Within areas of knowledge, how can we differentiate between change and progress?

Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge

The title urges us to explore the difference between change and progress in areas of

knowledge. Change and progress sound identical but have vast differences in terms of

knowledge. According to definitions of change and progress, we can distinguish the two

within an area of knowledge. This will require us to explore the key terms in the prescribed

title. ‘Change’ is an instant modification of methods or procedures within an area of

knowledge whereas on the other hand ‘Progress’ is the continuous movement towards

advancement, small changes that are continuous that lead to advancement in a specific area of

knowledge. Change and progress are two main principles that contribute to advancement in

knowledge. By investigating AOK’s such as Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, this

essay will show that two distinct principles that lead to the advancement of knowledge are

change and progress. The exploration will be in accordance with the proposed TOK title.

In natural sciences, change can be considered as the radical rejection of old ideas and the

acceptance of new ideas that contradict the older ones. Knowledge progress in natural

sciences is centred around the idea of the extent of certainty. A different perspective allows

learners to understand the underlying existence. The field of natural sciences is full of ideas

that have revolutionised the way areas of knowledge perceived reality. An example of this

would be that the heliocentric system was accepted as the primary setting of the universe. The

theory hypothesised that the Earth, with the sun, the moon and other stars orbiting around it,

was the centre of the universe. The theory was first hypothesised by Greek mathematician

Eudoxus and later accepted by all major Greek philosophers. This has been acknowledged for

thousands of years and accepted by prominent scientists, including Aristotle (Campbell

2020). Further the Church adopted the heliocentric model and formed the primary basis for
understanding the universe. This changed in the 1400s when Nicolaus Copernicus theorised

that the sun and not the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. Copernicus published his

theories on his deathbed due to the risk it posed on his life at the time. During this period, the

church upheld that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and anyone who dared to

challenge the long-held belief would be ostracised and excommunicated. Copernicus claimed

that planets orbited around the sun. In 1632, astronomer Galileo confirmed Copernicus's

theory by publishing his observations on his telescope ("Models of the Universe" 2020). This

changed physics and astronomy. Galileo was kept under house arrest by the Church until his

death. The long-held belief about the Earth being at the centre of the solar system was

destroyed, and later Galileo and Copernicus would be vindicated. This was a radical shift in

the way scientists understood the underlying reality of the universe.

On the other hand, there is a counterclaim that change is indistinguishable from

progress because progress in knowledge is comprised of specific changes in beliefs,

technology, and the development of new ways of understanding. This is especially true for

science, where innovations and new discoveries gradually shift scientific concepts by

building on the existing knowledge. For instance, in the scientific discovery of the Higgs

particle. In 1964 Peter Higgs and Francois Englert wrote a paper where he theorised that there

was an energy field that transmits mass (Overbye 2012). Objects travel this field, and the

particle would later be named as Higgs particle. The theory was used by a physicist to

theorise about the after events of the big band. The God particle, as it later became known, is

crucial to the standard model and shows the existence of the Higgs field, which is an invisible

energy field that is prevalent throughout the universe. The field imbues other matter particles

with mass. Although the existence of the particle could not be proven by the time it was

theorised, it led to more physics theory being theorised based on the standard model of
particles. The technology in 1964 could not validate the theory, and still, it informed a lot of

particles in Physics. Years passed, and technology improved, and particle accelerators were

improved enough, and in 2012, the article was discovered at the Large hadron Collider at

CERN. The particle was named as Higgs Boson particle. The theorisation of the particle did

not dramatically change Physics, but the discovery allowed Physicians to build on it and

develop the Standard Model for particles. This shows that discovery allows progress in

natural sciences rather than change it. Even the discovery of the solar system can be argued

that it progressed to science more than it changed it (Treacy 2020). Later discoveries such as

the discovery of the gravitational forces only strengthened the solar system discovery and

progressed science.

In human sciences, progress significantly overlaps with knowledge. Human sciences

are constantly progressing because they involve observing human behaviours and experiences

for a period of years. In this area of knowledge, progress, and change defer as progress in

human science is desirable, while change represents a definite change from previous

practices, which does not necessarily represent a good thing. A good example of this is the

Super-predator theory proposed by sociologist John Dilulio in 1995 ("The Superpredator

Myth, 20 Years Later" 2020). He theorised that over the next decades, the number of

juveniles committing crimes would increase three-fold. Dilulio theorised that crime would

increase in the United States if the government failed to enact harsh measures to curb this.

