How can an AOK seek to describe the world without transforming it?

[Toby Johnson]

Every single piece of information that we acquire has some impact on how we will behave and react. Through acquiring information (description) the world is changed.

How can you argue with this?? Trying to find counterpoints to my essay but I can't because its impossible to describe the world and not transform it.

[Sandwich]

If you can't think of any direct ways that an AOK can not transform the world, then I suggest you try finding some examples where it barely transforms the world. Maths and sciences would be a decent way to go. At the other extreme you have art, I guess.

[trishreddy]

What I am doing for mine... is choosing two areas of knowledge which do both... I've chosen the arts and the natural sciences and what i have written for my claim is:

The arts seek to describe the world while the natural sciences seek to transform the world. And then vice versa for the counter-claim. Then in my conclusion is that no area of knowledge can just seek to describe the world or just transform the world - it does both.

[Andy Sebastian]

IDK if this helps, but here's my try:

 

History can describe the past, but it can transform only the present, the future, and our interpretation of past events - it cannot actually change the world it's trying to describe.  So, historical knowledge can transform "the world", but not the same aspect of "the world" that it describes.

 

Similarly, in astrophysics we can describe the behavior of distant pulsars and nebula, but in no realistic timeframe can we affect them, nor does our knowledge of the eventual heat death of the universe allow us to transform that inevitable outcome.  (I'm generously interpreting the definition of "world" to mean more than just human societies, but rather specific "ecosystems" of knowledge)

 

A particularly superflorous philosopher could point out that all human beings eventually die and decay, but this would not change the fact that all human beings eventually die and decay.  Knowledge of some phenomona is necessary to consciously transform it, but it does not guarantee such an ability.

[yii yann]

x

 

I'd really suggest you take this down Susanne. Lots of people seem to not be able to read warnings, hence your example is likely to be copied. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by yii yann

[yii yann]

Every single piece of information that we acquire has some impact on how we will behave and react. Through acquiring information (description) the world is changed.

 

How can you argue with this?? Trying to find counterpoints to my essay but I can't because its impossible to describe the world and not transform it.

 

Is there knowledge that is not useful?

 

I feel that fundamentally your line of argument is flawed. If every piece of information we acquire transforms the world, by definition you can't have knowledge that doesn't transform the world!

 

Here's the original question: 

 

Some areas of knowledge seek to describe the world, whereas others seek to transform it.” Explore this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge

 

I'd probably be thinking something like.. All knowledge is essentially description, but it is the application of this knowledge that transforms the world. For example, scientists noticed that black holes tend to emit extreme amounts of radiation near the singularity. This is the knowledge in natural sciences which is simply a description. However, scientists then used this knowledge to do a very simple thing: you can find more black holes by looking for radiation like this!

 

Obviously I am not a science person, and my above description of black holes is probably way off, but you get the idea. 

 

To reiterate, knowledge is simply description until someone applies that knowledge, then it transforms the world. So essentially, your counterclaim is looking for knowledge that is absolutely useless. 

 

My TOK textbook comes to mind. 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Tried to fix some grammatical errors. Good lord when I'm typing about something interesting my grammar goes out the window. 

Edited July 3, 2014 by yii yann

[Andy Sebastian]

 

Is there knowledge that is not useful?

 

I feel that fundamentally your line of argument is flawed. If every piece of information we acquire transforms the world, by definition you can't have knowledge that doesn't transform the world!

 

Here the original question: 

 

Some areas of knowledge seek to describe the world, whereas others seek to transform it.†Explore this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge

 

I'd probably be thinking something like.. All knowledge is essentially description, but it is the application of this knowledge that transforms the world. For example, scientists noticed that black holes tend to emit extreme amounts of radiation near the singularity. This is the knowledge in natural sciences which is simply a description. However, scientists then used this knowledge to do a very simple thing: you can find more black holes by looking for radiation like this!

 

Obviously I am not a science person, and my above description of black holes are probably way off, but you get the idea. 

 

To reiterate, knowledge is simply description until someone applies that knowledge, then it transforms the world. So essentially, your counterclaim is looking for knowledge that is absolutely useless. 

 

My TOK textbook comes to mind.

 

Also:

 

The original question addresses what different areas of knowledge "seek" to do.  From a purely philosophical standpoint, the objective of science is to describe nature - its profound impact on society is a side effect, not the intended goal.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Andy Sebastian