Exercise 1 - Essay
Class: IS303 Created Time: October 21, 2020 1:09 PM Database: Assignment Database Last Edited Time: June 11, 2021 11:20 AM Status: Done
Essay
In current digital age, information spreads around the world like wildfire. However, through the help of the internet and social medias, misinformation is more prevalent than ever. Therefore, we need to understand how do we know what we know? Afterward, we will explore the scientific way and the non-scientific way of knowing. Then, discussing the risk of non-scientific ways of knowing and the superiority of the scientific ways of knowing.
With the overflow of information in today’s time, the question of how we know what we know is more important than ever. The widespread accessibility of the internet means anyone with an opinion or information can share them through social media, no matter if they are correct or not. Mainstream media seek more clickable headlines rather than the accuracy of the reported information. In turn, inaccurate information gets attention, while debunking or corrections get overlooked. Consequently, people need to be able to differentiate between the non-scientific and the scientific ways of knowing.
The non-scientific ways of knowing are acceptance of information that are based on the passing of time, authoritative figure, common sense, intuitiveness, rationalism, and empiricism. These methods of knowing are unreliable and is not based on concrete and reproducible evidence. On the other hand, the scientific method of knowing requires critical and rational thinking with support from empirical and reproducible evidence. Without any of these, a claim would never be accepted as true. From the comparison, the scientific method is clearly the superior out of the two because the reliability of it being correct.
Furthermore, the non-scientific ways of knowing are inherently risky in many different ways. First of all, The passing of time usually invalidate information rather than the inverse. While authoritative figures can be more knowledgeable, they can also either make mistakes or intentionally mislead people to their advantage. Common sense are different according to each person’s own life experiences, while obviously, intuitiveness is only based on a ‘feeling’. On the contrary, scientific research is dependent on strict rules that governs the connection of between its variables, selection of the correct unit of analysis, and the generalizability of the formulated theory. On top of this, the scientific methods holds the commitment to ‘Causal Analysis’. The term means to be valid, the claim must be consistently replicable, must be put out to the public, it must accept the probability of it being wrong, and to be approached with skepticism.
Overall, we know what we know by scientific and non-scientific ways of knowing. The non-scientific ways of knowing brings up many risks as it’s not based on concrete evidence. In contrast, the scientific methods have stricter requirements of truth. Rules and regulation help its final claim be more reliable and trust worthy. Therefore, the scientific ways of knowing is unmistakably superior to the non-scientific methods of knowing.
In current digital age, information spreads around the world like wildfire. However, through the help of the internet and social medias, misinformation is more prevalent than ever. Therefore, we need to understand how do we know what we know? Afterward, we will explore the scientific way and the non-scientific way of knowing. Then, discussing the risk of non-scientific ways of knowing and the superiority of the scientific ways of knowing.
With the overflow of information in today’s time, the question of how we know what we know is more important than ever. The widespread accessibility of the internet means anyone with an opinion or information can share them through social media, no matter if they are correct or not. Mainstream media seek more clickable headlines rather than the accuracy of the reported information. In turn, inaccurate information gets attention, while debunking or corrections get overlooked. Consequently, people need to be able to differentiate between the non-scientific and the scientific ways of knowing.
The non-scientific ways of knowing are acceptance of information that are based on the passing of time, authoritative figure, common sense, intuitiveness, rationalism, and empiricism. These methods of knowing are unreliable and is not based on concrete and reproducible evidence. On the other hand, the scientific method of knowing requires critical and rational thinking with support from empirical and reproducible evidence. Without any of these, a claim would never be accepted as true. From the comparison, the scientific method is clearly the superior out of the two because the reliability of it being correct.
Furthermore, the non-scientific ways of knowing are inherently risky in many different ways. First of all, the passing of time usually invalidates information rather than the inverse. While authoritative figures can be more knowledgeable, they can also either make mistakes or intentionally mislead people to their advantage. Common sense is different according to each person’s own life experiences, while obviously, intuitiveness is only based on a ‘feeling’. On the contrary, scientific research is dependent on strict rules that governs the connection of between its variables, selection of the correct unit of analysis, and the generalizability of the formulated theory. On top of this, the scientific methods hold the commitment to ‘Causal Analysis’. The term means to be valid, the claim must be consistently replicable, must be put out to the public, it must accept the probability of it being wrong, and to be approached with skepticism.
Overall, we know what we know by scientific and non-scientific ways of knowing. The non-scientific ways of knowing brings up many risks as it’s not based on concrete evidence. In contrast, the scientific methods have stricter requirements of truth. Rules and regulation help its final claim be more reliable and trust worthy. Therefore, the scientific ways of knowing is unmistakably superior to the non-scientific methods of knowing.