Title 2: Within areas of knowledge, how can we differentiate between change and

progress? Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Word count: 1596

In a development-oriented world, the word ‘progress’ is oftentimes thrown around,

highlighting mankind’s achievements in making people’s lives easier. However, progress in
the context of theory of knowledge cannot be defined through the metric of real-world
implications, but rather through one of coming closer to fulfilling the purpose of an area of
knowledge. This is because theory of knowledge analyzes how we acquire knowledge. When
all areas of knowledge wish to fulfill their own purpose, this is exactly what TOK should be
analyzing; how well new knowledge fulfills the purpose of an area of knowledge, irrespective
of that knowledge’s impact on the world. It does not matter that a new discovery in history
leads to a conflict between two opposing cultures, as long as we have a better understanding
of history, this is progress.
In contrast, regress happens when something goes against the purpose of an area of
knowledge. An advancement in knowledge of something completely unrelated to the area of
knowledge in question, is neutral change. Both are non-progress, but still change.

This raises two questions crucial in understanding what progress is and what is just
mere change in knowledge; first, how to identify the purpose of an area of knowledge, and
second, how to know if the purpose is fulfilled. I will be exploring those two throughout the
two areas of knowledge; arts, and natural sciences.

The reason why I picked the arts as an area of knowledge referenced in this essay is
because it is extremely debated as to what the purpose of art is, and thus, what in art is progress.
For example, when Marcel Duchamp released his “The Fountain” in 1917, many believed it
was a mockery of art, while others found it was a bold challenge to the concept of it. What is
interesting however, is that while both sides agreed that the goal when it comes to art is to
create art, the question they disagreed on was whether “The Fountain” was more, less, or the
same amount of art than a realistic painting1. Therefore, purpose and progress is directly tied
with what an area of knowledge is in the first place.
If the question of whether something has fulfilled the purpose of art is “Is it art?”, the
answer is subjective. There is no non-societal definition of art, the concept of art is a social
construct, meaning, just about any answer would individually define what art is and set a new
standard for progress in art.
However, even if we do not agree on the grounds of what art is, the process of figuring
out if something is progress afterwards is the same. If an individual’s definition of art is fulfilled
by something, that something is an artwork in their eyes. With that, it fulfills the purpose of art
and should through their lens be considered progress.

Note, a similar analysis to what I’ve just written could be applied to any area of
knowledge; in order to identify what is and isn’t progress, we must first understand what the
area of knowledge is. When we know that, its purpose is also clear, since the two concepts are
tied together; if something is art, it is fulfilling the purpose of art. If something is science, it is

1: McReynolds, H. (2017). The Fountain (1917). In IB visual arts: For the IB Diploma. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge
University Pres.
fulfilling the purpose of science. Keeping in mind that the goal of each area of knowledge is to
fulfill its purpose, we know how to identify progress within an area of knowledge.

However, this process of defining progress within new knowledge has a big flaw; it
necessitates that in order to understand whether or not something is progress, we have to know
what a goal of an area of knowledge is. This is not a problem with socially constructed
definitions of areas of knowledge because we know the answer is subjective, but it does become
a problem with the ones where the goal is to have an objective understanding of something,
like natural sciences. That is to say, at the point of which we do not know what objective truth
is, and when natural sciences seek objective truth, we do not know if new knowledge is closer
to objective truth or further away from it compared to our previously acquired knowledge.

One way of combatting this issue is the introduction of the scientific method, ensuring
we know the causal link within theories. Due to this process, many hypotheses were
constructed and refuted through time. Both their construction and debunking are progress
because when theories are debunked, although we have a smaller pool of possible explanations
of the world around us, the pool we are given is necessarily a more accurate one. Afterwards,
new theories arise which must be closer to the truth than the ones previously debunked as new
factors are taken into account for new experiments. For example, people used to believe in the
theory of spontaneous generation of life, claiming that flies come to life from rotting meat,
until Francesco Redi disproved it in 1665. This new knowledge was progress because it paved
the way for scientists to seek out other explanations. This eventually resulted in Stanley Miller
and Harold Urey proving that the chemical components of our DNA could have arisen in an
old atmosphere of the Earth, a theory of the origins of life that, although tailored by modern
science, somewhat stands till this day. Because this line of thought has not yet been disproven,
we can assume it is closer to the truth than the spontaneous generation theory and thus
progress2.

