"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
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
Sontheimer , ' why Germans can never escape Hitler 's shadow', 2005
3 Michael
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.
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
Prestwich, 'Jo an af Are; The Maid of Or/eans and saint' , 2014
5 Michael
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 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
Duc d' Alecon, 'testimon y of Duc d'Alecon', 1456
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
6
7 Diarmaid
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
° Chi n ese Society of Psychiat ry, 'Chinese Class ific ation of Men tal Disorders' , 2001
1
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
Bibliography
-
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
"Existing classification systems steer the acquisition of new knowledge."
Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
The definitive statement, "Existing classification systems steer the acquisition of new
knowledge" suggests the way in which new knowledge is produced and accepted is
through prior accepted knowledge in the same area. Rather than the production of
knowledge being spontaneous and initially being unrelated to a particular system, it
extends understanding within, and is guided by an already established system.
Classification systems can be defined as a way of organising entities in a
hierarchical and useful structure. They organize shared knowledge and present it in
relation to other existing knowledge. The acquisition of new knowledge is the
production and acceptance of knowledge. Firstly, new knowledge is produced by an
individual or a group through research or another methodology. In order for it to
become accepted knowledge in a classification system, it must be shared by a
majority, and have a degree of universality. To 'steer' can refer to the guidance or
direction that existing classification systems provide when discoveries or
advancements are made. lt is a directing term, and implies that the acquisition of
new knowledge is being pulled or pushed in a specific direction. The areas of
knowledge that will be referred to are the natural sciences and the arts. While
existing classification systems can steer the acquisition of new knowledge, they may
not be the sale driver and there may be cases where an existing classification
system is irrelevant.
Classification systems do steer the acquisition of new knowledge. Pre-determined
systems that have been put in place (and that are still used today) have provided
1
those who seek to produce new knowledge with a starting point. Before something
can be classified, it must first be defined in order to be placed into the most correct
existing or new classification system. This is a useful way of grouping information
together. By defining then categorising, knowledge which is based on shared
language can be produced. The importance of shared language is evident when
considering the example, 'bird'. The shared physical features of birds, their wings
and feathers, come to mind as it's a commonly recognised term. The term 'bird' has
allowed for the efficient transmission of knowledge, as the reason why a particular
organism is a bird can be immediately understood. However, when considering the
Arts, classifying entities based on their shared physical features is likely pointless;
classifying by the techniques used or artists intent would be a better and more
meaningful equivalent. Different methodologies are required for classification in each
area of knowledge as well, as classification using the scientific method in the natural
sciences may provide order and certainty, but it may be unsuitable for acquiring
knowledge in the arts.
The classification of organisms in the natural sciences (taxonomy) began with
Aristotle, when he separated plants and animals around 300 BC (Vancleave 201O).
Many other philosophers and scientists continued to add subcategories, and built up
a classification system (Britannica n.d.). For example, Francis Bacon's book was
written in the 16th century about partitions in science (Bacon 1605). As more
organisms were classified, it was found that there were exceptions to the existing
system as well as overlap. This contrasted with the original assumption of clear
boundaries existing. The characteristics that distinguished these exceptions from
either existing group demonstrated that there was still knowledge to gain, and
2
logically more groups may need to be created for them. Their differences were
directing the acquisition of new knowledge. When the transitional fossil of
Archaeopteryx was discovered (Castro 2018), it raised questions about evolutionary
history, how modern-day organisms carne to be, and what drove evolutionary
processes and why. lt hovered between being classified as a bird or a kind of
dinosaur when considering its physical characteristics, it did not fit precisely in either
category, and questioned what kinds of evolution (natural selection, convergent,
divergent) that led to its existence.
The acquisition of new knowledge may not be steered entirely by existing
classifications systems. They may steer away from, or prevent the acquisition of new
knowledge. There is often a bias towards producing knowledge that supports your
own claim or investigation rather than acquiring new knowledge. lnstead of seeking
knowledge in general, one may be inclined to look for evidence to support the
existing view. Time and effort that could be used to acquire more knowledge as a
whole that may potentially be outside of an existing classification system is instead
being used to find specific evidence within a pre-existing system to support that
system. This may result in a discouragement of imagination and creativity.
Other factors may also influence the acquisition of new knowledge. Research may
not receive funding until it is classed as 'useful' science. Scientific research is heavily
focused upon the areas that are receiving funding that are considered mainstream.
