Comparative essay on shared knowledge and individual knowledge
The stereotype of scientific genius is one who works alone and, if we look back in time, we will find historical justification of this stereotype. Many of the best scientists, Isaac Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or Darwin, tended to work, mainly, alone. However, it is also true that these scientists had to be based on knowledge inherited from the past and the result of the work of others to discover what they discovered. Therefore, one of the questions that arises is: to what extent is based on previous knowledge is a collaborative task?
In this essay, shared and individual knowledge will be compared and contrasted to determine if a single individual can produce new knowledge. This question will be studied within the areas of knowledge of art and natural sciences, which have been chosen due to the existence of the myth of solitary genius mentioned before and because they are two of the areas in which the human being more seeks knowledge. In order to answer the question, the terms of knowledge production must be defined, which is the result of a predominantly scientific activity in which knowledge is a source of reliable information about reality that also provides tools to use it. Likewise, the production of knowledge as a collaborative task is a process of "manufacturing" knowledge collectively; That is, several individuals agree and accept a single "truth". Finally, the production of knowledge as an individual task is one in which a single individual produces a new knowledge, whether a new theory in natural sciences or a new artistic genre.
In the first place, and with respect to natural sciences, when we talk about knowledge production, we talk about knowledge as a result of a process of "manufacturing" that, through the use of materials and ideas, allows us to obtain something that will be for use or value for us. In natural sciences this manufacturing process is experiments. There are manufacturing processes that involve many individuals and processes in which a single individual, or a few, discover a new theory that serves the rest. However, this only individual to discover a new theory has had to be based on other previous knowledge that he has acquired, whether the language or other skills or knowledge that has been taught of the subject. Isaac Newton himself said: "If I have managed to see further, it has been because I have risen on the shoulders of giants" implying that his discoveries were built on the previous discoveries of other scientists. In addition, when checking whether this knowledge is reliable or true, it is always a collaborative task because, considering that (one of the requirements d) knowledge is (which is) a coded vision, this vision must be explained and shared with others individuals.
Thomas Kuhn assured that there were two types of science: the so -called normal science, the science of every day practiced by most scientists, and revolutionary science, which occurs when there is a paradigm shift. This revolutionary science would be that practiced by a few, perhaps by a single individual who has a different or original vision due to his work, his research or even randomly. Along the same lines, C.D. Conner said in his book "People’s History of Science" that science is more a collective company than the product of a series of enlightened geniuses. This author uses the example of the industrial revolution in which many scientific advances were preceded by technological innovations that made simple people such as artisans or the workers of the factories.
Teamwork is also important because, as the great physicist and philosopher of science, Nobel Prize in Physics in the year … Karl Popper said, so that knowledge progresses must have dialogue between scientists, which is not just An epistemological ideal but ethical: ‘If I can learn from you, and if I want to learn in the interest in the search for truth, I must not only tolerate him as a person, but I must potentially recognize him as an equal; The potential unity of humanity and the potential equality of all human beings is a prerequisite for our will to rationally dialogue.’.
The reality is that in natural sciences, today above all, it is much more common. In fact, some of the most recent Nobel Prizes in Physics, Biology, Economy etc. have been awarded more than one person representing an entire team or institution such as certain laboratories.
Secondly, and with respect to the production of art, there are also collaborative tasks along with individual tasks. On the one hand, there are cultural creations of a single individual of which there are famous examples in literature, for example Cervantes, Beethoven’s music or Leonardo da Vinci’s painting to those who precisely call "geniuses", a qualification that already implies that They are unique and, therefore, exceptional individuals. Also in art there is the myth of the misunderstood genius.
Knowledge in the arts occurs through the result of the art manufacturing process usually provides a new vision of reality, a new solution to a problem or a new revelation.
However, as art highlights the artist’s relationship with tradition, culture and knowledge shared with society, creators must collaborate with tradition and their audience in order for their work to communicate with society, and that if it is not difficult to consider art to a production unable to be understood by another person. It happens a bit like in the natural sciences, since it is difficult to consider knowledge/art to something that cannot be explained or communicated to another individual or individuals or that does not see their roots in a past and a tradition of which knowledge is inherited , but at the same time there are unique works of exceptional individuals capable of creating something new that did not exist before them and that, precisely, they can not be at all appreciated by the public to which they were dedicated (operas examples, works of theater, symphonies etc). In addition, without the existence of unique works of exceptional individuals, knowledge did not advance nor would new artistcios (surrealism) would be created (surrealism)
But also in art there have been trends that have been the work of groups of artists such as the impressionists, given, Cubists, surrealists etc and today with the massive dissemination of the Internet there has been an important increase in the amount of works of what It is now called "Collaborative Art". This increase is based on the possibilities offered. Let’s think, for example, in Wikipedia.
In conclusion, it seems clear that knowledge, both in natural sciences and in art, is based not only on experience but also on the accumulated past, mainly through memory; Memory that is understood here as a form of shared knowledge, as a collaborative task thanks to which knowledge can advance. Because the collaborative task is only possible when the vision/belief of the members of the collaborative task are the same and this is achieved by accepting the "truth". As Hegel says "a single mind is enough for one million hands", which means that "the truth" must be accepted before some progress is made or a "final product" is achieved. However, this reality does not exclude that in certain historical moments exceptional individuals arise, men and women, who even starting from that inherited tradition, modify or depart from it completely and that, thanks precisely to this, they contribute to creating new knowledge or to reject or modify the until then in force.
Another issue would be to investigate whether geniuses totally oblivious to a certain tradition of knowledge or even in places where there is no knowledge of knowledge can arise (case of the mathematical Indian who took Cambridge). The possibility of something like that happens, that a genius "out of nowhere" arises opens new unknowns, as well as that sometimes discoveries or advances of knowledge occur due to pure chance, luck or accident.
In short, it seems that most of the scientific work, especially today, is the result of collaborative work but cannot be affirmed sharply that this will no longer appear individuals who for their qualities, their work or luck or for all this At the same time, advance science for new paths.
Leave feedback