NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Human beings constantly create hierarchies by arranging all things known to them in order of rank. Hierarchies are abound in man's life: our laws, for example, have differing degrees of punishment depending on the severity of the crime. Yet, the ultimate question becomes whether human beings would be justified in creating a hierarchy for the different disciplines of knowledge. If the presence of a clearly observable universal principle governing the discipline is used as a ranking criterion, then the creation of a hierarchy of disciplines is justified. In order to assess the validity of this premise it is necessary to understand exactly what the disciplines are and how they will be classified. By definition, a discipline is a branch of knowledge; consequently, a dissection of knowledge yields eight different disciplines: mathematics, logic, language, natural science, social science, history, moral judgment, and aesthetics.
The disciplines will be ranked on the basis of how far the knowledge they contain can be classified under a clearly observable universal principle. Language occupies the very top of the hierarchy. Defined simply as a means of communication, language is as old as humanity itself. In every human culture men have found some means of communicating thoughts and ideas to each other, thereby making language universal. Of course, there are many who would call such a proposition ludicrous. All one has to do is look around to see how much trouble humans have when it comes to bridging the gap created by different languages.
Language is not universal simply because people who speak different languages can not communicate with each other. Yet, this view is incorrect because it fails to acknowledge the essential nature of language, which includes assigning symbols and sounds to specific objects. Just because an apple might be called la montana, jabra, or la pomme in different languages does not mean that we are talking about a different object. The fact that an object is assigned a name through a clearly observable process proves the presence of a universal principle in language. Language, therefore, serves as the necessary component of all other disciplines, and receives the top notch on the hierarchy. Second from the top lie mathematics and logic.
Both of these disciplines are almost completely governed by clearly observable universal laws. For example, two plus two equals four; rain makes the ground wet, so if it rains from the sky then the uncovered ground will get wet. Empirical evidence can not defeat these two claims and one can be sure that these two principles will hold anywhere in the world. In other words, every rational human being in the world is bound to agree when it comes to mechanics of logic and math. Still, there are those who disagree by attacking the lack of imagination on the part of mathematicians and logicians.
This argument states that while logic and math may not be proven wrong, one can imagine a world where these two do not reign supreme. The mind is not a tabula rasa, as John Locke thought it to be; the mind is unlimited in the experiences it can imagine. Therefore, mathematics and logic are not accurate representations of our world but fictitious creations that place non-existent limits upon men; for that reason alone they should not be granted the top spot of the hierarchy. Yet, this approach is false for the simple reason that the mind is limited to possible experiences in what it can create. In our universe, if I only have two apples and buy a third apple, I can not possibly have more than 3 apples. Similarly, it is impossible for anyone to imagine a situation where the ground remains dry after rain falls on it.
Natural science occupies the next notch on the hierarchy of disciplines. Although not as clear-cut as mathematics and logic in the theories it contains, natural science uses the universal principle of justifying everything through observation. A law in natural science has been proven over and over again to the point that all rational beings believe it. Newton's law of gravitation is a universally accepted principle because everyone can observe that when one lets go of an apple, it falls to the ground. Located right below natural science are social science and history. Both of these disciplines deal with the study of Man in Society and use evidence that is not clearly observable.
Social science and history rely on opinion polls, personal journals, and annals. Furthermore, there is a faint presence of a universal principle in the fact that social scientists and historians attempt to filter out unreliable sources in their research. In the end, however, social science and history can not reach the same level of universality as natural science because certain constants do not apply across the board in social science. While everyone can observe an object fall when it is let go, not everyone can observe man's sexual desires as a direct cause of his irresponsible behavior, as some psychologists postulate.
In this conflict between the sciences dissidents abound. First off, the dissidents claim that there are very few laws in natural science and that the majority of this discipline is theoretical. By using the theory of evolution as an example, they proclaim that scientific theories have no more validity then religious texts. After all, no one can prove that the Bible is wrong in its account of the creation.
Moreover, the dissidents point out that certain natural sciences such as quantum physics are just as "fuzzy" as psychology. They argue that it is just as hard to prove the existence of the top quark as it is to prove that sexual desires directly cause irresponsible behavior. Due to this lack of universality in both disciplines, placing natural sciences above social sciences is not justified. Yet, this view is also flawed. While it is true that the theory of evolution does not completely discount the Bible, natural science is based on proving theories empirically. A belief in Creationism depends upon believing in the Judeo-Christian world view; a belief in the theory of evolution depends upon analyzing fossils and basic mechanisms of natural selection.
The theory of evolution is not dependent upon a certain cultural viewpoint; rather, it is dependent upon a strictly objective analysis of the available evidence. A similar argument carries through in the case of defending quantum physics against psychology. In order to determine what causes a person to behave irresponsibly one must perform a thorough analysis of that person's past. Since each person's past is substantially different, coming up with a universal law in psychology is almost impossible. On the other hand, scientists searching for the top quark can offer concrete, albeit complicated, evidence that is not based upon the life experience of each atom under consideration. Therefore, the results obtained from correctly carried out experiments in natural science are bound to be more universally acceptable.
Finally, the bottom notch of the hierarchy is reserved for judgments concerning morals and aesthetics because these disciplines are almost completely subjective. Specific definitions of what is moral and what is aesthetically pleasing vary between cultures and individuals. Granted, some have applied scientific theories to value judgments, such as the social Darwinism of the late 1800 s, but these theories have never been universally accepted. There can be no arguments but only discussions when one considers morals and aesthetics because these disciplines are not governed by any clearly observable universal principle. In this case, however, the proponents of universal human rights strongly disagree. They cite genocide, slavery, and torture, as gross depredations of rights that would be universally condemned as immoral by all cultures.
Moreover, there obviously exists a principle by which we can judge the works of Vermeer to be more aesthetically pleasing than the paintings of a seven year old child. Do these instances not point to an existing universal principle? The answer is yes, they do, but these universal principles are by no means clearly observable. Numerous conferences have been held within the last 50 years and the world is nowhere near offering a clearly observable and all-encompassing list of universal human rights. Moreover, while it may be easy to classify Vermeer's paintings as better than a seven year old's, it is not as easy to classify Vermeer's paintings as better than Salvador Dali's. All things considered, the initial premise was upheld through the creation of a hierarchy of disciplines based on the presence of a clearly observable universal principle within each discipline.
Thus, it has been proven that language, followed by mathematics and logic, is the least "fuzzy" of the disciplines, leaving next to nothing outside the bounds of all-encompassing and clearly observable universal laws. Value judgments, on the other hand, contain almost no clearly observable universal laws at all. Therefore, a hierarchy of disciplines becomes very important because it clearly shows that it is possible to argue about mathematics and be wrong but that it is next to impossible to discuss morals and be wrong.
Free research essays on topics related to: universal principle, sexual desires, scientific theories, theory of evolution, quantum physics
Research essay sample on Theory Of Evolution Universal Principle
