User:Agnese marino basc/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar)/Group 9/History

HUMAN ANATOMY (Shagun and Lara)
'''How and when did it emerge? ''' In short, anatomy can be described as the study of the human body. The discipline of anatomy can be seen to have emerged as early as 400 BC, with Hippocrates widely regarded as one of the main founders of this discipline. This discipline emerged from the practice of examining the bodies of victims sacrificed for religious purposes, and has since developed into a core field of the medical sciences.

'''How is it studied? ''' Anatomy is studied in two ways: gross anatomy and microscopic anatomy. Gross anatomy is the “study of biological structures that are visible to the naked eye”, and is either studied with the use of dissection or with the use of noninvasive procedures. Such noninvasive procedures include endoscopy and MRI scanning, but there are many more. Microscopic anatomy is the study of human biological structures that are not visible to the naked eye. Studies of microscopic anatomy are conducted using microscopes. Depending on the structure being investigated, simple microscopes, SEMs (scanning electron microscopes) or TEMs (transmission electron microscopes) may be used, as they all use different imaging techniques.

'''How has it changed? ''' Anatomy originally emerged as the simple dissection and investigation of human bodies in its early years. Since then it has developed into a medical science which investigates and explains the structure and function of different organs/systems in our body. Great advances have been made to this discipline since its beginnings due to advances in technology such as microscopes which enable scientists to more clearly investigate and describe different parts of the body. Nowadays the study of anatomy has raised several ethical concerns in relation to the morality of dissecting human bodies.

LINK TO TRUTH Since its beginnings, the field of anatomy has retained a relatively strong positive approach since the founding of this discipline. Truth can often be said to be obtained in this discipline based on empirical evidence and observation with hands-on dissection of bodies. We can also perhaps extend our understanding of truth in anatomy through a constructionist view. This can be observed by considering how interactions of humans with each other and their environment may play a role in evolution and thus the anatomical development of our body.

'''Examples and nonexamples?

An example of anatomy would be the dissection of a cadaver to investigate the function of the kidneys. A non-example would be an investigation into how exercise affects heart rate.

Astrophysics : history of discipline (Eva and Vanessa)
-How and when did it emerge? Two related disciplines are astronomy and cosmology, astrophysics was born out of astronomy 17th century: prior to the birth of astrophysics,Galileo and Newton proposed that the celestial and terrestrial regions were made of similar kinds of material and were subject to the same natural laws. Astrophysics emerged when William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph von Fraunhofer independently discovered that, when decomposing the light from the Sun, a multitude of dark lines (regions where there was less or no light) were observed in the spectrum.

- How is it studied ? Observational astrophysics -> using telescopes, etc Theoretical astrophysics -> analytical models, computational numerical simulation

(Link with truth) here can also be a philosophical approach to astrophysics. Indeed, even if astrophysics seems Like a discipline that mostly uses a positivist approach, it lacks the empirical data (evidence of this : theoretical astrophysics). From our perspective (earth) there is little we can actually see with our own eyes. From earth we can see the stars, collect data about waves (light, etc), which can only give the scientists clues about what is hidden the void of space. Hence, while astrophysics seems to be a positivist science, there are still many part that are Unknown, and that although they are now considered true because the math adds up, but it stays « speculations » and we as human wil certainly never be able to see with our own eyes, or to collect other data than waves coming from space.

- How has it changed ? Evolution in astrophysics parallel to evolution in language (with the examples of Galileo, Descartes and Newton) Galileo -> terms have an indirect, instrumentally meditated reference Descartes-> more focus on theoritical models -> introduced in physics in order to explain various phenomenon References Galileo, Descartes and Newton- Founder of the language of physics Ladislav Kvasz

Here again we can link this to truth, as language seems to play an important role in finding some new scientific truth. Language and linguistic are tools. Indeed, without the right word to describe something, can we even say it exists? Can something be true if no words exist to describe it? This is a theory that is developed in 1984 by George Orwell: the control of language, with the instoration of the newspeak is used to further the control of the people and the authoritarian state. Indeed, if the word revolution does not exist, than there can be no revolution. It is the same idea that can be used when talking abut truth in astrophysics: for our knowledge on astrophysics to improve, astrophysics and language had to evolve in parallel ways. In astrophysics, one can « observe » phenomenon (irregular waves, or even through mathematical equation), but if there is no « name » for this, than it will only stay some data, or the result of an equation, and it cannot become a « truth ».

