Error is as valuable as accuracy in the production of knowledge.” To what extent is this the case in two areas of knowledge?
Is error as valuable as accuracy in the production of knowledge? I like do not believe that it is, but there is evidence that this is not always the case. How do we define error? According to the dictionary, error is defined as “something that is not correct; a wrong action or statement.” On the contrary, accuracy is defined as “the quality or state of being correct or precise.” These are quite transparent definitions and I believe that in the world of Theory of Knowledge, these actually carry a deeper meaning to them. An error is only something incorrect if we deem it to be that way, and there are many examples, from …show more content…
In some ways, is it more beneficial to gain knowledge in the natural sciences through errors? Firstly; Penicillin. Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by sir Alexander Fleming. Fleming was experimenting with the influenza virus when accidentally left his staphylococcus cultures unattended for two weeks. As a result, they had become overgrown in a particular bacterial mould. But more importantly, he found that the bacteria was unable to grow anywhere near the mould. It was this moment of simple error; forgetting to properly stow away his cultures, which led to one of the most significant medical advancements in history. The most obvious way of knowing for this real life scenario would be intuition. A lot of normal people that noticed their cultures with mould on them after two weeks away would have disposed of it. However, it was his brilliant intuition as a scientist that allowed him to research and recognise that the combination of the mould and his cultures would lead to his discovery. This RLS relates directly to my claim, knowledge can often be an appreciation for error and I believe that this is a prime example of that. However, how do we know if an error is truly an error in the natural sciences. Was the discovery of penicillin an intentional error or an unintentional error? This relates to Karl Popper 's theorem that scientific theory was the willingness to search for error. Was it possible that the discovery of penicillin was an intentional error, looking for an anomaly in his research, leading him to this discovery. If so, is it fair to call an error purely an error if it was intentional? I don’t think so, I think that in order for an error to be considered it needs to be purely an unintentional error. Therefore was it possible that the discovery of penicillin was not actually an error at the heart, but more an accidental discovery in the search for an outlier in his
Is error as valuable as accuracy in the production of knowledge? I like do not believe that it is, but there is evidence that this is not always the case. How do we define error? According to the dictionary, error is defined as “something that is not correct; a wrong action or statement.” On the contrary, accuracy is defined as “the quality or state of being correct or precise.” These are quite transparent definitions and I believe that in the world of Theory of Knowledge, these actually carry a deeper meaning to them. An error is only something incorrect if we deem it to be that way, and there are many examples, from …show more content…
In some ways, is it more beneficial to gain knowledge in the natural sciences through errors? Firstly; Penicillin. Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by sir Alexander Fleming. Fleming was experimenting with the influenza virus when accidentally left his staphylococcus cultures unattended for two weeks. As a result, they had become overgrown in a particular bacterial mould. But more importantly, he found that the bacteria was unable to grow anywhere near the mould. It was this moment of simple error; forgetting to properly stow away his cultures, which led to one of the most significant medical advancements in history. The most obvious way of knowing for this real life scenario would be intuition. A lot of normal people that noticed their cultures with mould on them after two weeks away would have disposed of it. However, it was his brilliant intuition as a scientist that allowed him to research and recognise that the combination of the mould and his cultures would lead to his discovery. This RLS relates directly to my claim, knowledge can often be an appreciation for error and I believe that this is a prime example of that. However, how do we know if an error is truly an error in the natural sciences. Was the discovery of penicillin an intentional error or an unintentional error? This relates to Karl Popper 's theorem that scientific theory was the willingness to search for error. Was it possible that the discovery of penicillin was an intentional error, looking for an anomaly in his research, leading him to this discovery. If so, is it fair to call an error purely an error if it was intentional? I don’t think so, I think that in order for an error to be considered it needs to be purely an unintentional error. Therefore was it possible that the discovery of penicillin was not actually an error at the heart, but more an accidental discovery in the search for an outlier in his