Essay Prompt 6: Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the

strongest? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Introduction: 511

"George Orwell famously commented in one of his works where he argued that the ‘old is
consistently deemed inferior to the new’. This quotation focuses on the inclination of human
beings to reason about what is immediately in front of them, which could also form a potential
platform for bias in our judgment while re-evaluating evidence. The prompt argues that whatever
we see first and foremost, we are quick to assume that recency necessarily indicates accuracy.
There are certain pitfalls in the prompt that need to be addressed before we move on to a major
discussion of the prompt. Especially in epistemology, it is a rather known fact that biases and
personal biases can occur in various shapes and forms. In the natural sciences, there is a strong
tendency to focus on the recent discoveries that overwhelm the collective knowledge process that
has been built up over time. My understanding of physics is that I have always come to believe
that whichever scholar or physicist has come out in the more modern era is the person who is
more accurate. Therefore, I have always come to the conclusion that Newton was backward or
that Newton's physics was backward as compared to Einstein or Stephen Hawking, who is a
better physicist than Einstein. I have come to believe that the recency of natural science is
because of time frames. The first fallacy is to assume that the most recent evidence is also
susceptible to a lack of falsifiability. Falsification means disproving a fact until it is not deemed
to be falsified anymore. A time-tested piece of evidence will have more liberty, a larger number
of peer-reviewed studies, a larger number of non-words and their perspectives, and more cross-
verification as compared to very recent pieces of evidence. And thereby, we also need to
evaluate whether the strength of evidence is merely determined by the reliability of notes or by
the acceptance of the knowledge community. We tend to assume that newer evidence is more
modern since it has come in a modern form as a product of a modern methodology, while older
evidence is one that arrived earlier with the help of an older methodology. Therefore, this
encounter emphasizes the significance of not unquestioningly accepting new facts. So, as to
strengthen the epistemological viewpoint, that knowledge therefore must be rigorously assessed
and time-tested. In this essay, I will be exploring the given prompt with the AOKs and
understanding where recency and a linkage of the strongest evidence can be made both in natural
science and history.

Aok 1: 818 words

In terms of the natural sciences, Karl Popper, who is a natural scientist as well as a philosopher,
introduced the fascinating concept of evaluation and falsifiability in his 1934 work, The Logic of
Scientific Discovery. Karl Popper1 talks about the need for falsifiability in scientific theories
only through the possibility that disproved hypotheses gain scientific merit. Essentially, he
argues that one must disprove a theory to a point where it is undisprovable. Karl Popper argued
that there should be no room for doubt in terms of falsification, especially in the natural sciences.
This particular concept of falsification is intricately linked to the very assumption of the prompt,
wherein one could argue that the strength of an evidence is not inherently in its novelty, but it is
indeed to withstand the test of time and frequent attempts at refutation. For instance, Thomas
Kohn, another philosopher, points out another theory of paradigm shift, which gives an insightful
perspective. He argues that science, and natural science in particular, is not merely a linear
progression. It is indeed a series of revolutions. He challenges the primacy of recent evidence by
suggesting that what may be strongest evidence is that which can indeed incite a significant shift
in scientific understanding. This particular view is in alignment with our claim. Kohn very subtly
suggests that recent evidence can create revolutions that can change scientific paradigms. This
can be observed in the most basic aspects of the discovery of gravitation by Newton, which was
the revolution of a scientific paradigm, or Faraday's law, or, for instance, Einstein's discovery of
the theory of relativity. Certain recent evidence from those eras created a new scientific
paradigm that focused on the robustness of accepting this evidence. The example demonstrates
that the verification procedure of evidence can enhance its credibility in accordance with the
philosophies of Karl Popper and Thomas Kohn. Therefore, the robustness of evidence is
enhanced not only by its recentness but also by its ability to withstand critical examination and
falsification. Therefore, recent discoveries are deemed strong after undergoing rigorous
evaluation. So this process is therefore exemplified by the interplay between both of these
elements and, therefore, is further categorized by the often unnoticed but significant findings in
less widely known scientific research. In order to have a counterargument that suggests the fact
that recent evidence is inherently the strongest, we can turn to Thomas Kohn and his existence of
anomalies in science. Anomalies in science or natural science are certain cases that contradict
our current understanding. These anomalies can sometimes even go unnoticed within the existing
body of knowledge until their existence or importance is acknowledged. It implies that the
quality of evidence is not merely determined by novelty or recency, but rather is done so with the
capacity to question and broaden the scientific framework of any given area of knowledge,
especially natural science. An example can be stated in this regard. The discovery of the link
between Heliobacter pylori and peptic ulcers was made by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren in
the early 1980s. At that particular point, the medical consensus was that ulcers were attributed to
stress and lifestyle factors. The evidence of Marshall and Warren was initially rejected by the
medical community since it did not align with the knowledge framework. It held that no bacteria
could survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. It was only after Marshall swallowed a
Petri dish containing the bacteria to induce the condition in himself that the strength of their
evidence became almost undeniable. It led to a paradigm shift2 in the understanding of the