What is interesting however, is that sometimes this same method does not lead us to a
more accurate representation of the world, but rather, a more skewed one. For example, in 4 th
century BC China, a collection of poems was written, beginning Taoism, and with it, an
understanding of how the universe works; it started without a reason, and it will end as all
things need to3. This notion was largely dismissed by most Western scientists following the
scientific method because it seemed to not be founded on reason. It is only now, having
advanced in science, that we know that the most possible explanation for the universe’s
creation is exactly that; because the net energy of all the universe is zero, it does not have to
have a reason to begin, it just does4.
What happened here therefore was that the method of finding out the truth, the scientific
method, disabled scientists from accepting what seems to be accurate information, or at least,
more accurate information than what we believed before. If the goal of science is to explain
the world as accurately as possible, the scientific method disabled this from happening. From
this we can infer that there is either a necessity for the scientific method to identify progress
even when it does not bring us closer to the truth, or that the scientific method is flawed in so
far as it prevents us from accepting accurate new information.

2: Ward, W., & Damon, A. (2007). Pearson baccalaureate: Higher level (plus standard level options): Biology developed
specifically for the ib diploma. Harlow: Pearson Education.
3: Laozi, & Star, J. (2008). Tao te ching: The new translation from tao te ching: The definitive edition. New York: Jeremy
P. Tarcher/Penguin.
4: Wolchover, N. (2011, March 18). What's the Total Energy In the Universe? Retrieved November 30, 2020, from
https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
 The reason why this is important is because if the latter is correct, the only reliable
method of identifying progress in science is put to question. This means we would not be able
to determine whether something is progress or not. Therefore, what I have to show in this essay
next is why the seemingly unnecessary detour that we have to take with the scientific method
is essential to progress.
Here, I propose that not only is the goal of science to most accurately explain the natural
world, but to also be certain that that explanation is not wrong. What I mean by this is that
although it is unfortunate that we did not understand the universe to such a degree sooner, it is
better we did not blindly accept just any theory we came across. It is better to have no
explanation of the universe than to have a wrong one. One is no change within our
understanding, while the other is regress.
Further, it is important to note that although scientists dismissed the Taoist explanation
of the theory, the scientific method did not erase it from the possibilities in so far as it has not
been disproven. Therefore, no actual regress was done.
What the scientific method does do is make sure that the new knowledge we accept is
the most accurate we can get, while ruling out false claims. This is most notable in the way it
rejects knowledge; no theory is completely accepted and continues to be questioned. Only once
it is proven false, it can be completely rejected. This means that it only helps in the pursuit of
an explanation of the world. Thus, knowledge acquired or rejected following the scientific
method is progress of science.
Again note, this same analysis can extend to other inquiry-based areas of knowledge,
such as human sciences or history. Their respective methods which rule out false theories,
protecting us from regress.

In order to differentiate between change and progress, we must first understand what
the purpose of each individual area of knowledge is. After, we see if the change of adding new
knowledge fulfills that purpose better or worse. When it comes to areas whose meaning is
constructed by people, such as the arts, this is subjective and can therefore always be considered
progress when looking through the right lens. Areas of knowledge founded on the pursuit of
an explanation of the world, like natural sciences, following the method that brings us closer
to better theories, while simultaneously ruling out possible theories that would regress our
understanding of the truth, can be considered progress.
Sources:

- Laozi, & Star, J. (2008). Tao te ching: The new translation from tao te ching: The
definitive edition. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.
- McReynolds, H. (2017). The Fountain (1917). In IB visual arts: For the IB Diploma.
Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Pres.
- Ward, W., & Damon, A. (2007). Pearson baccalaureate: Higher level (plus standard
level options): Biology developed specifically for the ib diploma. Harlow: Pearson
Education.
- Wolchover, N. (2011, March 18). What's the Total Energy In the Universe? Retrieved
November 30, 2020, from https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-
zero.html