Essay sample L 03/22
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
"The quality of knowledge is best measured by how many people accept it." Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"1, those were the words of English writer Aldous Huxley and they present his opinion on the statement which I am to discuss. In this essay I shall discuss the statement "the quality of knowledge is best measured by how many people accept it" through writing from varying perspectives and concluding that unlike Huxley I feel that the quality of knowledge is often best measured by how many people accept it. I will do this through first discussing the statement with reference to the area of knowledge History, looking at the reasons for which certain knowledge in History is greatly accepted and how this means acceptance can be used as the best measurement for the quality of Historical knowledge. Then the essay will consider how the quality of historical knowledge is poorly measured by acceptance as mass historical agreement can often be of poor quality as is based on of an unreliable source base. Following this I will expand my investigation through focusing on the area of knowledge the Human Sciences, more specifically the discipline of Psychology, making the point that acceptance is the best measurement of knowledge in the Human Sciences as agreement over diagnosis in Psychology is needed for the diagnoses to be valid. Following this I shall argue that agreement is a poor measure of the quality of knowledge in the Human Sciences as often knowledge is very useful despite disagreements over its validity. However, firstly the key terms in the statement must be defined. I define "the quality of knowledge", as the accuracy and reliability of a piece of information, in addition "how many people accept it", as meaning the number of experts in an area of knowledge who are in
Introductory (abstract-like) summary of what student intends to do a bit too long.
Also, “definition” of ‘quality of knowledge’ not very illuminating considering how ‘quality’ is just replaced with terms like ‘reliability’ that equally demand some cashing out.
I’m glad I found this example. I’m sure now I’ll be able to write my own a little better. I usually ask for help https://writemyessaytoday.us/ as I often make mistakes. And when I need to tighten up my studies.
Are we talking about facts or knowledge? What is the relevance of this quote?
Maybe this comes later
his is confusing and does acknowledge the methodology of history which cross references sources through triangulation
1 Aldous Huxley, ' Bravenew World', 1932.
agreement with a piece of knowledge or information. The importance of this issue is that humans are constantly trying to find ways to prove and measure the quality and reliability of knowledge, as a means to seek security in the conformation of knowledge's
accuracy and to progress as a species though evolving our understanding and knowledge of the world. In the Natural Sciences we developed experiments as a means of doing this however in the two areas of knowledge I am focusing on this is far more complex. Thus, the discussion must be had over the way to best measure the quality of knowledge.
In the area of knowledge History one can agree that the statement "the quality of knowledge is best measured by how many people accept it" is correct as the mass acceptance of a piece of historical knowledge comes as a result of a large and convincing evidence base of primary sources which all point to the same conclusion, meaning this knowledge is valid, reliable and of high quality. This can be demonstrated though the real-life example of the mass agreement over the Historical knowledge that Hitler's actions caused World War two. This is one of the most widely accepted pieces of historiography in modern times and is accepted by Historians across the cultural and political spectrum. For example, British Historian A.J.P Tylor wrote that "the German bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War"2. German writer Michael Sontheimer recorded "Hitler was a fanatic who transformed Germany into an immoral police state and forced it to bear decades of occupation"3. Those are only two examples demonstrating that the agreement is endless and consistent in different cultures. As mentioned this
2 A.J. P Taylor , 'the struggle for mastery in Eu rope', 1954
3 Michael Sontheimer , ' why Germans can never escape Hitler 's shadow', 2005
agreement of historians is as a result of the large and convincing evidence base. For example, the infamous recording of British Prime minister Neville Chamberlain's radio broadcast to his nation saying that Germany had refused to withdraw their troops from Poland "and that consequently this country is at war with Germany"4 was one piece of evidence displaying how Hitler and Nazi caused World War two. This is backed up by the countless black and white photos archived of the German invasion of Austria, Czechoslovakia and finally Poland. These are just a fraction of the evidence base which is why there is mass agreement on Hitler's role in causing World War two. Thus, it can be demonstrated that acceptance of Historians is the best measure of historical knowledge's quality as mass agreement is as a result of a vast, reliable and convincing evidence base such as with Nazi Germany causing World War two.
Underlying point here that consensus in historical knowledge is indicative/a good litmus test of the correctness of said historical knowledge claims is fair, but the examples used seem more of historical trivia than historical knowledge qua knowledge as pursued by historians.
However, a contrasting view is that the quality of historical knowledge is poorly measured by the number of people who accept it as in History there can be large agreement on poor and incorrect historical knowledge as a result of an unreliable and misleading evidence base. This can be demonstrated with the real-life example of Joan of Arc, a 15th century peasant girl who is believed to have possessed such military ability that she single handedly masterminded the defeat of the English at siege of Orleans and brought around great military victories during the one hundred years war. Historians such as Michael Prestwich write "Joan's impact on the war was extraordinary, it took her 9 days to drive the English away from Orleans and relive the 7-month siege of the city"5. This is historical knowledge widely agreed upon due to sources such as d'Alecon's who recorded "in war she was very expert, whether to
4 Neville Chamberlain, 'the transcript of Neville Chamberlain 's Declaration of war' , 1939
5 Michael Prestwich, 'Jo an af Are; The Maid of Or/eans and saint' , 2014
assemble an army, to order a battle or to dispose the artillery"6. Despite the large agreement of historians this is poor quality knowledge as a result of unreliable medieval sources which have not been correctly evaluated. lt's impossible that this illiterate maiden was so skilled in logistics and military strategy. As put brilliantly by critic MacCullough "she did not graduate from some Valois equivalent of Sandhurst, her credentials are that of the imagination, she had no grasp of military strategy"7. So, it can be seen that agreement is not the best measure of historical knowledge. Just because the majority of historians agree it doesn't mean they are right, as demonstrated though knowledge on Joan of Arc. While this implies weaknesses of the historical method and the importance of critical source evaluation, the scope of the discussion must be widened. I will do this though looking at the area of knowledge the Human Sciences specifically the discipline of Psychology.