1
Popper, Karl. The logic of scientific discovery Basic Books, 1959. (original work
published in 1934).

2
Popper, Karl. The logic of scientific discovery Basic Books, 1959. (original work
published in 1934).
treatment of scientific ulcers. Furthermore, the discovery is also to focus on the role of the
scientific community in validating evidence. It is therefore a shared part of the shared knowledge
of the discipline. It is also indicative of the methodological aspect, as the unexpected and
unassumed finding by Marshall and Warren had to undergo rigorous scientific testing against the
prevailing model before being accepted. So this particular example not only demonstrates how
evidence does not derive its strength from novelty but also through a painstaking process of
scrutiny and its indeed eventual ability to challenge and change the existing scientific narratives.
In the landscape of natural science, it is not the timestamp of an evidence that indeed confers its
strength. However, it is actually the rigorous testing and validation, which, when endured
through its congruence with existing data, has the painstaking capacity to provoke a shift in the
collective understanding of the scientist, therefore resulting in a paradigm shift. This example of
Heliobacter pyroli is a testament to this, illustrating that sometimes the strongest evidence is the
one that survives the crucible of scientific skepticism and emerges to redefine our very grasp of
the natural world.

Aok 2: 529 word

As we move towards history, the Vinland Map [13] was believed to be the first map that showed
the new world, but it has been long considered to be a fake. It is a map of America, touted as
being one of the oldest on record, which turned out to be a convincing forgery. In the context of
historical knowledge frameworks, which include the methodologies of sourcing and
contextualization of evidence, as well as the historiographical shifts that ultimately influence a
discipline, The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, which significantly altered the understanding
and interpretation of both early Christianity and Judaism. Similarly, the deciphering of the
Mayan gulps has also fundamentally changed our understanding of the Mayan civilization. The
Vinland map, as stated above, reveals how the evidence in history is not just a matter of time or
temporal precedence; it also must fit within the current model of interpretation as well as the
shared understanding of the historians. In the historiographical discourse, the focus is on the
counterclaim, which is that the primacy of most recent evidence, ipso facto, asserts historical
understanding, often gains advantages from a synthesis of sources that have been accumulated
over time. Even though the recent evidence can be pivotal in shaping our understanding, it does
not necessarily mean that they would eclipse the collective insight gained from earlier work. In
the Middle East, for instance, an area steeped in historical layering, the complexities have
become apparent. For instance, one must consider the reinterpretation of the ancient city of Petra.
Even though there is recent technology that has been discovered through unknown structures,
which adds to the understanding of societal complexities, these findings do not singularly or
even plurally resize the historical interpretation of the Nabataean civilization. On the other hand,

