Life isn't always right____

Thursday, August 23, 2007

since the lazy rong en wants my essay to be uploaded............. here goes.

‘Knowledge is power.’ Consider, in relation to the social sciences, or the humanities, or even the sciences, how far this is true of knowledge sharing in a society. (ACJC Promos 2006)

“Knowledge is power,” as proclaimed by Sir Francis Bacon, one of the pioneers in the development of the philosophy of science. Constructing knowledge definitely gives the constructor some form of power over others. Power here is defined to be able to have an advantage over another person, be it tangible or otherwise. The power used does not necessarily have to be positive, but instead can also be negative, because power itself is neutral; only how it is used is not. This is so because it depends on whose power it is referring to. With respect to knowledge sharing, in the case where the receiver of the knowledge gains and is considered positive power, it might sequentially lead to the sharer losing out in some form and thus have negative power. Thus, it is important to distinguish who is gaining or losing the power. There are many instances that knowledge leads to power in different fields of knowledge inquiry as will be shown below.

In scientific inquiry, collaboration is necessary in modern science to ensure that there is development. It is based on building theories on previously known facts or knocking down old theories for better ones based on newfound data. In any case, no scientist can conduct all experiments himself, nor can he be an expert in every single field of science. Thus, he requires the help and effort of previous scientists that have done the relevant research and this is where the knowledge sharing comes in. For example, Albert Einstein’s work on photons was not entirely by him. Instead, he employed the works of Max Planck and developed them further to be able to derive further theorems. Without reference to previous works, who knows if Einstein might have developed his work as outreaching as we know it to be today. These kinds of incidents are aplenty among the scientific community and are applicable for different scientific fields.

In aesthetic knowledge, institutionalists agree that knowledge is created when a piece of artwork is perceived as good or bad when a group of professionals in that field of art says it is. The rest of us who are regarded as no better than these professionals create this aesthetic knowledge only when they share it with us. In the theory of institutionalism, our aesthetic responses to these artworks strictly do not matter at all, since if those responses by professionals contradict ours, theirs would be considered to be of higher value and a better response. In which case, then our responses are merely responses and do not have to be taken seriously at all. Thus, these professionals are the ones with the power to determine whether an artwork is good or bad, and to a greater extent, also have the power to influence the rest of the community on which artwork is good or bad.

A trivial example on the sharing of resources can be about sharing essays to gain better insights that we otherwise might never have access to. When we share essays with one another, we are given the chance to learn from the mistake of others and improve on previously erroneous areas. With the knowledge of other peoples’ essays, we are in the position and have the power to produce a better work. Similarly, when scientists produce almost similar work, more knowledge can be constructed if they share their findings and results together. Afterall, science is based on its collaborative nature and the fact that it is innately inductive. This leads to the conclusion that more findings that cohere can only make a theory a better one because the theory has shown to be applicable in more areas and thus is also more general. With that, theory then has more power to put itself onto various scenarios and still work as it should.

However, this is not always true. With respect to the humanities, or history in particular, many should be familiar with the saying, “History is made by winners”. This is especially evident in 2 countries, China and Japan, where the education system provides 2 absolutely different accounts of World War 2. The most obvious case is “The Rape of Nanking”. In Japan, the education system has made no mention of the incident at all in the history textbooks. The lack of knowledge-sharing here yields power to the Japanese government. Its people are ignorant of the actual history of the World War II as accepted by China and other countries and thus lack that knowledge.

This lack of knowledge sharing is especially evident in the political arena and political science. It may have been done in the interest of the individual instead of the community and in the process, allows the community to view a particular problem in a skewed manner and flawed manner. The individual can be said to have the power to infuse false notions into the community. For example, the US government is believed by many to have withheld important information about Iraq so that it was able to convince the public that going to war with Iraq would prevent an otherwise “greater World War”. Eventually, it was realised and has been accepted by many that Iraq never possessed the nuclear weapons that the US claimed it has and has in fact been fooled by the US into believing as such because of the lack of necessary information.

In conclusion, it seems that people can weld power regardless of whether there is knowledge creation involved or not. Indeed, the ability to construct or de-construct (in the case of hiding or misleading of information) can lead to a particular individual gaining an advantage and have significant power over some other people or even a community. In the case of science and aesthetics, it is also shown that they are necessarily fields of knowledge that require knowledge sharing in other to expand as a greater rate that in its absence.

A01 - 11/15
A02 - 7/10
A03 - 3/5
Total - 21/30 =)

Comments: Certainly in the right direction

*edited by shaun - your scores are correct, but 20 15 and 5 for your max marks make 40, not 30. hahaha. corrected to 15,10,5.

Haikal went the right way at || 11:10 pm

________________________________________