tok essay 2014

7/17/2019 TOK Essay 2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tok-essay-2014 1/5

Candidate no. 0704 - 031

E THICAL JUDGEMENTS LIMIT THE METHODS AVAILABLE IN THE

PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH THE ARTS AND THE NATURAL

SCIENCES. DISCUSS

The answer to the problem stated in the topic is largely dependent on the definition of knowledge

which one is to assume in their eamination. !n order to maimise the scope of this one" the broadest"

albeit a slightly unintuiti#e one is chosen. $amely" knowledge will be hereinafter understood as any

data obtained by an indi#idual or a group of people through the process of perception or thought"

stored in any form on any a#ailable carrier. %ccording to such definition" not only the typical"

scholarly" theoretical facts1 but also customs" skills" traditions" e#en lies and false beliefs can be

classified as knowledge.& % critic of such approach3 should ask themsel#es the 'uestion (!f they are not

knowledge" then what are they)*" and they will realise that whether something can be deemed

knowledge or not is simply a matter of the standpoint one is to take. %nd the source of all knowing" or

the two general methods of its production" will be" as stated before" the processes of perception and

thought. +hen one accepts the reasoning outlined abo#e" the answer to this problem becomes 'uite

ob#ious and straightforward , ethical udgments do limit the methods a#ailable in the production of

knowledge" albeit not in a straightforward way. !t should be also noticed" that such limitations can ha#e" in

both arts and sciences" a positi#e influence on the 'uality of the produced knowledge. !t will be the subect

of this essay to pro#e both these statements.

T/ /C%$! 2 !!T!$5

!t is only logical to start with the first one , that ethical considerations can impair our process of

production of knowing. % highly simplified model of such limiting takes ad#antage of the iriam-

+ebster 6ictionary*s definition of ethical udgements" which are (udgments in#ol#ing moral appro#al

or disappro#al* and takes into account the fact that" of course" a udgement itself can ne#er be the

direct limiting factor" but the actions which result from this udgement #ery well can. +hen a person

1 +hich almost eclusi#ely constitute knowledge in the common interpretation of this concept.

2 %lternati#ely" almost anything that stimulates the conscious part of our brain can.

3 6ri#en probably by the misleading workings of the /nglish language" wherein knowledge usually

has #ery positi#e connotations" and a person who merely holds a false opinion is usually said to (not

know*. !n order to sol#e at least the linguistic part of this conundrum" the term (knowledge* will behereinafter echanged for a more neutral noun - (knowing*.

1

7/17/2019 TOK Essay 2014



eamines an act on the ground of its moral #alue and finds it to be in some way unacceptable" they

usually feel obliged to take a counteraction and do whate#er is in their power to force this action to

cease. %pplying this to the processes of perception or thought" whene#er one feels that a certain thing

should not be percei#ed or thought of because it is morally wrong" one can" in the most

straightforward case" try to hide it from other people.

e it the Catholic Church creating the ist of orbidden ooks and holding 5alileo 5alilei in house

arrest" so that people cannot listen 8and listening is perception9 to his heliocentric opinions" or the

5erman go#ernment banning stem research on human embryos" the mechanism remains the same" no

matter the time or scale of the limitations. They are" it can be argued" being imposed all the time and

we were all subect to them at one point in the least" when our parents denied us access to 8percei#e9

certain books or mo#ies because they considered us unfit to be eposed to them" which did" in a sense"

depri#e us" and the whole of humanity" of not only the act of seeing them" but also of the possible

reflections and conclusions we might ha#e drawn from them" in other words" of the knowing we might

ha#e produced.

!n the domain of thought the case is a little more difficult to resol#e" as it is #ery hard for any person"

no matter how high in authority" to force another adult4 human being to stop thinking about something.

!t hasn*t" though" been stated" that the limitations ha#e to be eternal" and the internal prohibition of

thought is a #ery common thing. /#eryone at some point of their life tells themsel#es to stop thinking

about something" because it is immoral.

!t is enough to mention the case of co#ering the erotic artwork disco#ered in :ompeii in plaster to hide

it from the eyes of the general public due to its (indecent* nature to realise that the same holds true in

the perception of art.

+hat is #ery important for the pre#ious in#estigation is the fact that in all of the analysed cases" the

limiting was imposed by a figure of authority" which possessed some power o#er the subect of

limitation 8e#en if it was the power which a person has o#er themsel#es ;9. This figure does not need to

be an indi#idual , it might as well be composed of the maority of people" who in many cases ha#e acertain power o#er the minority<. This is a #ery important aspect" as it might occur that" in some

4 !n the process of upbringing one might always be conditioned to deem a particular topic indecent"

then the latter mechanism applies.

5 !t is 'uite interesting to notice that a person who has little of such power 8usually referred to as (self

control*9 usually cannot refrain from thinking about certain subects.

6 orming the so called (tyranny of maority*" a term introduced by =ohn tuart ill. 8ill" 1><?9

2

7/17/2019 TOK Essay 2014



instances" they might ha#e a #ery good reason for their imposition. uch reasonable limiting is what

we shall eamine net.