Few investments are made in scientific discovery in the interest of having more
apparently 'useless' knowledge. lt may be the desire for more knowledge within
existing classification systems that is steering its acquisition. Additionally, peer-
3
reviewed research also steers the acquisition of new knowledge. The publication of
research is limited by whether it's considered 'acceptable' science or not. For
example, scientists who published material about the effects of climate change were
ridiculed in the 1950s. lt was not seen as concrete science, many did not believe in
their findings, and therefore they struggled to be published. However, nowadays
large amounts of accepted knowledge about climate change is being and has been
published, as a majority of scientists believe in the phenomena.
Sometimes steering can be in different directions, as a rebellion or revolt out of an
existing classification system. This can also be seen through different music
genres. Successive music periods in history were reactions against the existing
period, which had more rules about structure and melodies. The composer Claude
Debussy was considered the first impressionist composer, creating his own rules for
writing music He used unconventional chord patterns, dissonance, chromaticism,
and atonality, which had rarely ever been seen in combination in the romantic period
when he was composing, and had not been seen in prior periods (Lumen n.d.). In
modern music, new genres are the result of changes in society and are therefore
but not entirely directed by classification systems. Unencumbered by constraints of
older systems genres like disco, rap, and rock now represent new classification
systems. While music used to have to fit certain rules in terms of their form and
structure in order to be acceptable, new modern genres do not necessarily follow
these rules still, as there is less emphasis on music needing to be acceptable. Rap,
for example, is different to opera, with rapid speech irregular patterns of verses and
choruses and accompaniment. Opera requires a particular style of signing, uses
traditional accompaniment, and adheres to a stricter structure.
4
Different factors were more important and were more involved in the production of
new knowledge rather than stricter guidelines. The beginnings of modern dance in
the 20th century is another example, where it was a revolt against the structure of
classical ballet and instead utilised more primitive, expressive, and ritualistic
movements to express creative growth and freedom.
The acquisition of knowledge in the Arts may be an exception to the claim made in
the title. Knowledge in the Arts is acquired through individual interpretation and
understanding, therefore shared classification systems may not have as much of
an impact. The Leopard, by Giuseppe di Lampedusa is a historical novel. However,
when reading it I acquired personal knowledge about familial relationships and the
effects of the passage of time. This knowledge was independent of the novels.
Knowledge from a particular book doesn't necessarily depend on the genre it is
classified in or if it has won a prize, but rather personal interpretation.
The same is true in the visual arts. When I first saw the artwork, 'Black Fire 1' by
Barnett Newman, I personally did not perceive it to be art, despite the monetary
values assigned to it. While it may be considered art, I did not think it to be, and did
not gain or assimilate any new understandings or personal knowledge from
observing it. Classifying 'Black Fire 1' as part of the abstract expressionism
movement did not steer the acquisition of new knowledge for me, despite the value
it holds which suggests that my opinion is not a popular one.
Spontaneous and accidental scientific discoveries could be the acquisition of
knowledge that was not steered by existing classification systems. The discovery of
cyclins by Richard Timothy Hunt was an accident made when he was investigating
5
fertilization in sea urchins (Jackson 2008). This discovery was not related to what
they were researching , but rather something they also happened to observe
coincidentally when carrying out their experiments (Robertson 2015).
Existing classification systems largely steer the acquisition of new knowledge, but
through exploring the areas of the arts and natural sciences, it can be seen that
there are exceptions and other factors involved. New knowledge may not necessarily
be steered within the same classification system, instead as a response to preexisting definitions it may be steered out of it. The roles of shared and personal
knowledge also influence the extent to which the production of knowledge can be
guided into existing systems. Additionally, external factors may diminish the
production of knowledge outside of established classification systems, however they
do not limit the possibility for knowledge to be produced in new, or unclassified
systems. While classification systems can be helpful in their ability to steer, they are
also not necessarily useful as they have the potential to inhibit or limit the acquisition
of new knowledge.
Word Count: 1600
6
Biblioqraphy:
Bacon, F 1605, Of the Advancement and Proficience of Learning: Or the Partitions of
Sciences, Forgotten Books, England.
Castro, J 2018, 'Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil', LiveScience , accessed 24
August 2018, <https://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html>.
