To what Extent Does Technology Expand or Limit Knowledge

Technology plays a significant role in everyday life. The advancements of technology have impacted individuals’ knowledge in disciplines, such as arts, science, history, mathematics, and religion. The two areas of knowledge that will be discussed in the paper to answer the question are science and arts. Regarding science, new discoveries in evolution have improved or limited knowledge acquisition in different groups. Concerning arts, artists have discovered new ways they can improve their performances or enhance their exhibitions through technology. The paper will answer the question; to what extent does technology expand or limit knowledge in scientific exploration and art? The paper answers the question by using knowledge from various scholars that use their theory of knowledge to explain the issue. The two ways of knowing explored in the paper are sense perception and reason. These two ways of knowing influence the way technology may or may not develop their knowledge. Based on the areas of knowledge of scientific exploration and arts, it is agreeable that to an extent, technology expands people’s knowledge through their sense perception and reason.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Technology expand individuals’ knowledge through scientific exploration. In her book Why Evolution Is True, one of the most remarkable American biologist Jerry A. Coyne examined how the scientific exploration of evolution advances change and expands people’s knowledge of science. The author supports the theory of natural selection and argued that evolution enhances the beauty of life (Coyne, 2010). She uses irrefutable evidence by Charles Darwin to explain that natural selection is true (Coyne, 2010). In the book, the author also indicated that so much knowledge has accumulated since Darwin’s first theory of natural selection as so many fossils have been identified, new species found, and more information has been uncovered in the evolutionary relationships of species (Coyne, 2010). She also indicated that in their technological scientific exploration, scientists had gained more knowledge on new branches of science such as molecular biology, systematics, and the study of how organisms are related (Coyne, 2010). More so, a TED video explained how artificial intelligence is the next step towards understanding the evolution of species (TED Institute, 2016). The author also talked about how scientists have managed to examine the movement of the earth’s continents (Coyne, 2010). He added that thanks to the global positioning technology, scientists have managed to see how the continents are moving further apart at a speed of one to four inches per year (Coyle, 2010). The author’s arguments lead to the conclusion that evolution is true and that technology, through scientific exploration, results in more knowledge. Through the study of evolution, people can expand their knowledge of what they learned before and what information is available currently.

Critics argue that through scientific exploration, technology limits people’s knowledge. In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Khun, one of the most prolific philosophers of science gave his opinion of how technology limits knowledge in scientific explorations. He argued that the study of finished scientific achievements through technology is misleading (Khun, 2012). The author’s central claim is that in any scientific field, the development of any scientific field occurs in phases (Khun, 2012). One of the phases the author focuses on is ‘normal science,’ which he said that comprises of myriads of community researchers who share a common paradigm (Khun, 2012). In his discussion of normal science, the author argued that progress in scientific developments has been slow because of the advancements in technology (Khun, 2012). According to him, technology has made scientists learn from primitive models, which makes it challenging for them to see the profound difference between science and technology (Khun, 2012). He also argued that the community of researchers participate in problem-solving puzzles that are full of anomalies through their experiments and observations (Khun, 2012). He added that in most cases, the community of researchers uncover the anomalies through observational or experimental errors (Khun, 2012). He also added that when scientists do not resolve their anomalies, they begin to question the paradigm itself (Khun, 2012). From my perception, Khun argues that technology is confusing, because when it constantly changes, scientists begin to question their research. Seemingly, the key argument is that technology does nothing to expand knowledge on scientific discoveries.

More so, in the book’s preface, philosopher Ian Hacking asserted that normal science discovers what it expects to identify, and does not aim at novelty but satisfying the majority of the population. According to him, transformations such as technology help in turning an anomaly into a crisis (Khun, 2012). From both Khun and Hacking’s perspectives, normal science is about solving puzzles. Their descriptions of the scientific exploration suggest that individuals’ quest for knowledge is comparable to doing crossword puzzles and is hindered through technological transformations. Also, the authors’ arguments imply that scientific explorations are based on irrational grounds, which do not result in knowledge development through technology, rather limit them.

