Theory of Knowledge Essay

Prescribed Title #3: Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the
natural sciences more highly than another area of knowledge? Discuss with
reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Word count: 1580

 I've always been taught that science is the foundation of life and the most valuable knowledge

one can have. In school, science was usually given first priority, with the other subjects

following behind. According to a YouGov survey of over 22,000 people from 16 countries, the

most respected profession is medical doctor or scientist while all the other types of professions

were ranked lower (Smith and Ballard, 2021). Is this to say that science is the most respected field of

knowledge, or is it simply the outcome of inductive reasoning? The prescribed title raises the

question of whether there is or there isn’t 'solid justification' for prioritizing natural sciences over

other fields of knowledge. The other AOK I will talk about is mathematics, which has just as

many applications as natural sciences.

A person’s explanation for “solid justification” may be a result of their epistemological view

– “the theory of knowledge concerned with the mind's relation to reality.” (Byerly, 2020). The

natural sciences are known to rely on empiricism whereas the mathematics rely more on

rationalism (Intellectual Mathematics, 2021). There is a cultural bias towards both methods of

thinking, with the empiricist approaches receiving more support than the rationalist ways. This

might also be one of the reasons why many people value science above mathematics and this

leads towards the inductive reasoning (Markie, 2017).

"An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason", says C.S Lewis. This implies that

just because natural sciences are "explained" to have the most significant knowledge does not

entail that this reason "justifies" them as the superior field of knowledge. This raises the question

of what is solid justification? Solid justification has a literal meaning of ‘being supported by a

large amount of evidence’; however, in TOK, it involves being supported by enough evidence

and being reasonable without severe flaws or strong counterevidence.

1
 The natural sciences are considered to be more significant because of their apparent use in

everyday life, whereas mathematical knowledge isn't as obvious and is frequently used to

support or conclude information. However, both AOKs are extensively used fields of knowledge

that have contributed to our world’s growth and improvement, it is hard to determine which is

more significant without solid evidence.

It's important to remember that theories evolve over time. Scientific theories that were created

in the past have changed multiple times to become the theories we have now, and today's

theories as well as basic knowledge such as photosynthesis is likely to change again (Blankenship,

2010), as the natural sciences advance. For example, when the double-helix structure of DNA was

discovered in the 1950s, one scientific idea called "genome editing" was created, with the goal of

editing genes to change traits or treat diseases (Fridovich-Keil, 2018). It was a major breakthrough,

and scientists have been working to enhance and advance genome editing techniques ever since.

Some theories were dismissed after extensive research, while others were investigated further.

CRISPR-CAS 9, a powerful tool, was discovered in 2012 to be more accurate and efficient than

the other methods (MedlinePlus, 2020). It has had a significant influence on our world, including

treating HIV, producing new pharmaceuticals, removing malaria from mosquitos, and lowering

our dependence on petroleum-based plastic by controlling a type of yeast that converts sugars

into hydrocarbons that can be used to produce plastic (Crawford, 2018). However, despite the fact

that genome editing is one of the most significant advances in natural sciences owing to its

enormous influence on the world, it has raised certain ethical issues. It is still under study by

scientists to see if it is completely safe and ethical to use on humans and other species. This

example alone shows the importance of knowledge in the natural sciences because of the

numerous benefits it provides. It offers a good justification for why natural science should be

2
valued higher than mathematics, due to the fact that scientists are aware of its flaws and are

working to correct them.

Mathematical theories, too, tend to improve and develop as a result of mathematicians'

experiences and observations. In most cases, mathematical theories change throughout time, but

the fundamentals remain the same (Ebrahim, 2010). Pythagoras' theorem, for example, was

unknowingly utilized in construction by ancient Babylonians, but it was not properly 'discovered'

until Pythagoras, a Greek mathematician, officially named the rule a thousand years later as a

result of observations connected to building design (Ferrao, 2015). It is a geometric theorem that

uses all the basic mathematical concepts and suggests that the sum of squares of the lengths of

the two short sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the lengths of the longest side of

the triangle 𝑎2 = 𝑏 2 + 𝑐 2 . It has also proven to be a significant advancement in the world, with

some comparing it to the discoveries of fire, wheels, and penicillin (Carli, 2017). The Pythagoras

theorem has particularly proven beneficial in 'surveying,' which is the act of cartographers

calculating numerical distances and heights between different sites before creating a map.

Surveyors use the theorem to determine the steepness of the terrain. Although it is a simple rule,

it has numerous applications throughout the world, and without it, mankind would be left with

many unanswered questions. Without it, trigonometry, which is widely used in fields such as

architecture and computer science, as well as some significant developments such as space

technology, would not exist (MyTutor, 2017). As a result, this theorem acts as a strong

counterevidence to regarding natural sciences higher than mathematics.

However, unlike genome editing in the natural sciences, the Pythagoras Theorem has

remained unchanged with just slight modifications for thousands of years, and it has been proven

by numerous mathematicians using a number of techniques (Ferrao, 2015). As a result, some may

3
argue that mathematics is a system of tried-and-true concepts that are the most reliable because

they haven't changed in a long time. Others may argue that the natural sciences stay relevant and

reliable as a result of changes in hypotheses because scientists are aware of their flaws, and

willing to modify their understanding.