-Examples and Non examples Examples include Doppler shift, Einstein's theory of general relativity, Big Bang theory Non examples include Ecology and Earth Sciences

PHILOSOPHY : Josephine and Hermine
- How and when did it emerge ? Philosophy emerged in Antiquity in Greece cities in minor Asia. The origins of philosophy come up to Socrates. He was interested in bringing people to question about topics and issues from the everyday life in which no interest was given originally.

- How is it studied ? To study philosophy, it is vital to be able to foster thinking for oneself. One of the most popular philosophers and teachers would be Socrates with his maieutic, which aims to bring a person's latent ideas into clear consciousness. (maieutic comes from the Greek word « midwifery »).

- How it has changed ? Originally, in Ancient Greece, the philosophical approach was very scientific. Philosophers focused mainly on natural philosophy – named today science – and metaphysics. Therefore, there was a strong importance of nature in the philosophy discipline. Scientific knowledge had a great impact on the evolution of philosophy. Nowadays, philosophy has become a wide discipline with many branches not only scientifically related. For instance, we can think of the concepts of politics, culture and arts.

- Examples and non examples ? Examples are the origins of the universe, seeking the truth, believing and a non example could be 'spirits' which is often mistaken.

- Link with the issue of truth : Originally, we thought that the main approach regarding truth in philosophy was a positivist approach. Indeed, philosophy is a discipline in which you need to be rigorous and objective if you wish to understand and explain the complexity of the world and concepts within specific societies.

Upon closer inspection, it does not seem that the positivist approach is the only one arguable. Diving more deeply in the philosophy discipline, we might notice that we are confronted with a multitude of branches each one related to a more specific philosophical concept such as culture, art, sciences, etc, (so called sub-disciplines).

Therefore, each branch has its own approach regarding truth. If we take the example of the philosophy of sciences, we could argue that the main approach with regard to truth is positivist indeed. In this case, it is almost essential to examine the issue from an objective perspective. On the other hand, studying culture from a philosophical point of view requires more flexibility and therefore interpretive and constructivist approaches would be more appropriate.

In conclusion, philosophy is a wide discipline involving an infinity of different concepts not clearly related. Therefore, each concept requires a particular approach regarding truth and it might vary according to the leaders of the study. Furthermore, it seems that philosophy led to the birth of those four approaches regarding truth owing to the variety of notions it includes. Therefore, we believe that philosophy falls within those 4 approaches with regards to truth.

Biology
Heloise Lepinard and Ines Sellami

Biology is the science of life : it aims to study the structures and the processes of living organisms. As a word, it emerged first with the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus in one of his books. But as a real defined discipline, it has been introduced by Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus in one of his books, in the early 19th century.

As many scientific disciplines, biology stands on the "Experimental Method", established by Claude Bernard essentially in medecine. It consists in validating or not an hypothesis by creating an experience.

With the rise of new technologies, nex fields in biology emerged such as genetics (cloning), biorobotics...

Example : the study of cell breathing

Non example : artificial intelligence

MEDIA STUDIES
Macrina and Lucia

1) How and when did it emerge?

ROOTS in the Chicago school during the 1900s. Prominent figures inc. John Dewey, Charles Cooley, George Mead (backgrounds in Psychology/sociology)

Mead argued that ppl have wildly different paradigms so in utopia we need a ‘new media’(a form of communication that we will develop) that will allow us to understand each other.

Concerned with politics + structure of society- informed electorate thru digital comms

2) How is it studied

Media Studies involves analysis of media from a variety of different angles, typically: production, distribution, the media itself, reception/consumption.

Combines communications sciences, philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, history…

Can be approached both quantitatively and qualitatively, using both ethnography and statistical analysis of masses (inc. questionnaires, observing trends etc).

3) How has it changed?

Roots in Chicago school, but became formalised in 1919 in NY University

Has gone through periods of high and low regard (respected as a legit academics vs scorned as ‘quasi-academic’ and ‘soft’

Frankfurt school (Weimar era) approached media and communications from the perspective of critical theory. Criticised the ‘culture industry’ (market-driven media production) from a Marxist perspective. Distinguished between ‘mass culture’ and ‘high culture’

UK university degrees tend to view it as a degree in journalism (although journalism degrees still exist and are more vocation-oriented)

Jan 2006, Oxford-Reuters institute set up. Acknowledgement by an institution like Oxford gave the discipline a big boost.

