“The quality of knowledge produced by an academic discipline is directly proportional to the duration of the historical development of that discipline. » Explore this statement with reference to two disciplines. “Knowledge” involves an individual's awareness of a theoretical or intellectual interpretation of a phenomenon. It takes into account several factors, such as facts, skills and descriptions. These factors are acquired through learning, experiences, perceptions or discoveries. The “quality” of knowledge is the value we place on disciplines based on their usefulness and the validity of the explanation they provide for a theory. “Historical development” is the analysis of a theory deduced by comparison from years of development of a phenomenon. It is understood that evaluation, and therefore knowledge development, is a predominant factor that helps determine the quality of the information presented. The crux of the question therefore explores the extent to which we can measure the quality of knowledge solely on the basis of its historical duration, ignoring other biases. The value obtainable from a particular discipline is often determined as the product of several factors. These factors go beyond the limited framework of simple time invested in the discipline. For example, the course I chose to pursue my career, medicine, is considered coveted, not only because of the time required to master it, but also because of its indispensable nature and, therefore, significant resources which are invested in it. My decision to engage in this discipline is therefore based on the historical development and overall framework of knowledge that involves it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay However, how do you decide which knowledge should be considered higher quality? The investments made, whether in terms of time or money, for the development of discoveries in disciplines such as medicine demonstrate the progression of knowledge in this field. To support this statement, an example of technological advances in the field of cancer nanotherapy can be considered. A newly used method, this process addresses the need for more precise treatments in a cost-effective manner. This is a progression from the earlier use of chemotherapy drugs, first used in the 1940s, which, although still widely used, are not considered as functional as this recent development. Applications of reasoning, alongside consensus on truth, are what ultimately produce justifiable knowledge, used to improve and concretize our views of the world. Accepted theories, like Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, for example, are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. Such theories have been rigorously examined, authenticated, and used as the basis for further speculation. However, new methodologies can change an individual's perception and change their inclination towards new knowledge produced at a relatively later date. We can therefore agree that more time devoted to the historical development of a particular area of ​​knowledge produces more complete and therefore better quality knowledge. Isaac Newton's theory of "classical mechanics", constructed in the 1600s, was a set of equationssimple but rewarding mathematics, considered sufficiently credible to explain the movements of objects in space and on Earth. The theory has been applied in several studies. However, over time, the theory of classical mechanics was overwritten by Albert Einstein's theory of "special relativity" from the 1900s. He hypothesized that as their framework of reference, their evaluation of space and time was also undergoing reform. Therefore, special relativity has been widely accepted and received greater interest, while providing the possibility for further investigation along the lines of this exploration. Generating precise conclusions, the theory has not only been widely verified, but it has led to the creation of a new phenomenon supported by concrete explanations. So, this example shows how, over time, there is a ceaseless modification of theories and an evaluation of how these previous explanations outperform that of the previous one. The newly developed theory is then accepted as the standard succeeding the evaluation made on these bases. As the cases mentioned above show, the historical evolution of disciplines tends to improve the quality of knowledge presented over time. But do time and the development of a discipline progress at a directly proportional rate? “Direct proportionality” is described as the correlation between different quantities whose values ​​increase or decrease in a corresponding ratio. Although it is accepted that the historical development of a discipline is necessary for the quality of knowledge to become more precise, the direct proportionality of this association is difficult to measure. It is therefore easy to invalidate and/or refute. For example, in comparing the disciplines of philosophy with psychology, it has been recognized that psychology has reached a position of greater value in terms of corresponding knowledge production. When a prisoner renders a verdict, he is not passing a philosophical test, but rather a psychological test solely on the basis that psychology is concerned with practical application - a validation of a claim or theory, that it is generally more valued. in the community. Although philosophy is important, its fundamental principles of exploring the nature of knowledge that exists in the world are not as consequential as psychology. It is therefore possible to understand why the development of knowledge in psychology is progressing at a significantly faster pace than in philosophy. But what are the variables that determine the quality of knowledge development over time? Several factors could explain the unusual hierarchical position between the two disciplines of psychology and philosophy which goes against the conventions of the central issue such as methodology used, evidence obtained, acceptance, faith as well as applicability. However, it cannot be proven that, although psychology advances at a much faster rate than philosophy, the quality of knowledge produced by the discipline is directly proportional to its historical evolution, as it is a quantification inaccessible. So how do we know if the development of knowledge in a discipline is moving in the right direction, such that it successfully determines the quality of the corresponding knowledge? The investigation into the evolutionary origins of the Figwort family was carried out by taxonomists, who compared the base sequence of three chloroplast genes. Through this experiment it was established that a large part of the family was associated with the flowering plant.