T/ $/C/!T@ 2 !!T!$5

To make a case in which the limiting is necessary" one first needs to familiarise themsel#es with the

assessment methods used in arts and sciences and recognise the similarities between them. Then one

needs to realiAe that most knowledge is produced to be shared , pieces of art are made for ehibition"

scientific papers are written to contribute to the already eisting body of knowledge. !n both

disciplines" when a new piece is produced" it goes through a meticulous re#iew process. !n arts it is

carried out by critics7" in sciences by other scientists>. oth assess the work according to the standards

of the day and attribute them a positi#e or negati#e rating. The perception of positi#ely assessed works

is encouraged" and that of negati#ely assessed , discouraged.

uch a process has been introduced by the maority to minimise the disorder in the shared body of

knowledge 8as the (erroneous* knowledge is usually defined as the one which does not harmonised

with the rest of what is known" causing the aforementioned disorder9" to assume the most efficient

distribution of funding" but also because they are simply what the maority of people would define as

lies" and lying is considered immoral in the +estern culture. ardly anyone would call this type of

limiting a bad thing" and most people would argue that is crucial to the de#elopment of science and

arts?.

The method is not perfect" and the many artists 8/l 5reco" Bincent #an 5ogh9 and scientists 8!gnaA

:hilipp emmelweis" 5eorg endel9" who died unrecogniAed can ser#e as eamples against its use"

but it is" ne#ertheless" necessary.

The maor flaw in the process is" howe#er" the fact that it still is #ery prone to human error and

manipulation" therefore a certain amount of good will is necessary for the assessment to be

trustworthy. The creator is assumed to take his work seriously and eecute it to the highest standard"

and the re#iewer to be obecti#e. +hen these criteria are not met" the assessment can be flawed. !norder to illustrate that" a number of so called (hoaes* ha#e been introduced in the past times" which"

making use of the aforementioned flaws" managed to get works which clearly did not meet any

standards through the 'uality processes.

7 !n case of the popular culture , also by the sheer opinion of maority of people.

!n a process called (peer re#iew*.

! %nd especially to the modern science and arts" where due to the unprecedented amount of produced pieces" there is more necessity than e#er for an e#aluation processes.

3

7/17/2019 TOK Essay 2014



2ne is the (okol affair*" in which a professional physicist published a paper in a ournal of cultural

studies" in which" using a number of unsupported claims and contro#ersial scientific theories" he

arri#ed at the conclusion that (physical realityDD is a social and linguistic construct* 8okal" 1??<9"

only to re#eal later that the paper was intended as a practical oke to epose the lack of 'uality control

in the humanities ournals. The ournal*s editors later called this a (breach of ethics* 8Eobbins F Eoss"

1??<9" stating that (such a thing is a serious matter in any scholarly community" and has damaging

conse'uences when it occurs in science publishing.* 8Eobbins F Eoss" 1??<9

%n e'ui#alent one in arts is the :ierre rassau case" where a wedish ournalist organiAed an

ehibition of a series of paintings made by a chimpanAee" presented as a pre#iously unknown

rench painter" which gained #ery positi#e re#iews from critics" who were clearly outraged

after he re#ealed the prank 10" or the $at Tate11 case" in which a biography of an allegedly

influential fictitious painter who destroyed ??G of his work was published and many critics

claimed to know him 8oyd" &0119.

umorous as they are" those cases hint at the possibility of serious" harmful e#en abuse of the

artistic and scientific processes. 2ne can easily imagine that a person might" for whate#er

unfair reason" take ad#antage of these imperfections" and still get way with it" and many

people" indeed" ha#e. The amount re#ealed cases of scientific misconduct is appalingH the

:itdown an case in archaeology" the chIn scandal in electronics" the ogdano# affair in

'uantum physics are ust a few eamples of scandals which were resol#ed. !t is hard to

imagine how many malefactors remain unpunished.

!n science it is relati#ely easy to pro#e a work faulty1&. !n arts the case is more ambiguous due

to the #ery comple nature of a piece of art" which is not the nature of such essay. !f one"

howe#er" is to assume that there eists a necessity of authorial intent when creating

something" numerous cases" such as the disumbriationism affair and the (%tlanta $ights* case

can be considered an instance of creating something without such intent" or simple dishonesty.

1" The

wedish %rtistsJ $ational 2rganiAation reported the (forgery*" and the gallery was forced to

close. 8ereld" &00?9

11 +hose name can easily be deri#ed from the names of $ational and Tate , two famous ondon art

galleries

12 !n purely theoretical science" howe#er" it might be #ery difficult to do so.

4

7/17/2019 TOK Essay 2014



%ll these cases" it can be assumed" belong to the domain of thought" and if the person in

'uestion would refrain themsel#es from creating knowledge" the o#erall 'uality of the general

body of knowledge would be substantially better.

uch are the cases where the limiting of production of knowledge" either by the maority or by

the indi#idual can be fa#ourable.

ibliography

ereld" K. 8&00?" 0& 049. Ulf Bjereld. %ccessed 0& &&" &014 from logspot.comLhttpLMMulfbereld.blogspot.comM&00?M0&Mkonstfack-och-mannisko#ardet.html

oyd" +. 8&011" 11 139. How I fooled the art world. %ccessed 0& &&" &014 from TelegraphL

httpLMMwww.telegraph.co.ukMcultureMartMartsalesM>>><30;M+illiam-oyd-ow-!-fooled-the-art-

world.html

ill" =. . 81><?9. On liberty. ondonL ongman" Eoberts F 5reen.

Eobbins" ." F Eoss" %.. An editorial response to Alan Sokal’s claim. %ccessed 0& &&" &014 from

httpLMMwww.physics.nyu.eduMsokalMocialTetNreplyN.pdf

okal" %. 6. 81??<9. Transgressing the oundariesL Towards a Transformati#e ermeneutics of

Ouantum 5ra#ity. Social Tet !"# " strony &17-&;&.

5

tok essay 2014

Documents