3
Young, Sharon Pruitt. “Vinland Map Is a Fake, Yale University Confirms: NPR.” The Vinland
Map, Thought to Be the Oldest Map of America, Is Officially a Fake, 31 Sept. 2021,
www.npr.org/2021/09/30/1042029881/the-vinland-map-thought-to-be-the-oldest-map-of-
america-is-officially-a-fake.
they are integrated into the existing model and structure of archaeological and historical work,
which therefore collectively strengthen the narrative of Petra's history. This example is a model
testament to history, particularly in the areas of scope and application, as well as historical and
historiographical development. It focuses on the strength of historical evidence, but it does not
solely and at all rely on its recency. On the other hand, it does so based on how historical
knowledge is woven into existence or understanding. Therefore, in history, the focus of new
evidence and long-standing historical narrative in the Middle East exemplifies the cumulative
nature of historical strength. It implies that every piece of evidence, regardless of its age, must be
considered, focused on, and looked upon within the continuum of what is already known.
Through this lens, the ancient city of Petra focuses on demonstrating the strength of historical
evidence, which is also derived from the ability to contribute to a coherent as well as a very
comprehensive perspective that withstands both the time and the scholarly debate, not merely
going on the recency of the evidence per se. Therefore, it is an ongoing dialogue between what is
old and what is new, which enriches our understanding of history, particularly in regions that are
historically rich per se, such as the complex region of the Middle East.

In conclusion, from the natural sciences, we learned through the case of Helicobacter pylori that
evidence must be compelling enough to challenge and alter existing paradigms. The strength of
this evidence was not recognized in its immediacy but emerged through persistent testing and an
eventual paradigmatic shift. Conversely, in history, the synthesis of long-standing research and
new discoveries, as seen with the ancient city of Petra, demonstrated that the robustness of
historical evidence is a collective endeavor, where strength is measured by the depth and breadth
of scholarly engagement over time. Both areas of knowledge underscore the importance of a
methodological approach that values the accumulation of insights across time, suggesting that
the ‘newness’ of evidence is a single factor among many that contribute to its robustness. The
examples discussed show that while the allure of recent findings can be significant, it is the
sustained and critical examination within the frameworks of each discipline that truly determines
the strength of evidence. We must recognize that the strength of evidence lies not in its novelty
but in its ability to resonate within the context of what is already known, to challenge our
assumptions, and to endure the test of time and scrutiny. This discussion reinforces the essential
nature of a balanced approach to the evaluation of evidence, affirming that the most enduring
truths are often those that have been examined from every angle and have withstood the rigors of
intellectual challenge.

Bibliography:

1.
2. Popper, Karl. The logic of scientific discovery Basic Books, 1959. (original work
published in 1934).
 2. Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press,
1962.

3. Marshall, Barry J., and Warren, J. Robin. "Unidentified Curved Bacilli in the Stomach of
Patients with Gastritis and Peptic Ulceration." Lancet, vol. 323, no. 8390, 1984, pp.
1311–1315.

4. "Petra: Lost City of Stone." Exhibition Catalog, American Museum of Natural History,
2003.

5. Wise, Michael O., et al., editors. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation.
HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

6. Coe, Michael D., Breaking the Maya Code. Thames & Hudson, 1992.

7. Seaver, Kirsten A. Maps, Myths, and Men: The Story of the Vinland Map. Stanford
University Press, 2004.
8. Masic I, Miokovic M, and Muhamedagic B. Evidence-based medicine: new approaches
and challenges. Acta Inform Med. 2008;16(4):219–25. doi: 10.5455/aim.2008.16.219–
225. PMID: 24109156; PMCID: PMC3789163.
9. Young, Sharon Pruitt. “Vinland Map Is a Fake, Yale University Confirms: NPR.” The
Vinland Map, Thought to Be the Oldest Map of America, Is Officially a Fake, 31 Sept.
2021, www.npr.org/2021/09/30/1042029881/the-vinland-map-thought-to-be-the-oldest-
map-of-america-is-officially-a-fake.

Total Word Count: