Present knowledge is wholly dependent on past knowledge.” Discuss this claim with
reference to two areas of knowledge.
The gaining of knowledge allows us to understand the world around us, this is
especially prevalent in the human and natural sciences where there are limitations to the
gaining knowledge. “Wholly” suggests that present knowledge can only, without exception,
be created when past knowledge is available. The use of the word “wholly” leads one to
believe that there is no other way of gaining knowledge, limiting the options of how
knowledge can be gained. Present knowledge is the current understanding of a subject, all of
the information that we know in the here and now. While past knowledge is previous
knowledge that has been understood for some time. This essay will explore the extent that the
statement “Present knowledge is wholly dependent on past knowledge” is true when looking
at two areas of knowledge. The Human Sciences (HS) suggest that revision of past theories is
a common theme as the human mind develops over generations. In the Natural Sciences (NS)
the development of technology is often the reason for revision but discoveries can also be
made through coincidence. Present knowledge is largely dependent on past knowledge.
New models in the NS are developed using past knowledge and are improved upon.
The Fluid Mosaic Model, developed by Singer and Nicolson in 1972, is the accepted
representation of the cell membrane which was based on previous models such as Davson-
Danielli’s representation of 1935. The discovery of the Electron Micrograph allowed Singer
and Nicolson to create a modified version of previous models. The revision of the 1935
model which suggested that proteins in the cell membrane form a fixed layer on top of the
membrane was modified to proteins being embedded within the bilayer (Mcleod). In the NS
models are created to demonstrate concepts, these are often based on a theory that still needs
to be tested. The current model, used the 1935 model as a foundation of understanding which
was then improved and altered due to the advancement of microscopy technologies. The
1
, invention of the electron micrograph made a significant technological difference in the NS,
making it possible to visualize and disprove the model and the theory accepted at the time.
The challenging of an existing model will always allow for knowledge to be gained, as it will
either withstand the pressure and be valid or will lead to an alteration and eventually the
advancement of the accepted knowledge. The 1972 model is still accepted today, suggesting
that further improvement in technology has not significantly altered the validity and accuracy
of the model. Therefore, the gaining of knowledge is not wholly dependent on past
knowledge, other factors such as improving of technology need to be considered. A common
reason for revision, in the NS, are technological advances. In science these advances will
never stop. To stay current, we need to test current knowledge against new technology.
Making this the stronger argument as it demonstrates that past knowledge has a large part in
the production of knowledge in NS.
However, a counterclaim to this is a discovery due to coincidence/accident, things do
not need to be developed but can be discovered. The X-Ray was accidentally discovered by a
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen in 1895. He was working with a Cathode-ray tube and observed a
fluorescent glow of crystals on a table near the tube. Roentgen found that light could pass
through most substances but made a shadow where solid materials were present. In 1895 he
produced the first X-Ray of his wife’s hand (History of Radiography). Therefore, knowledge
in the NS is not “wholly” dependent on past knowledge but can arise due to sudden
discoveries rather than developing a concept. In the NS knowledge does not necessarily need
to be created but rather can be accident while researching something else or observing
something that was not anticipated. The lack of past knowledge in the newly discovered field
makes it challenging to fully understand the observation, by further exploring the field new
knowledge can be gained. An accident in the NS can be developed into a discovery that can
be utilized, to produce new knowledge. The discovery of X-ray is a prime example of this.
2
reference to two areas of knowledge.
The gaining of knowledge allows us to understand the world around us, this is
especially prevalent in the human and natural sciences where there are limitations to the
gaining knowledge. “Wholly” suggests that present knowledge can only, without exception,
be created when past knowledge is available. The use of the word “wholly” leads one to
believe that there is no other way of gaining knowledge, limiting the options of how
knowledge can be gained. Present knowledge is the current understanding of a subject, all of
the information that we know in the here and now. While past knowledge is previous
knowledge that has been understood for some time. This essay will explore the extent that the
statement “Present knowledge is wholly dependent on past knowledge” is true when looking
at two areas of knowledge. The Human Sciences (HS) suggest that revision of past theories is
a common theme as the human mind develops over generations. In the Natural Sciences (NS)
the development of technology is often the reason for revision but discoveries can also be
made through coincidence. Present knowledge is largely dependent on past knowledge.
New models in the NS are developed using past knowledge and are improved upon.
The Fluid Mosaic Model, developed by Singer and Nicolson in 1972, is the accepted
representation of the cell membrane which was based on previous models such as Davson-
Danielli’s representation of 1935. The discovery of the Electron Micrograph allowed Singer
and Nicolson to create a modified version of previous models. The revision of the 1935
model which suggested that proteins in the cell membrane form a fixed layer on top of the
membrane was modified to proteins being embedded within the bilayer (Mcleod). In the NS
models are created to demonstrate concepts, these are often based on a theory that still needs
to be tested. The current model, used the 1935 model as a foundation of understanding which
was then improved and altered due to the advancement of microscopy technologies. The
1
, invention of the electron micrograph made a significant technological difference in the NS,
making it possible to visualize and disprove the model and the theory accepted at the time.
The challenging of an existing model will always allow for knowledge to be gained, as it will
either withstand the pressure and be valid or will lead to an alteration and eventually the
advancement of the accepted knowledge. The 1972 model is still accepted today, suggesting
that further improvement in technology has not significantly altered the validity and accuracy
of the model. Therefore, the gaining of knowledge is not wholly dependent on past
knowledge, other factors such as improving of technology need to be considered. A common
reason for revision, in the NS, are technological advances. In science these advances will
never stop. To stay current, we need to test current knowledge against new technology.
Making this the stronger argument as it demonstrates that past knowledge has a large part in
the production of knowledge in NS.
However, a counterclaim to this is a discovery due to coincidence/accident, things do
not need to be developed but can be discovered. The X-Ray was accidentally discovered by a
Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen in 1895. He was working with a Cathode-ray tube and observed a
fluorescent glow of crystals on a table near the tube. Roentgen found that light could pass
through most substances but made a shadow where solid materials were present. In 1895 he
produced the first X-Ray of his wife’s hand (History of Radiography). Therefore, knowledge
in the NS is not “wholly” dependent on past knowledge but can arise due to sudden
discoveries rather than developing a concept. In the NS knowledge does not necessarily need
to be created but rather can be accident while researching something else or observing
something that was not anticipated. The lack of past knowledge in the newly discovered field
makes it challenging to fully understand the observation, by further exploring the field new
knowledge can be gained. An accident in the NS can be developed into a discovery that can
be utilized, to produce new knowledge. The discovery of X-ray is a prime example of this.
2