Claims on Truth

Different claims on truth can be used in various aspects/categories of Media Studies:

Production: Tends to pay strong attention to context. Constructionist approach may look at political agendas as structures that commission certain types of media e.g. films/documentaries to be made by the national television (e.g. BBC) in context of a certain political framework or economic system. Equally less formal structures e.g. societal structures that lead to certain tendencies (producers tend towards certain themes for less perceptible reasons)

Distribution: Positivist: Can be relatively easily measured, quantified etc. leading to objective truth e.g. the number of states where Russian films were shown in cinemas during the 50s and 60s. To then draw conclusions on this would involve looking into context--> Constructionist/Interpretivist.

The media itself: this can involve any analysis of content e.g. film critcism, article/book review, comments on (digital/non-digital) communication, radio material etc. Often involves the other categories as well, as many would agree that media simply cannot be understood in and of itself without regard to its context of production, reception etc. Some film criticism though does appear to take an objective approach, though this is more of a writing style than a belief in an objective ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

Reception/consumption: Positivist approach through quantitative analysis of consumption stats e.g. number of clicks for an online article, % of viewings for a new film, social media usage statistics etc. Can equally use qualitative approach through ethnography and long observation of people’s tendencies. Inductive/abductive approaches can lead to general tendencies being found by observation, but often with an emphasis on variations and differences between individuals, but most often cultures (interpretive).

Phenomenological approach would look at certain media through the lens of art- about the human condition; can be interpreted in different ways by different people depending on life experiences.

FASHION (Selina + Lottie)
How and when did it emerge? Fashion, as we understand it today, emerged in the 19th century and primarily was directed towards higher socioeconomic castes. The study of fashion came into being in the late 20th century; institutions and training centres began to develop.

The formation of fashion cultivated idea from a range of disciplines, including but not limited to: anthropology, art history, cultural studies, economics, history, literature, sociology, visual culture, and business studies. Various approaches from this multitude of disciplines were integrated into what has now become 'fashion studies'.

How is it studied? Fashion is studied within human history and culture, including how it is influenced and how it itself can influence. There are many different methods to study fashion: how garments themselves are created, how fashion is written about, how it is marketed, etc. Observations, ethnographic research, diaries, and photographs are also utilised. Skov and Melchior state, ‘Human body and self are at the centre of the practice-based approach to the study of dress and fashion.'

How has it changed? As fashion is still a relatively recent discipline, it has not changed as much as some of the more established disciplines. In recent years, it has been taken seriously much more, with luxury fashion brands becoming household names. The passing down of specific dressmaking techniques has trickled into more distinct fields of study, e.g. fashion history, fashion marketing, etc. A quote from Skov and Melchior: ‘Characteristic of post-modernist thought made the study of dress and fashion more interesting, if not outright fashionable’.

Quotes came from ‘Research Approaches to the Study of Dress and Fashion’ By: Lise Skov and Marie Riegels Melchior November 2008’

Macrina and Lucia October 17th Media study, claims of truth: -Empirical data : in statistics, questionnaires, trends... -But most of it Interpretive /constructivist: Constructive approach: media constructs reality, influences the population’s opinion

NEUROSCIENCE
Bibi

How and when did it emerge?

Neuroscience is a cross-disciplinary branch of the sciences that has its roots in many other closely linked disciplines such as psychology, linguistics, philosophy and medicine. The ancient Egyptians are credited as the first recorded peoples that recognised the role of the brain in the body, with the brain being referenced seven different times in The Edwin Smith Papyrus, dating back to 1700 BC, which suggests there was an understanding of the role of the brain in controlling movement. It was then the work of Galen that linked loss of mental faculties to brain damage that became a foundation for the discipline. Following the invention of the microscope and a staining technique that allowed individual neurons to be studied in the late 19th century, neuroscience began to be viewed as a distinct discipline in its own right, as opposed to the study of the nervous system within other separate disciplines. As the techniques for studying the nervous system and neural activity became more precise, and the link between brain damage and psychological and linguistic functionality was further studied, institutions such as the Department of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School in 1964 were created with the sole purpose of the study of neuroscience.

How is it studied?

The discipline is mainly studied from the perspective of what happens when the nervous system malfunctions, looking at the causes of certain neurological, psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. The techniques used to study neuroscience vary depending on the subfield e.g. molecular studies of neurons will utilise techniques involving powerful electron microscopes, cognitive and behavioural neuroscientists may use techniques such as neuroimaging or EEG to study how neural patterning correlates to human behaviour.

How has it changed?

Neuroscience as a discipline today has become more broad with a wider scope of fields, as the nervous system can be studied from a cellular, evolutionary, behavioural, molecular and cognitive lens.

Examples?

A behavioural neuroscientist may study how mechanisms in the brain affect human behaviour on an individual and social level, whilst a cellular neuroscientist will study the physiological properties of neurons at a molecular level.