Moreover, in response to those who believe that natural sciences are the superior form of

knowledge, and in light of Pythagoras' theorem's role in some scientific knowledge, I ask the

following question: How far would the natural sciences progress without mathematics? The three

main natural sciences are biology, physics, and chemistry, and mathematics has a role in each of

them. It is frequently used to quantify hypotheses and facts. Although some people believe that

physics is fully dependent on mathematics, it's important to note that the natural sciences only

use mathematics in a few areas, primarily for calculations, and the rest of their knowledge is

from its own domain (Brockmeier, 2020). Similarly, scientific knowledge is used to bring some

mathematical rules or principles to life, but the majority of it comes from its own area of

knowledge. Therefore, while both mathematics and natural sciences may exist independently,

they would not be as developed as they are now if they did not collaborate.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to argue that something's significance is defined by its use and

'pragmatic value', which, in my opinion, is valid to some extent because two or more AOKs may

be used in the same situation so determining which AOK contributes the most will help in

making a better unbiased judgment.

Global warming is one of the most pressing issues facing the globe today. Natural scientists

and mathematicians are working together to keep our planet safe from devastation. Scientists are

working out how and why climate change is happening and how to prevent its impacts, on the

other hand, mathematicians are researching patterns and detecting or forecasting the future of our

4
world in both negative and good conditions using models (Obe, 2018). It's clear that one AOK

can't give best possible responses without the knowledge of the other. Variables like CO2 and

water levels, as well as other scientific data, are required by mathematicians in order to fully

interpret and transfer information through their models. Scientists, on the other hand, need

mathematical skills to monitor and assess the effects of climate change, as well as to raise public

awareness about the issue, which they do using percentages and averages. Although it can be

argued that the concept of global warming would not have existed at all without scientific

knowledge, it is crucial to remember that without mathematical knowledge, scientists would not

have been able to comprehend the implications of global warming and assist the world

to understand it.

Unfortunately, it is evident that people have developed a great power dynamic between

scientists and mathematicians. This is due to the perception that scientists are more

"knowledgeable" and "wise" than those in other fields. As a result, if we overlook this issue and

evaluate both AOKs appropriately, the outcomes will show that they are equal.

In conclusion and in response to the question "Is there solid justification for regarding

knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than knowledge in another area of knowledge?"

No, there is no "solid justification" for prioritizing natural sciences over mathematics, because,

as the preceding points show, natural sciences and mathematics are inextricably linked, and one

would not be as advanced as they are now without the other. In addition to that, both of these

areas of knowledge have significantly contributed to the world’s growth and development

differently. Therefore, the importance of an area of knowledge largely depends on the situation

in hand. The prescribed title has many significant counter evidence points, therefore, while there

5
is no sufficient ‘solid justification’ for natural sciences being superior to mathematics, there may

be 'some justification' depending on the circumstances.

6
 Works Cited

1) Brockmeier, Erica K. “Where Math Meets Physics.” Penn Today, 7 Feb. 2020,

penntoday.upenn.edu/news/where-math-meets-physics. Accessed 3 Jan. 2022.

2) Carli, Jose Fernando. “What Impact Has the Pythagorean Theorem Had in the

Mathematics Field?” Quora, 30 Nov. 2017, www.quora.com/What-impact-has-the-

Pythagorean-theorem-had-in-the-mathematics-field. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

3) Crawford, Mark. “8 Ways CRISPR-Cas9 Can Change the World.” Asme.org, 2018,

www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/8-ways-crisprcas9-can-change-world. Accessed

15 Dec. 2021.

4) Ebrahim, Assad. “The Development of Mathematics «Mathematical Science &

Technologies.” Mathscitech.org, 3 Jan. 2010, mathscitech.org/articles/development-of-

mathematics. Accessed 20 Dec. 2021.

5) Ferrao, Livia. “Origins of Pythagoras Theorem - Embibe Exams.” Embibe Exams, 24

Nov. 2015, www.embibe.com/exams/origins-of-pythagoras-theorem/. Accessed 16 Dec.

2021.

6) Fridovich-Keil, Judith L. “Gene Editing | Definition, History, & CRISPR-Cas9.”

Encyclopædia Britannica, Brittanica, 21 Dec. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/gene-

editing. Accessed 12 Dec. 2021.

7) Intellectual Mathematics. “Rationalism versus Empiricism.” Intellectual Mathematics,

Intellectual Mathematics, 18 Sept. 2021, intellectualmathematics.com/blog/rationalism-

versus-empiricism/. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022.

7
 8) Markie, Peter. “Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”

Stanford.edu, 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/. Accessed 27 Jan.

2022.

9) Medline Plus. “What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9?: MedlinePlus Genetics.”

Medlineplus.gov, 18 Sept. 2020,

medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/genomeediting/. Accessed 12

Dec. 2021.

10) Obe, Chris. The Mathematics of Climate Change. Gresham College, 13 Nov. 2018.

11) Smith, Matthew, and Jamie Ballard. “Scientists and Doctors Are the Most Respected

Professions Worldwide | YouGov.” Today.yougov.com, 8 Feb. 2021,

today.yougov.com/topics/economy/articles-reports/2021/02/08/international-profession-

perception-poll-data. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

12) The University of Sheffield. “Epistemology | Philosophy | the University of Sheffield.”

Www.sheffield.ac.uk, 3 July 2020,

www.sheffield.ac.uk/philosophy/research/themes/epistemology. Accessed 27 Jan. 2022.