Technology expands individuals’ knowledge through art. For example, Freeland (2002) argued that art expands people’s knowledge of how to perceive the world because it does not base on propositions. As the author explained further, art requires knowledge of context and culture, and that people can expand their knowledge by understanding the meaning of art (Freeland, 2002). She explained that the brain plays a significant role in explaining how people perceive art (Freeland, 2002). In her discussion of how technology expands knowledge through art, the author talked of how technology has enabled artists to discover virtual reality innovations, 3-D visuals and video games, animation films, and lighting and stage set (Freeland, 2002). She indicated that the mediums of expression in arts are advanced through technology and expands the way people reason and perceive that art. According to her, art conveys knowledge through the recognition of venues, exhibitions, publications, and performances (Freeland, 2002). She talked of the way artists use symbols that have been technologically advanced to represent and express opinions and feelings (Freeland, 2002). Based on the author’s arguments, there is no doubt that technology can expand people’s knowledge of art, as they are able to enhance their experience of different forms of art. Artists use different forms of technology to express their art. In their quest for finding new ways to express their art, they expand their knowledge. Also, when individuals see the different forms of art expression, they improve their sensory perception of the technological tools used to advance their art.

Critics argue that technology limits people’s knowledge through art. In his essay, Arthur Danto, one of the prolific philosophers, discussed ‘the end of art.’ He explored how artists in history manage to expand their art and some remained stunted (Danto, 1998). In her book, Freeland asserted that according to Danto’s theory, some works of art communicate better than others. In his arguments, the author affirmed that up to the end of the 20th century, art was divided into a multitude of movements that appeared concurrent (Danto, 1998). He also argued that he argued that art came to an end because of artists’ behavior of imitating and mimicking other forms of art (Danto, 1998). He added that the commitment to imitation began to fall in the 19th century due to the rise of photography and film. According to him, technological advancements such as photography and film made artists explore their identity (Danto, 1998). He also stated that in his life, he has gone to New York galleries and seen various exhibitions that contain art imitations (Danto, 1998). He also mentioned movements such as Cubism, which raised questions on the significance of visual representations in art (Danto, 1998). More so, he discussed the Japanese printmakers who could not achieve solidities because of technological slowness (Danto, 1998). Based on the author’s arguments, advances in technology limit people’s knowledge because instead of them being creative, they imitate the various forms of art that they see from other people. According to him, art came to an end because of the problem of imitations in different art exhibitions. As he indicated, the imitation made art to become stagnant. As he implies, technology makes it challenging for people to perceive new knowledge because their mind is stuck on mimicking other works of art.

Based on that discussion, I agree to a significant extent that technology expands our knowledge of scientific exploration. Advancements in technology have positive implications for knowledge expansion. As technology grows considerably, so does people’s knowledge as it paves the way for new discoveries and understanding of art and science. Coyne offers a critical example of how technology can expand knowledge in the scientific exploration of evolution. Undeniably, the world evolves on a constant basis. When scientists and the wider community learn about new evolutions discovered through technological advancements, they expand their knowledge as well as that of the wider community. Additionally, technology expands knowledge through art. As artists globally discover new ways to express their opinions and feelings through art, they expand their knowledge and also help the wider community to expand their awareness of their discoveries.

Nevertheless, based on Khun and Hacking’s perspective, it is arguable that their contentions were over-sensitive. For instance, his correlation of scientific inquiry to a puzzle is incorporable because all puzzles have solutions. Besides, it is safe to say that technology helps to solve these puzzles. In finding these solutions, the wider community expands their knowledge on that particular paradigm. Through reason, individuals’ quest for scientific exploration can enable them to determine what knowledge is useful and which one is not. More so, their perception of the particular natural science topic would expand their knowledge about the world of science. Regarding art, Danto might be right in his argument that technology limits knowledge because some artists imitate other forms of art. Arguably, other artists tend to imitate exhibitions, while others do not. Through that imitation, however, artists can expand their knowledge and find more creative ways to express themselves.

Conclusion

Overall, based on the essay, my belief is that technology expands knowledge in scientific exploration and art to some extent. Through technology, people can acquire a significant amount of understanding in the science and art knowledge areas. The authors discussed in the paper offer insights on the topic based on their theory of knowledge. By examining both sides of the arguments, however, I hold on to my belief that technology expands knowledge in scientific explorations and art. A conclusion drawn from the knowledge inquiry is that both scientific exploration and art change individuals’ perceptions of the world. It is arguable that the belief, which technology expands or limits knowledge regarding scientific and art areas of knowledge depends on an individual’s perception and reason.