The hierarchy of scientific and artistic knowledge in society
Monday fourth period and Tuesday second period. Third floor. Theory of Knowledge. ToK for short. I wouldn’t call it my favourite class. It’s not boring, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to attend the class if I had a cold.
In ToK, we talk about knowledge. We talk about how it’s acquired, how it’s produced, how it’s affected by perspectives and biases, how it’s justified, what counts as knowledge — it’s basically if shower thoughts and overthinking married and birthed a baby who idolises philosophy (if that makes sense).
One certain thing in ToK is that knowledge is classified into five areas: history, the human sciences, the natural sciences, mathematics, and the arts.
Lately, our class discussions have been heavily based on the natural sciences and the arts — which knowledge is “more justified”, what process of knowledge production or acquisition is present in either areas, all sorts of questions anyone could possibly imagine.
One question that a lot of people in my class disliked was when our teacher asked which one (of the two areas of knowledge stated) do we think is generally perceived to be more “significant”.
And full disclosure, most people agreed that the sciences were more “significant” than the arts — which led to a few side eyes from the art students.
My questions are: is there even a somewhat general consensus on how society “ranks” different areas of knowledge? And, if there are any, how was the hierarchy produced?
I did a lot of research, and I don’t think there’s a single standardised hierarchy of knowledge. Every single article and journal I came across either said that the sciences are more “significant”, the arts are more “significant”, or both are equally significant in order to “drive progress in society”. Not very helpful in answering my question, but let’s do a brief dive on the first two perspectives.
According to the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology,
“Scientific knowledge allows us to develop new technologies, solve practical problems, and make informed decisions — both individually and collectively.”
Scientific knowledge is produced and acquired by observing and making sense of our physical selves and the physical world we live in. Cell biology, stoichiometry, astronomy, archaeology, you name it. The production and acquisition of scientific knowledge has allowed an advancing human knowledge of the physical world as well as an increasing quality of human life (among many other things).
If so, does knowledge have to result in technological advancements or contain equations and scientific reactions in order to be perceived as “significant”? In order to answer that, we must first trace back how the word “significant” is defined in terms of knowledge.
Generally, “significant” refers to the quality of “sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention”. In terms of knowledge, a piece of knowledge may be deemed “significant” within a particular context when it is justified with evidence. In addition to evidence, perspectives are also key factors in assigning values to certain pieces of knowledge. Knowledge that resonates with concerns of certain groups are more likely to be perceived as “significant” by the particular group.
Therefore, it is possible to deduce that the idea of the sciences being the more “superior” area of knowledge stems from the scientific community’s belief of its resonance to real-world problems. The same argument cannot be reiterated from the perspective of the artistic community as the artistic community does not look for the sciences’ resonance to the real world.
According to the National Museum of African American History and Culture,
“Art can help us understand our history, our culture, our lives, and the experience of others in a manner that cannot be achieved through other means.”
Artistic knowledge is produced and acquired by engaging with art which further evoke certain emotions or activities that facilitate the process. Contemporary art, abstract, New Hollywood, ballet, and so on. The production and acquisition of artistic knowledge allows for the translation of experiences and values across time and space.
Advancements made in artistic knowledge do not necessarily induce technological advancements, but that does not make it any less “significant”.
Going back to the question regarding the hierarchy of the particular areas of knowledge; there will never be one singular standardised ranking. The knowledge presented by the sciences and the arts are within different contexts and resonate with different sets of audiences. One “significant” piece of knowledge within the sciences may not be valued as much within the arts due to the differing criteria of “significance”. The same goes for knowledge within the arts.
The fate of knowledge relies on how it is interpreted and received by society. Although there is no definitive agreement of which area of knowledge is most “significant” (and there is no need for such a statement), any area of knowledge undoubtedly contributes towards the progression of humanity.