Encyclopedia Britannica n.d., Taxonomy, Britannica, accessed 24 August 2018,
<https://www.britannica.com/science/taxonomy>.
Debussy: Biography n.d., Lumen, accessed 24 August 2018,
<https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicapp_historical/chapter/debussy/>.
Jackson, P 2008, 'The Hunt far Cyclin', Cell Press, vol. 135, no. 2, 17 October,
accessed 24 August 2018,
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286740800888X>.
Robertson , M 2015, 'The discovery of cyclin: the unknown and the unknowable', Bio
Med Central, 21 August, accessed 24 August 2018,
<https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2015/08/21/discovery-cyclin-unknownunknowable/>.
Vancleave , J 201O, History of Classification, JVC's Science Fair Projects, accessed
24 August 2018, <http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/2010/history-ofclassification/>.
7
“One way to assure the health of a discipline is to nurture contrasting perspectives.”
Discuss this claim with reference to disciplines from two areas of knowledge.
Generally, most disciplines seek to generate and improve knowledge. It is the hope of academics, researchers,
and scholars alike that their work advances current understanding, progressing consensus within their field.
Critical to achieving these goals is the nurturing of contrasting perspectives. When diversity of thought is
entertained, a greater scope of investigation and inquiry results. Thus, the benefit of differing perspectives
is twofold. Firstly, disciplines tend to produce more robust knowledge. Secondly, with more perspectives,
knowledge is refined to a greater extent; subsequently, stronger consensus is likely to emerge. On the contrary,
others might argue that differing perspectives simply create confusion. If the goal of many fields is to build
consensus, why would less popular theories and opinions be entertained? The answer is the following: often
when knowledge is challenged, understanding is strengthened.
The claim in this title will be examined through the disciplines of biology and economics. Both fields involve
research, rely on quantitative techniques to explain and prove concepts, and consist of a vibrant community
of scholars that share findings. There are also points of distinction. Biology seeks to understand natural
phenomena, whereas economics is concerned with human behavior. With distinct aims at understanding the
human and natural worlds, each discipline consists of unique characteristics, processes, and conventions.
Biologists employ the scientific method to identify patterns and confirm repeated results of natural processes.
All experimentation in the natural sciences operates with the understanding that natural processes repeatedly
function in the same way. It is this assumption that drives scientific process. Before any experimentation
occurs, scientists develop a hypothesis to predict a possible experimental outcome. Hypothesizing helps
scientists focus their experiment on the manipulation of a single variable. After collecting data in which
all variables are controlled except one, scientists draw conclusions, accepting or rejecting their hypothesis.
Ideally, since data is objective and concrete, it should not be disagreed upon. However, since the process
of data collection is rarely a flawless one, there is usually discussion of an experiment’s sources of error. To
minimize data subjectivity, scientists perform multiple trials and determine averages and trends. Though not
always possible, the scientific process is most effective when scientists strive to eliminate subjectivity when
determining results.
The scientific method is a universal process; however, hypothesis and data analysis thrive when multiple
perspectives are nurtured. In my IB Biology HL course, for example, I performed an experiment with the goal
of identifying the sugar that is most conducive to yeast respiration. Using my knowledge of sugar structure
and the process of respiration, I used reasoning to hypothesize the results. My laboratory partner’s hypothesis
was completely different, however, as she used her own distinct line of reasoning. At this stage of the discovery
Sue Bastian
1
process, contrasting perspectives are most important. Since neither of us could predict the results of the
experiment with certainty, sharing a diverse array of perspectives informed both of us of the many factors
that could be at play. Similarly, both of us interpreted the results of the experiment differently. I thought the
sugar’s structure influenced the metabolic rate whereas my lab partner was confident that the concentration
of enzymes was the reason for our particular results. After further consideration, I came to the conclusion
that an experiment that differentiated between structure and enzyme concentration would be needed. If my
partner and I had not shared our different reasoning and interpretations, either of us could have reached the
reached a conclusion with the wrong justification. Having and entertaining contrasting perspectives is critical
to scientific study and the reason why scientists publish their findings in journals.
