes, island geology, studies of the distribution of
planktonic debris, and reef drilling. Furthermore, different lines of evidence are assembled
cumulatively over time as different scientists work on the problem and as new technologies are
developed. Because of this, the evaluation of scientific ideas is provisional. Science is always
willing to resurrect or reconsider an idea if warranted by new evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same
scientific evidence. For example, Priestley, working with phlogiston theory, explained his observations about the
decomposition of mercuric oxide using phlogiston. In contrast, Lavoisier, developing the theory of elements,
explained the same observations with reference to oxygen. [2] Note that a causal relationship between the

3
observations and hypothesis does not exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence, [1]but rather the
causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish observations as evidence.