Truth:

Neuroscience as a discipline would traditionally fall under a positivist approach to truth, as much of the basic concepts that underpin neuroscience are based on absolute truths that are evidence based. Furthermore, these concepts can be reduced to empirical indicators that represent truth and the data relies on scientific method that usually produce qualitative data. However, the fields of interest of certain branches of neuroscience, like behavioural neuroscience, are interested in more subjective concepts such as perception and memory. Therefore, this requires a claim to truth that has its basis in phenomenology because it involves the study of conscious experience from the individual perspective.

Literature : Ninon
How and when did it emerge?

It can be said that the history of literature began with the movement from the oral tradition (Homer, the odyssey, 8th century bc) to printed works of literature. Some of the earliest printed works considered literature include ‘The Epic of Gilgamesh’, predating 2000BC, but many early texts are presumed lost in the fire in the library of Alexandria in the 1st century BC. Writing and literature aren’t the same thing, although they are linked; the definition of literature is a work ‘considered of superior or lasting artistic merit’. This means ‘writing’ that continues to be retold throughout generations, such as fairy tales, folk tales and epics can be considered ‘literature’ due to their longevity throughout history. Other texts are considered ‘literature’ because of their impact on societies and language, an example of this being Dante’s Inferno’s influence in unifying the Italian language (although this is no way the sole reason Dante’s work is considered literature). As language is the medium for communication it automatically shapes every interpersonal encounter and therefore controls the realms and boundaries of that interaction. This means literature, which is dependent on and influences languages, is very easily viewed under phenomenological and constructionist lenses.

How is it studied?

Literature is studied through the analysis of texts, generally focusing on those with lasting significance (deemed by some ‘the classics’ – which Calvino exemplifies as the texts that one ‘rereads’ rather than just ‘reads’). It is this process of ‘rereading’, and in turn analysis of the text in the context of other texts, of its culture, political climate, development of language and societal beliefs that make the study of literature.

How has it changed?

As awareness of hierarchal power structures grows within society, so too does criticism of the definitions of ‘literature’, particularly in terms of what is deemed ‘significant’ – i.e., to what segment of society has a text been deemed significant, and how much is this view constrained by societal prejudices. The oversaturation of literature by bourgeois white men is beginning to be questioned and rejected by students of literature and therefore the lens of literature is expanding to consider postcolonial, feminist, Marxist critiques of texts and critiques of the analysis of text. This is a clear example of how literature and the study of literature can be seen as inherently constructionist and symptomatic of current societal ideals.

Theories regarding literature and 'truth' 

Literature is a medium that can quite easily be argued to be an example of cultural constructionism, as language is tied to culture and literature is dependent on language. However, literature is not necessarily accessed by all segments of a ‘culture’ and historically has been highly segregated in its availability by class – which can be seen by how language historically has differed in one ‘society’ between various classes (i.e. the use of French in the upper classes in medieval England while middle English (a French – English hybrid) was prevalent in the lower classes. Considered one of the pivotal works of English literature, Chaucer’s Canterbury tales was written in middle English although Chaucer had influence and access to royal and noble courts. Due to this it can be argued that the Canterbury tales had more ‘lasting artistic merit’, especially as language in England underwent a bottom-to top transition of middle English to modern day English, with French becoming obsolete. Literature is difficult to consider in positivist terms unless, as Eco writes in ‘On Literature’, one considers the events described in literature that becomes part of the cultural narrative (as the major works did) as ‘empirical’ events, at least in comparison to historical narratives. For example, the statement that ‘Ophelia drowns herself’ is less up to scrutiny than, say, ‘Anne Boleyn was an adulteress’, even though the latter regards a potential real event while the former is, inarguably, fiction. Historical events are, other than in authoritative regimes where historical narratives are tightly enforced (although this is never wholly effective, as otherwise no authoritative regime would ever have been questioned or overthrown), debatable, and therefore subjective. Scientific ‘truths’, such as ‘cells divide by mitosis’, holds no longevity other than a continuing lack of opposing evidence – if it emerged, through experimentation, that this fact was in fact wrong, then the scientific community, given enough evidence, would quickly accept the ‘new’ truth and disregard the old. However, if a manuscript of an ‘original’ Hamlet was unearthed, where for instance Ophelia and Hamlet were married, it would be hard to imagine entire literary research and teaching would be immediately revised to accommodate the ‘new’ truth, as the quasi-empiricism in literature is dependent on its relationship with the cultural narrative, and so the very breadth of research on Hamlet contributes to the ‘truth’ of the fictional events within Hamlet.