The argument basically takes the form of “Everyone thinks X about Joan of Arc. X is incorrect/false. So what everyone thinks is not a good indicator of ‘quality knowledge’.” The issue of whether there is in fact such a consensus over X aside, the student seems to have decided that X is false on the basis of one historian’s take and the student’s own conjecture.
The statement can be agreed upon in the Human Sciences, as in Psychology knowledge must be widely accepted to be considered valid and applicable, so the best measurement of knowledge's quality is how many people accept it. This is demonstrated by the example of the DSM.8. The 'diagnostic and statistical manual' is a guide for diagnosing mental disorders, it lists symptoms and the requirements to be diagnosed. However, for this knowledge to be high quality there must be a wide agreement on what a disorders' symptoms are, and the requirements for diagnosis. This is shown as a weakness in the DSM as Lipton and Simon9 found that in an hospital in New York out of 89 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia only 16 had this disorder upon evaluation, meaning due to disagreement, the quality of
6 Duc d' Alecon, 'testimon y of Duc d'Alecon', 1456
7 Diarmaid M acCullough, 'loan of Are: A History by He/e n Casto r, review', 2014
8 Amer ican Psychiatric Associat ion, 'Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental diso rders {5th ed.}, 2013
9 Lipton and Simon , ' Ps ychiatricdiagnosis in a state hospital: Manhattan state revisited' , 1985
the original diagnosis and thus the knowledge was poor. This demonstrates how acceptance is the best measure of knowledge's quality in the Human Sciences. The importance of agreement is also shown as the DSM's quality is limited as it is not accepted around the world as valid, for example the Chinese have their own
separate version: the CCMD1º which disagrees on many issues, for example depression is not a listed disorder. This implies a weakness in Psychology and that psychologists must come to an acceptance on mental disorders to properly diagnose and treat people.
However, one can argue against this and that acceptance is not the best measurement of knowledge's quality in the Human Sciences as knowledge can be correct and of great quality despite disagreement over its validity. This is demonstrated through the example of a study done by Martinez and Kesner 11 . They used rats to show the role of the neurotransmitter acetoholine in memory. However, because it was with rats a great number of people discounted the results as invalid and limited in application to humans, despite the knowledge the study can provide us with. This is an example of how the number of people who accept a piece of knowledge doesn't measure its quality and that the statement is incorrect. This implies a problem with the Human Sciences and that in its attempt to replicate the Natural Sciences the quality of knowledge can often be disregarded over disagreement on experimentation.
In conclusion, I argue that acceptance can be used as the best measurement for knowledge's quality in the areas of knowledge History and the Human Sciences as while there are exceptions to the rule as I have presented through my
1°Chi n ese Society of Psychiat ry, 'Chin ese Class ific ation of Men tal Disorders' , 2001 11 Martinez and Kesner, ' Lea rning and Me mo ry: A Biolo gica/ View' , 1986
examples, in the majority of cases the acceptance of knowledge comes as a result of convincing and undeniable evidence meaning the knowledge is high quality leading to the acceptance. Then in the Human Sciences as I have presented knowledge must be accepted to be applicable and valid, so acceptance is the best measure of quality. This implies the importance of convincing others through evidence and persuasive writing, a weakness of the historical method as experiments do not exist to prove theories as in the Natural Sciences. In addition, the Human Sciences must develop more quantitative evidence collecting techniques in order for knowledge to be accepted and validated; something the sociocultural branch of Psychology seriously lacks.
Word count: 1589
- A.J.P Taylor, 'the struggle for mastery in Europe', 1954
- Aldous Huxley, 'Brave new World', 1932.
- American Psychiatric Association, 'Diagnosticand statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.), 2013
- Chinese Society of Psychiatry, 'Chinese C/assification of Mental Disorders',
2001
- Diarmaid MacCullough, 'Joan of Are: A History by He/en Castor, review', 2014
- Duc d'Alecon, 'testimonyof Duc d'Alecon', 1456
- Lipton and Simon, 'Psychiatric diagnosis in a state hospital: Manhattan state revisited', 1985
- Martinez and Kesner, 'Learning and Memory: A Biological View', 1986
- Michael Prestwich, 'Joan of Are; The Maid of Orleans and saint', 2014
- Michael Sontheimer, 'why Germans can never escape Hitler's shadow', 2005
- Neville Chamberlain, 'the transcript of Neville Chamberlain's Declaration of war',
1939
General Document Comments 0
1. candidate should incorporate knowledge theories / TOK Terminology / Experts vs non-experts
2. candidate should refrain from mentioning a third AoK
3. Candidate introduction – ‘should be more concise’ –
4. there is no thesis statement – the candidate is only stating he will ‘ agree with’.
5. Candidate is providing RLEs – but does not link them with their arguments well – there should be more detailed explanation
6. Candidate should place more attention to explaining their links.
7. Candidate is not provide strong alternative arguments to the varied perspectives that may link to the PT.
8. Candidate’s conclusion is unconvincing as a result of the misses he has from the above.
Most of the lines of reasoning are plausible (if not very novel or sophisticated). The real issue is with his/her example-use.
In order to learn how to write a good essay, you need to understand its structure. But it is extremely difficult to complete this task when you are in a hurry. I really don’t like writing a coursework or laboratory paper when the teacher sets very tight deadlines. That’s why I turn to nursing research paper writing service in such situations. Thanks to this, I manage to complete the task quickly and efficiently.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments