Extended+Essay+SY+2009-2010

[|John-Essay Assessment Criteria.docx]
 * // John - See below for notes on your writing: CCT

“Discuss the claim that some areas of knowledge are discovered and others are invented.”//**

What is discovery? What is invention? How are these words different from each other? Are these two words interchanged of their definitions? These are the questions that must be addressed with priority in order to answer the main question of knowledge claims being classified either as discovered or invented.

Discovery as defined by Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionary, is; “//the act of revealing or making an idea or object known."// In comparison to how the word “invented” is used to define knowledge, discovered knowledge is a more universally accepted idea of establishing claims in areas of knowledge.

Inventing on the other hand, also defined by Webster and Oxford is the “// contrivance or construction of that which has not before existed // ”. “Invented” knowledge is somewhat rather greatly affected by the “human” factor (influence of our own personal or others’ external views to how they perceive a certain idea) on how it was used to describe a claim in an area of knowledge.

But are knowledge claims simply just “invented” or “discovered”? Aren’t these knowledge claims established in order to simply “explain reality” to elaborate [more] or make clear [of] certain knowledge claims? Is “explaining reality” just a preliminary leading to finding the actual purpose or application of these knowledge claims to reality itself? It is true that in some areas of knowledge there are combinations of different knowledge claims that are either ‘discovered’ or ‘invented’. One such example of this type of area of knowledge is the Natural Sciences having Chemistry as one of it. In Chemistry, most knowledge claims are discovered. Chemists tend to base that their knowledge claims are discovered where they base their assertion that everything involved in Chemistry such as atoms, molecules, electron configuration, etc. are already existent matter that was just waiting to be discovered. If this is what most of the Natural Sciences agree upon, how do they determine if a knowledge claim is invented? According to George Henry Lewes, “//Science is the systematic classification of experience//”, which testifies to how the Natural Sciences has knowledge claims are classified as “discovered” or “invented” to come up with an “explanation of reality” and its purpose in reality as a whole.

In this area of knowledge, it is rather used in a different manner because the word “invented” is used for the way they had created a system or organization to put in order the different accepted conceptualities of Chemistry such as the Periodic Table. The Periodic Table was a system that was “created” to organize the elements based on different factors such as atomic mass, electro negativity, and many more. Another key example of the word “invent” or “create” used to create a system for knowledge claims is Mathematics. Mathematics was an area of knowledge that is used to formalize the already existing systematic order of things. Therefore in Mathematics, these different concepts were “created” only to formalize these ideas to a more organized sequence of knowledge claims and such fine exemplars of knowledge claims in Mathematics as area of knowledge as Pythagorean theorem, Matrices, Ordinances and many more. So is it really just about a question of organization or systemizing of areas of knowledge where the word “created” or “invented” is used? Or are there further several factors that affect how a knowledge claim is classified either as “invented” or “discovered”? But in looking at some cases of the knowledge claims in the Natural Sciences, these claims are sort of neither classified as “discovered” or “invented” but it “explains reality” of these knowledge claims for society to understand and comprehend. One such example of it is again the Periodic Table because in looking at how it was logically structured as they attempted and successfully established a logical and reasonable justification of how the elements interact together. But what about in the Human Sciences? How do knowledge claims get classified as "invented" or "discovered"? Does these areas of knowledge utilize a synthesis of both classifications of knowledge claims to come up with a "explanation of reality"?

Although this is true for the areas of knowledge in the Natural Sciences, both “invented” and “discovered” are applied in a different approach in the Human Sciences such as the History. History, as an area of knowledge has been quite an issue in terms of debating over how knowledge claims are classified either as “invented” or “created”. In History, some events that were recorded were based on elusive sources that have been debated over by historians throughout long periods of time. In the eyes of the general public, most of the people see that historical events are discovered, which is true but in studying this area of knowledge further, it is perceived that historians’ interpretations are actually the knowledge claims that most of the general public base their views on different historical events. According to Voltaire, History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions”. This quotation clearly supports the idea that history is not the actual area of knowledge that is being studied upon but rather it is historiography, which is the study of historians’ interpretations on different historical events. This is the part of this area of knowledge is where the “created” or “invented” knowledge claims come into play. But in some cases or situations of knowledge claims, some are not classified on these two but rather they are considered to "explain reality" and from there, the next step is to find the purpose or application of knowledge claims to reality itself.

One such example of this is the Tiananmen Square “//Incident//” or “//Massacre//” where the former is how the Chinese historians’ views the event as a accidental and unpremeditated but it is mainly because these historians’ interpretations could have been influenced by their own personal interpretations or by what the government dictates to them as there is strict censorship in China that is still currently being implemented, which now brings us back to the “human” factor of how these knowledge claims are “invented”. It also touches the idea of possible “language issue” on these words were used, which is a very possible reason on how their definitions are being swapped with one another therefore resulting in a misinterpretation of basing our views on Historiography or History. But the possibility of these knowledge claims as an “explanation of reality” to create further understanding for society to comprehend must be taken into careful consideration and as to how these knowledge claim its use is relevant to reality.