Despite the importance of nurturing and sharing contrasting perspectives, not all perspectives are created
equal at every stage of the scientific process. Last month in my IB Biology HL course, I studied a famous
experiment by Matthew Meselson and Franklin Stahl in which the objective was to determine if DNA replicated
conservatively or semiconservatively. Initially, it makes sense for both theories to be viewed as equally valid
because there was no evidence supporting one more than the other. However, the contrasting perspectives
sets up a more effective experiment since the experimenter knows to test for the point of distinction
between a conservative and semi-conservative strand of DNA Given this approach, the results proved that
DNA replication is in fact a semi-conservative process. At this point in the scientific method, the contrasting
perspectives are no longer of equal value as there is evidence supporting one and not the other. While the
perspective of conservative replication was seemingly proven wrong, it should not be eliminated from
discussions in the scientific community. There is value in other scientists repeating the experiment to confirm
the results. Moreover, keeping the debate alive to some extent might prompt others to affirm the results in a
different way, which further strengthens the quality of the knowledge.
Both Biologists and Economists attempt to explain patterns; economists, however, evaluate human behavior,
not natural phenomena, and more frequently use models, rather than the scientific method, to test their
theories. Economic theory is developed following a period of observation. Next, an Economist uses a model
to represent their findings. A model, generally, is a simplified way of communicating a relationship between
two or more concepts. In my IB Economics Internal Assessment, for example, I used an Aggregate Supply and
Demand Graph to model the aggregate effect of the United States’ new tax law. The graph allowed me to
demonstrate, in a straight forward and convincing way, how stimulated consumer demand would likely affect
Price Level and real Gross Domestic Product in the U.S. economy.
Since economics deals with human behavior, which can sometimes be irrational and unpredictable, economic
evaluation operates under two assumptions: that a stated expectation is “on balance” and that a change occurs
“ceteris paribus.” Natural science relies on repetition of natural phenomena, where as a human science cannot.
Sue Bastian
2
Therefore, the phrase “on balance” is used when an Economist evaluates the application of a theory in the real
world; to avoid oversimplification, this phrasing is necessary. Similarly, “ceteris paribus,” meaning “all things
equal,” is used express that all other variables, besides the one being manipulated, are being held constant. In
biology, it is possible to control all variables except the one being manipulated; however, this is not possible
when economic theory is being tested. In the real world, multiple factors can change in a market at once,
making it difficult to understand the effect of one policy alone. As I observed in my IB Extended Essay, which
analy z ed the economic effect of a local development project, it was difficult to evaluate the isolated effect of
certain policies. For example, when analyzing the relationship between income and spending, it was difficult
to draw conclusions because other economic factors could not be controlled. If, for example, gas prices were
to rise concurrently, then this would also impact spending. Economists cannot hold gas prices constant when
evaluating the relationship between income and spending.
Because economists do not have the benefit of controlling a variable in isolation, the same study done many
times can create inconsistent results. In contrast, in biology, where variables can be controlled, results are
more uniform. For example, in my previously mentioned IB Economics HL IA, while one economist argued the
tax change would stimulate enough growth to offset the cost of the cut, the other could disagree. Economists,
more commonly than biologists, tend to disagree on the results of a study. Therefore, contrasting perspectives
are even more imperative in this discipline so that a range of outcomes can be evaluated.
Though less common in economics, there are some findings that a large number of economists agree on. For
example, in my IB Economics HL course we discuss and evaluate the economic strength of a given country
using mathematical indicators such as Gross Domestic Product, the Human Development Index, and the rate
of unemployment. The majority of economists agree that these indicators can be used to measure economic
health. Therefore, there is, to some extent, agreement on findings. However, some economists prioritize or
weight indicators differently; moreover, some use different indicators than the ones mentioned. Though there
is some standardization with economic results, there remains a lot of different methods and combination by
which an economic situation is measured. Thus, contrasting perspectives on economic findings are necessary
in order to provide a robust and full evaluation of a specific situation. In conclusion, both natural science
and human science benefit when contrasting perspectives are nurtured throughout the discovery process.
Biologists use contrasting perspectives to design more focused experiments. Economic debate leads to a
fuller evaluation. The processes of discovery within each discipline are unique. Biology utilizes the scientific
method whereas economics tends to utilize a more model based approach.
It is for this reason that both biologists and economists adapt procedures and conventions that account for
the unique qualities of their field of study. Finally, it is important to note that while biologists should ideally
agree on results, economists, given the field’s lesser ability to control variables, have greater mobility.
Word Count: 1504
Sue Bastian
3