How far Should Historians go in Efforts to make Things Simple and Accurate in Passing on Knowledge? (Research Paper Sample)

Theory of Knowledge
Name:
Institution:
Theory of Knowledge
Introduction
In most cases human knowledge is all about noticing regularities and facts that basically would have been figured out on the basis of the already existing information or the knowledge without necessarily acquiring a new set of information as per se (Kusek, & Rist, 2004). thus the knowledge question, "why do people fail to reach necessary conclusions from the knowledge they already possess?" It could be due to the fact that some aspects of the observations they may have made simply does not mean a lot to them. In knowledge there is always a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity. This statement calls for a thorough evaluation and in order to do so one would need to understand clearly the meaning of the terms accuracy and simplicity. There after there is the necessity to use at least two areas of knowledge accompanied by examples for clear and a precise evaluation. Both simplicity and accuracy are specific to Areas of Knowledge in consideration. For example, if we may consider the two in relation to mathematics and religious Knowledge systems, simplicity would be defined differently as well as accuracy. In religious knowledge system simplicity may be referred to as the strength faith or prism of clarity while accuracy may refer to details of the knowledge of the religious content (Kusek, & Rist, 2004). On the other hand, in mathematics simplicity may imply lack of assumptions while accuracy would refer to supporting evidence to a solution. Therefore, this paper evaluates the trade-off between simplicity and accuracy in knowledge using mathematics and history. To do this the following knowledge questions are answered: is it possible to draw the line between simplicity and accuracy in history? How possible is it to keep mathematics simple without affecting accuracy?
How far should historians go in efforts to make things simple and accurate in passing on knowledge?
Claim 1
A simple theory or principle is better than a complicated one. Historians should not take the initiative to make things simple (Kusek, & Rist, 2004). To many individuals simple basically means that which is familiar. A familiar principle or theory would be simple since it does not require any mental effort. Purely, this is not what the principle of simplicity envisions. Individuals who cannot make further effort mentally and cannot upgrade their familiar notions, are not supposed to have opinions or even share them with others. For example, Ptolematic astronomy came up with the circular orbits for the revolving objects of the universe. This was so because the universe was considered to be perfect and so was the circle. There was difference between the actual observed motions and the theoretical circles. This called for a positing of epicycles. One set was not enough to account for the real motions, therefore more epicycles were added. Though the theory and the observation were not perfect they were in agreement. This implies that simplicity is not a matter of elements in the system but should be judged using the system’s complexity.
Counter-claim 1
However, there are dangers related to accuracy by keeping it simple. On the contrary to simplicity, complications are necessary to maintain accuracy and cover the facts (Kusek, & Rist, 2004). However beautiful or easy to understand a theory may be as long as it is not factual it remains unviable. Though a theory seems complex and hard to understand it still could be the correct explanation of a complicated phenomenon. For example, it is difficult to discuss an ocean with a frog in the pond, or share with a summer insect of the winter. It would be difficult for these two to relate to the subject since they are only confined to their environment and season respectively. Therefore, no matter how simple or complex a theory may be it takes a mental effort to grasp the notion. One may attempt to simplify a theory or a notion for others to understand only to make it lose its meaning and fail to be effective in its purpose. It calls for one to be judicious to include all necessary data and to choose an adequate analysis regarding data range. Then be subtle when assessing the functionality of all the elements found in the explanation. If they be met holistically, then all the unnecessary elements of the theory will be eliminated (Kusek, & Rist, 2004).
Claim 2
History uses simplicity to retain its accuracy in gaining and retaining knowledge. The simpler a theory is, the easier it is to communicate to others, and the easier it is to remember. In order for historians to be able to carry on a theory or a principle for centuries accurately they need to make it simple. Simple in this case it does not mean losing accuracy or getting void of the vital parts. Instead it is all about keeping the vital information and getting rid of the unnecessary elements of the explanation. History does not deal with mere approximations but facts on real time thus keeping it simple and easy to gain and transfer knowledge.
Counter-claim 2
Though it is easy to gain, share, and retain knowledge through simplicity it is challenging to maintain accuracy over time (Kusek, & Rist, 2004). Since history happens over time, it takes a generation to pass on information to another there are high chances of the original information being distorted. Therefore, in keeping it simple it might end up inaccurate. In illustration, an accident happens and there is one eye witness. Shortly after, a few people gather around the scene trying to know what has caused the accident. The witness explains to the first few people. Later the first hand witness leaves and by the time journalists get to the scene almost everyone has their own version of the story (Kusek, & Rist, 2004). To make the matter worse the journalists from different media houses would want their story to be the most catching and therefore they exaggerate the report. This is to say that at the end of the day television viewers will have totally different information from the real thing. This is because of the chain the information has followed. Therefore, simplicity in history is a challenging methodology in maintaining accuracy. Though it helps in helping the learners grasp the knowledge quickly and making it difficult to forget, it is tricky to carry the same information accurately for a long period of time especially where it is not recorded.
Is it possible for mathematicians to maintain simplicity and accuracy in relation to knowledge?
Claim 1
When there is possibility of error in a mathematical piece of data or a calculation then a simple model that would fit the illustration would serve more accurately in learning or developing knowledge unlike a complex one (American Mathematical Society, 1891). It is logical that since complex illustrations seem to be more flexible in their ability to solve a problem, they also have high chances of being misled by noise and errors. In such case they may result inaccuracy. Therefore, there is an optimized trade-off between simplicity and accuracy in data sampling as well as calculations in a particular sample thus affecting the knowledge.
Counter-claim 1
There is an implication that comes with the simplicity in the interpretation of data as well as the accuracy of the calculations and predictability of the results (Morra, & Rist, 2009). This is to say that there is greater improvement in efficiency when simple interpretations are used in experiments by allowing mathematicians to achieve more using less data. For example, mathematicians as well as scientists would be able to carry out costly experiments several times before they can conclude on a particular theory of knowledge. The best illustration is the Ockham’s hill where...