History: why?
History is generally seen as the study of the past. It can be the study of the past of different fields suWhen we think about the past, we usually think about something that is over and that has no more impact on our current lives. Many would say 'The past is over, focus on the present' but what they forget is that the past affects the present. It represents the roots, the origins and bases that shape our present. We can then distinguish four reasons that make the study of History relevant.

The first reason is the past shapes our identities and thus, humanity. We are all influenced by our past: our ancestors, our traditions and beliefs.

The second reason is that past enables to have a look at origins, roots which makes us more aware of change and the modifications that humanity has known. Thus, we get a better understanding of different trends and what fostered their emergence.

The third reason is that past makes us more moral. Acquiring an experience make us gain a better understanding of what is good and what is bad which makes us more aware of what we do in the present.

The fourth reason is that the past makes the present comprehensible. We understand origins of phenomenas and decisions as well as their impacts on our modern world. For instance, we can think about the steam machine invented in the 18th century as the precursor of our modern industrialized world. So we can say that past is at the base of every understanding whether it is for natural sciences or humanities. "Understanding why things are the way they are is foundational to learning" . As knowledge hasn't always been organized in disciplines, looking at their history will make us aware of their importance in our modern world, and how it shaped the educational body and thus, the society.

Before disciplines
The term "discipline" comes from Latin "Disciplina", derived from "discere" which means "learning". Before the apparition of real disciplines as we know them today, learning and teaching was quite different. In medieval times, everyone (and mostly the upper classes) used to get the same education: Latin, Greek and clergy. But some specific disciplines were applied to specific professions that needed a real specialization just like Law or Medicine.

The scientific revolution
The scientific revolution that occurred between the Renaissance and the Englightenment fostered the emergence of disciplines. It is characterized by the beginning of real scientific research in different fields. The scientific method became the toolbox for every subject: it was about observing, making hypothesis and then experimenting and proving phenomenas ("the substitution of a quantitative for a qualitative view of nature" ).So the scientific revolution lead to a shit to an empirical method of knowledge: everything can be justified through experiments. Thus, theories emerged in different disciplines such as chemistry, physics or biology. Sciences became the new lenses of the world. In this way, researches couldn't have a coverage of many fields, they had to be focused on a precise subject ("While the idea of science as a unified endeavor was still embraced, in practice most scientists knew only one field of inquiry well") .And with the domination of sciences, it lead to a scientific specialization.

A new organization in the production of knowledge
Between 1750 and 1800, universities started changing their organization by creating a new system based on 3 techniques: writing, grading, examination. Students would have to learn a discipline in the seminar (German universities-1760), the classroom (Scottish universities-1760) or the laboratory (French Grandes Ecoles-before revolution) This new organization pushed the universities organization to change: students had to go to seminars/classes or laboratories for specific and then be assessed on them. Each course couldn't fit a broad range of fields, it had to be focused on a unique discipline. Moreover, the nineteenth century was also the emergence of the doctorate. It was first introduced by the Humboldt university in Berlin and was then adopted by Yale University. Doctorate work had to be targeted on a specific research topic, which lead to a better specialization of the production of knowledge. Thus, at the end of your higher education, you get a certification that makes you specialized in a specific discipline and able to enter the world of work. Every student becomes then focused on a field, and he will most probably end up working in this field for his whole life. But as the world was changing, universities shaped and provided the "good way of learning" (The university and the disciplines became an engine of knowledge production that far outstripped any other method of learning devised by any previous civilization")

The professionalization of knowledge
Little by little, fields started fragmenting into the modern disciplines that we know today. On one hand, we had the sciences with physics, chemistry, biology, botany and on the other hand we had humanities with sociology, anthropology and philosophy. What happened then is that sciences knew another leap forward which lead to the professionalization of knowledge. With the rise industrialization and globalization, the world started to need a technological control over what is has created. We now have machines, engines, trains crossing countries, huge boats transporting products and people... All of these new activities needed a supervision but also needed to be profitable, because an economic aspect also emerged. Sciences and technologies have know a profit-maximizing goal: "This era thus marked the transition to an economy increasingly dependent on scientific research and the end of the "tinkerer tradition" of innovation such as Thomas Edison and Henry Ford". As a result, disciplines became even more "disciplined" and distinct, just like education and economic-profit became linked. For instance, we can think about industrial engineering. In this context, social science then followed the trend and became also a response to a changing world. They dealt with new the issues raising from industrialization such as alienation, urbanisation, class conflicts, secularization and the emergence of the modern nation state.