How Knowledge Changes over TIme

Topic 4: "What is accepted as today's knowledge may be destroyed at tomorrow." Consider the problem of knowledge posed by this statement in the knowledge of the two fields. May 15, 2014 (Thursday) "Tomorrow accepted as knowledge is sometimes abandoned." Let's think about the problem of knowledge raised in these two knowledge fields. Since knowledge is a social structure, this expression becomes a reality for human nature, but due to human motive and curiosity.

Thomas Kuhn's research on the change over time of scientific knowledge has a great influence on how people think about the construction of scientific knowledge and their philosophy is divided from logical positivism and logical empiricism into social It shifted to constructivism. Kuhn explains how formally recognized scientific knowledge systems are "ordinary science" and built as a thinking paradigm. Normal Science (Kuun, 2012). The process of stochastic verification and tampering with these new phenomena is the scientific method we know and these are consistent within the paradigm, remain reproducible and remain unchanged is.

Continuous application of inquiry methods - All of these processes covered by the knowledge framework share knowledge changes and evolve over time. Applying a method belonging to the field of knowledge has the effect of changing what we know. These changes may be gradual and gradual - knowledge domains are somewhat more stable over time. However, as the field of knowledge responds to new experimental results (eg, theoretical progress etc.), sudden dramatic and dramatic revolutionary knowledge changes and paradigm shifts may occur.

Like shared knowledge, personal knowledge is not static, but it changes and develops over time. Personal knowledge will change according to our experience. What an 18 year old person knows may be quite different from what I knew at the age of 6. Various knowledge covered in the TOK course contributes to these changes. Given the example of scientists like Albert Einstein, he made a lot of contributions to modern physics. Obviously, he has some personal qualities that will allow him to go some distance more than his colleagues. He has personal knowledge and is probably a way to see what can be used to advance exploration of the early 20th century physics. But his insight must be accepted as part of a shared knowledge system through a thorough review process This is the field of physics.