Another area of knowledge that also has the same predicament is Art itself. To begin with, Art is simply expression of humans’ creative skill that is valued for their splendor or their emotional portrayal, which tells us that Art is an abstract method of different people’s way to simply communicate or to free different emotions inside them through paintings, sculpture, sketches and many more. One fine example of these is the works of Leonardo Da Vinci. Leonardo Da Vinci, in essence, is a man of many talents who actually not only excelled in Art but also in Sciences as well but he was more well known through his art, which gave rise to his reputation that even Art scholars today still revere as one of mankind’s most prominent artists. Da Vinci’s works such as “The Last Supper”, “Mona Lisa”, and “Madonna” are works where Da Vinci’s intentions or purpose for them is shrouded with complete mystery. One of his most controversial works is “The Last Supper” whose intent is being interpreted and debated upon by History scholars, Art scholar and the Church. History scholars have their interpretation through their own point of views based on written works by Christian scholars, of the painting conveying a secret message that presents the possibility of “Merovingian” Bloodline (Bloodline that is said to trace back from its origins who are Jesus and Mary Magdalene having their own child) that may exist until today. This evidently demonstrates that these History scholars base their knowledge claims on personal interpretations of the painting of it containing a message, which they define these knowledge claims as rather “discovered” but if it was based on their own interpretations, it is more accurate to define it as “invented” knowledge claim as this is a “language issue” and this is greatly influenced by the “//human//” factor although it cannot be judge whether these knowledge claims are valid or not. On the other hand, the Church contradicts what these History scholars’ knowledge claims of the painting for they reason out that Jesus was a virtuous man who would never commit such a thing and they see the painting simply a work of art to portray as accurately as possible the events that happened during the Last Supper. Although these knowledge claims are hard to define as “//discovered//” or “//invented//” because the Church claims that in the beginning, God had simply created everything that is in this planet and everything else that surrounds it but there is a quite strong presence of the “//human//” factor as the Church again simply bases their claims to unstudied and unproven knowledge that is written on a pile of old pieces of paper. There is also a hint of the “language issue” as the Church reasons that their knowledge claims are neither “invented” or “created” as they say that everything we are experiencing was already existent even before we humans came to be, according to the Bible itself. Whilst for Art scholars, the painting for them was simply an representation of how the event was said to have had happened and the Art scholars focus more on how they perceive this work of art either as brilliant or appalling although these interpretations, which turn into knowledge claims of the painting being a beautiful piece of art or not, are simply based on personal views, which brings out the “//human//” factor but not so much of the “language issue” simply because they themselves clearly define their different knowledge claims as “invented” so to speak. But again, one must not overlook at the possibility of how these different groups of society can be classifying the knowledge claim, as “explaining the reality” of it to be further understood by the general public.

In general, knowledge claims in different areas of knowledge do differ either as “invented”, “discovered” or a synthesis of both, which are based mostly on the “//human//” factor on how these claims are influenced upon and the “language issue” on how the words “invented” and “discovered” were defined and used. But in any area of knowledge, it is not easy to simply classify knowledge claims as "discovered" or "invented" as if it there was simply just a brick wall in between both of them. Even for the past thousands of year since man came to be, all we humans have come up are simply "explanations of reality". And in comparing our so - called "discovered" or "invented" knowledge claims, these aren't even the tip of the iceberg so to speak as these scholars attempt to explain how everything around us works such as Mathematics being a area of knowledge with different knowledge claims to explain and formalize how the systematic order of things work itself. And even with our very fast advancing technology today, we still need to go deeper into these different areas of knowledge to further explain and understand things and in doing so, that will be the only possible time for us to "invent" or "discover" knowledge claims or we may never even reach to that level of knowledge itself for even creating "explanations of reality" itself is already complex enough for us to understand.

John - some notes on your writing

//** “Discuss the claim that some areas of knowledge are discovered and others are invented.” **// //** SUMMARY: An effort to define and then differentiate (and clarify the mixture of) invention and discovery across a variety of knowing examples and ways of knowing. **// Areas of relative strength: · Clear effort to define terms up front · Fairly effective atempt to source Lewes’ work on chemistry · The difference between the discovered relationship of chemicals and the invented structure of the periodic table is clear and quite clever · Clear effort to summarize in the final paragraph · Attempt to pull evidence from various time periods and to weave an understanding of numerous ways of knowing.

Areas of relative growth: · Transitions between paragraphs could use attention · Careful re-reading of work to examine if the points being made seem to line up sequentially will help with the organization of ideas · The extensive paragraph on Art comes across as too long and difficult to track. · Keep in mind the value of restating the question. · This paper comes across as a potentially wandering academic exercise. By that I mean it raises the question of why anyone should worry about the difference between invention and discovery, or what the big deal might be if most things involve a synthesis of the two. If you can look deeply into that question, the ‘so what?’ question behind the examination of these two terms, you could land on a whopper of an essay.

Great foundation for next year’s work, John. A long way travelled and a long way yet to go. As it should be. cct