Word Count: 1560 words
TOK ESSAY
On what basis might we decide between the judgments of experts if
they disagree with each other? Discuss with reference to the natural
sciences and the human sciences.
Stephanie Amoa
3-18-2022
Introduction
Experts are people that are knowledgeable in a particular subject or field of study.
Such people devote a lot of their time and attention to pursuing knowledge in their
chosen field, constantly reviewing each other’s work and learning from it. With that in
mind, one would assume that since they are studying the same thing, they would
easily agree with each other’s findings.
This, however, is not always the case. Sometimes, experts have conflicting opinions
and deciding which interpretation is really the right one becomes the main point of
contention. On what basis exactly can we discard the findings of one expert for the
findings of another?
This essay will be exploring discrepancies in knowledge by experts in the natural and
human sciences and how a final conclusion was reached with regards to the
decision to accept or deny one interpretation.
Natural Sciences
The natural sciences are very experimentally-focused and result-driven. Due to this,
when significant discrepancies are discovered, the best way to arrive at a conclusion
is to return to the data and the experiment or to conduct further experimentation.
For example, in 1917, Albert Einstein applied his theory of general relativity and
proposed a model of a finite and static universe (Nussbaumer). This model had one
prominent problem – the universe would collapse if gravitational force was the only
force active. In order to resolve this problem, Einstein introduced the cosmological
constant which countered the attractive nature of gravity.
However, many other experts came forth to contest Einstein’s interpretation of the
universe. In 1922, Russian physicist, Alexander Friedman, proved that Einstein’s
equations of general relativity also worked for dynamic worlds. In 1927, Belgian
astrophysicist, Georges Lemaître combined general relativity with astronomical
observations and came to the conclusion that the universe was expanding (de Felipe).
In spite of that, Einstein refused to give up his theory of the static universe. In 1929,
Edwin Hubble wrote a paper on the observations that he made from the Mount
Wilson Observatory, which housed the then most powerful telescope on earth
(Lincoln).
These observations proved that the universe was indeed expanding.
Einstein finally accepted the model of the expanding universe and in collaboration
with Dutch theoretical physicist and astronomer, Willem de Sitter, proposed an
expanding universe model using Einstein’s theory of relativity that no longer relied on
the cosmological constant.
As is evident in this case, Einstein, who is one of the most notable scientists to date,
was proven wrong in his initial assumption of a static universe through a review of
the data presented and further experimentation using better equipment.
While this method works, it does not apply in all cases. Sometimes, experiments and
data are limited to already-existing knowledge or even available equipment. Due to
this, theories that are true can be disproven based on knowledge of the time or
inability to perform accurate enough experiments due to the limits of technology and
apparatus.
For example, in the ancient world, the most predominant theory about the structure
of the universe was the geocentric model. This model theorised that the earth was
the centre of the universe and that the sun, moon, and other planets and stars
revolved around it. This theory originated from the early observations of the sky and
was greatly supported by the Ancient Greeks, including philosophical giants such as
Aristotle.
In the third century BC, Greek astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of
Samos, became the first person to challenge the geocentric model (Birdville Schools).
He proposed that the sun was the centre of the universe and that the planets and
stars orbited it. This was the first ever introduction of the heliocentric model. He was
dismissed because of the already reigning theory, supported by the more famous
Aristotle, and the fact that he had no substantial proof to back his theory.
In the second century CE, Ptolemy introduced epicycles, which supposedly
explained why the universe had such erratic movements when observations of the
universe were compared to the geocentric model (Filmer).
Nicolaus Copernicus later developed a mathematical model that once again
challenged the geocentric model in the early 14th century (History.com Editors). It
theorised with the sun at the centre of the universe, the erratic movements would be
better explained by the earth overtaking the more distant planets in its orbit.
However, it wasn’t until the emergence of scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Isaac
Newton and Galileo Galilei in the 17th century, that people started to take the
Copernican model seriously (Filmer). Even then, it wasn’t until the 18th century that
the Copernican model became widely accepted.
In this case, it can be observed that the correct or true theory was rejected for over
2000 years because the knowledge and equipment of the time provided evidence
that countered or disproved it. It took the development or discovery of new
knowledge and the improvement of technology for the Copernican system to be
proven mostly right.
Human Sciences
The human sciences are far more complicated. While they also make use of some
scientific procedures in order to collect and analyse data that is used to develop their
theories, theories are not set in stone. This is because the human sciences study
human behaviour and human behaviour is erratic, or simply put, humans are not
rational beings.
In fact, in the human sciences, it is perfectly acceptable to not choose at all. For
example, economics is based on two different schools of thought. The Keynesian
school of thought and the free market or laissez-faire school of thought (Davis and
Boyle).
The Keynesian school of thought, named after John Maynard Keynes, who
formulated the theory in the 1930s, believes that a workable, successful, thriving
economy requires a combination of efforts from both the private sector and the
government (Barnier). The government is to intervene through the use of monetary
and fiscal policies that will, in accordance with changing economic conditions, work
to regulate the supply of money and adjust Federal Reserve interest rates.
On the other hand, the laissez-faire school of economic thought advocates a
government “hands-off” approach, abnegating the notion that any form of
government intervention will be expedient to the economy (Chappelow). They believe
that the market is self-correcting and will eventually correct any failures in the long
run. In other words, no bailouts, subsidies, taxes, or efforts of any kind are welcome
from the government as they will allegedly impede the markets supposed selfregulating properties. This theory is supported by many distinguished economists
including Noble Memorial Prize winner, Milton Friedman (Davis and Boyle).