The stance represented an abrupt departure from modern theories of crimes and sociological

studies that had shown that crime rates had been reducing from their peak in the mid-1970s.

The government enacted harsher laws punishing juveniles, and more children were tried as

adults and faced harsher punishments for crimes in a bid to prevent them from becoming

predators. This also represented a shift from rehabilitation practices and theories developed
through progress in social studies. By the 2000s, the number of juvenile criminals had

reduced, and crime had reduced, continuing the predator seen from the 1970s. The super-

predator theory advanced by Dilulio did not happen, and he conceded that he was wrong. The

change led to dire consequences for families and young offenders who were punished

severely. A swift change from sociological studies and practices that have been developed

over the years usually spells disasters within this area of knowledge. This is especially true

even in governance where changes in developed concepts such as human rights can lead to

curtailing of the already established.

The counterclaim is that progress can also be harmful in the field of human sciences,

and change can also be a great thing. Human sciences knowledge is organised and developed

over a period of time where human beings make conclusions. These conclusions can be made

on human biases, which leads to progress within the field that is undesirable. A good example

is the development of lobotomy as a way of treating mental illnesses. Lobotomies were

developed as methods of psychosurgery that severed connections to the brain's prefrontal

cortex. While the practice was mildly successful in limiting the symptoms of mental illness, it

also affected the patient's intellect and personalities. This method of treatment was developed

in the late 1800s. Swiss psychiatrist Gottlieb Burckhardt was among the first physicians to

implement the method of treatment, which gradually developed in the early years of the 20th

century. Between 1940 and 1960, lobotomies were used widely in Europe and North America

to treat mental illnesses (Zolanvari 2017). The practice was dropped with people developing

alternative methods to treat mental illnesses. The development of therapy and medication

helped drop the practice who's benefits outweighed the risks in most cases. The practice was

also carried out more on women than men. The progress of this method of treatment does not

present positive progress in the area of treatment; in fact, the practice has been declared cruel.

The change from utilising the practice to treat mental health patients to including other
methods with low risks represents a better way in which change is beneficial in this area of

knowledge. This is also true in human and leadership studies, where progress in militarisation

and development of nuclear weapons does not represent positive progress in the development

of human studies.

Conclusion

Differentiating between change and progress is pretty difficult, especially within areas

of knowledge. Knowledge is developed, organised, and labeled over a period of time, and this

is especially true in human experiences. Progress in human sciences is mostly positive, and

change in the field represents a shift in practices and beliefs that have been developed and

practiced over the years. Change can represent a bad change. Progress, on the other hand, is a

way in which knowledge evolves to reflect the advancement of technology and progress.

Progress is the primary way in which knowledge advances. In this context, it is important to

define what progress is good and what progress is bad. The progress of knowledge allows

progress in dangerous areas such as nuclear fusion and militarisation. Scientifically, these are

changes that are excellent, but from a human point of view, they might pose problems in the

future. Progress in natural sciences develops knowledge like the development of the

Standard Model for particles in physics. In human sciences, change represents an

abandonment of trusted means, and this increases the chances of making bad predictions,

which can lead to uninformed consequences. However, it is still possible that in human

sciences, progress can be a negative thing because conclusions are made by fallible human

beings.
 Works cited:

Campbell, D. (2020). Aristotle's On the Heavens. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved

January 09, 2021, from https://www.ancient.eu/article/959/aristotles-on-the-heavens/

Models of the Universe. (2020). The Star Garden. Retrieved January 10, 2021, from
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Heliocentric-models-of-the-Solar-
System.html#:~:text=Aristotle's%20model%20of%20the%20universe,Earth%20inside%20of
%20Eudoxus'%20spheres.&text=A%20model%20of%20the%20universe%20that%20has
%20the%20Sun%20at,heliocentric%20model%20of%20the%20universe.

Overbye, D. (2012). Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe (Published

2012). Nytimes.com. Retrieved January 22, 2021, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-discovered-

higgs-boson-particle.html

The Superpredator Myth, 20 Years Later. (2020). Equal Justice Initiative. Retrieved January

22, 2021, from https://eji.org/news/superpredator-myth-20-years-later/.

Treacy, S. (2020). The importance of the Higgs Boson discovery. TWAS. Retrieved January

22, 2021, from https://twas.org/article/importance-higgs-boson-discovery

Zolanvari, S. (2017). The Rise and Fall of Lobotomy. Angelfire.com. Retrieved January 22,
2020, from http://www.angelfire.com/jazz2/artist/HistoryPsychiatry/TheRise-
FallofLobotomy.htm