Neither of these theories are preferred over the other despite their conflicting nature.
This is because both theories actually have some real-life applications. They can
both be used in predicting the market outcome but only work in certain scenarios and
not others. Due to this, economists refuse to declare either of the two as the
accepted theory. They can’t since they both apply perfectly in the right context.
On the other side of the spectrum, there are instances where we have to choose
based on the effects of the theories presented. Take the case of the linear vs circular
economy model.
The traditional linear economy model follows the take-make-dispose scheme (Burton).
It basically described the production process of the time. Natural resources were
extracted from the ground. They were then sent into factories or manufacturing lines
where they were transformed into finished and semi-finished goods. Any waste that
was generated in the manufacturing of there goods were disposed of.
However, ecologists and eco-conscious economists began to protest the method
because it was slowly harming the society. They presented a new model in the
1960s, though the model was first called the circular economy model by Pierce and
Turner in 1989 (Impacx Team). This model implemented the 3Rs, namely; reduce,
reuse and recycle. The model edited the dispose aspect of the linear model by
including the option of recycling waste. More bio-degradable materials were also
included in order to reduce the amount of permanently damaging waste that is
generated (Furkan Sariatli).
The two models fought for dominance in the business world thought the linear model
remained more prominent because it was less expensive than the circular model
which required special expensive materials. Finally, as the issue of risks of the
permanent damage to the environment became more of a priority to society, the
circular model became the generally accepted and preferred method.
In the case above, it is evident that an external factor, namely the effects on the
environment fuelled the public desire to choose and choose right.
Conclusion
Experts have the tendency to disagree largely due to differences in opinion.
Choosing whom to believe can be determined through different methods for different
scenarios. Methods also tend to differ across disciplines.
The sciences tend to have more straightforward methods such as experimentation
and the review of data. While these methods do have some flaws, including
limitations in current knowledge and technology, it is one od the most accurate ways
to distinguish verity from fallacy.
The human sciences on the other hand, due to their erratic subjects-of-study tend to
have different methods one of which considers the externalities involved in the
implementation of that theory. It is even possible, and in some cases preferable, to
forsake making a decision between two theories concerned.
These are some of the bases on which judgements can be made between experts
who disagree.
References
Barnier, Brian. “Keynesian Economics.” Investopedia, 30 Apr. 2020,
www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
Birdville Schools. Geo-Centrism vs Heliocentrism. Birdville Schools, p. 1,
www.birdvilleschools.net/cms/lib2/TX01000797/Centricity/Domain/4490/Heliocentric
%20Vs%20Geocentric.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar. 2022.
Burton, Larry. “Circular vs Linear Economy and Their Impact on Industrial Waste.”
Resource.temarry.com, 17 Mar. 2021, resource.temarry.com/blog/circular-vs-lineareconomy-and-their-impact-on-industrial-waste. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
Chappelow, Jim. “Free Market Definition.” Investopedia, 28 Apr. 2020,
www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
Davis, Marc, and Michael J Boyle. “Why Can’t Economists Agree?” Investopedia, 24 Aug.
2019, www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/why-economists-do-notagree.asp. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
de Felipe, Pablo. “Georges Lemaître, the Scientist and Priest Who ‘Could Conceive the
Beginning of the Universe’ - Articles.” BioLogos, 23 Aug. 2017,
biologos.org/articles/georges-lemaitre-the-scientist-and-priest-who-could-conceivethe-beginning-of-the-universe. Accessed 17 Mar. 2022.
Filmer, Joshua. “From Geocentrism to Heliocentrism.” Futurism, Futurism, 16 Sept. 2014,
futurism.com/from-geocentrism-to-heliocentrism. Accessed 17 Mar. 2022.
Furkan Sariatli. “Linear Economy versus Circular Economy: A Comparative and Analyzer
Study for Optimization of Economy For...” ResearchGate, De Gruyter Open Sp. Z
o.o., 24 Jan. 2017,
www.researchgate.net/publication/318183876_Linear_Economy_Versus_Circular_Ec
onomy_A_Comparative_and_Analyzer_Study_for_Optimization_of_Economy_for_Su
stainability. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
History.com Editors. “Nicolaus Copernicus.” History, A&E Television Networks, 27 Aug.
2018, www.history.com/topics/inventions/nicolaus-copernicus. Accessed 17 Mar.
2022.
Impacx Team. “Circular Economy vs. Linear Economy: Key Differences.” ImpacX, 21 June
2021, impacx.io/blog/circular-economy-vs-linear-economy/. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
Lincoln, Don. “Einstein’s True Biggest Blunder (Op-Ed).” Space.com, Space, 6 Nov. 2015,
www.space.com/31055-removing-cosmological-constant-was-the-blunder.html.
Accessed 17 Mar. 2022.
Nipun, S. “Reasons for the Disagreement among Economists.” Economics Discussion, 13
Jan. 2017, www.economicsdiscussion.net/economists/reasons-for-the-disagreementamong-economists/25100. Accessed 18 Mar. 2022.
Nussbaumer, Harry. “Einstein’s Conversion from a Belief in a Static to an Expanding
Universe.” ScienceDaily, The European Physical Journal H, 17 Feb. 2014,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140217102545.htm. Accessed 17 Mar.
2022.
O’Connor, JJ, and E F Robertson. “Aristarchus - Biography.” Maths History, University of St
Andrews, Apr. 1999, mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Aristarchus/.
Accessed 17 Mar. 2022.