Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge

Replicability is an essential concept in the production of knowledge in different areas. The production of knowledge refers to the process by which new knowledge is acquired by both the individual and society as a whole. In the Natural Sciences, replicability describes the ability to copy a process or action and get the same result. In The Arts, it is the ability to repeat a body of work or induce the same emotional response to a piece of artwork. This essay will explore whether the ability to repeat a process or action and get the same result is essential in order to produce scientific knowledge and whether it is essential to repeat a body of work or method to produce knowledge in The Arts. Natural Science provides a basic but strong example of the function of replicability, while The Arts provide a more nuanced perspective. While replicability is absolutely necessary for the production of scientific knowledge given its nature, in The Arts, the necessity of replicability depends on the type of art form.

 

In the Natural Sciences, replicability is by definition necessary in the production of scientific knowledge. The process by which knowledge is produced in the Natural Sciences is the scientific method. The scientific method is a process that aims to objectively produce knowledge through an iterative cycle of testing and experimentation. A key aspect of the scientific method is replicability: scientific knowledge is futile and cannot be justified if irreplicable. In 1983, scientists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made the claim that they had been able to perform cold fusion, a process by which two atomic nuclei are fused together releasing vast amounts of energy. This was a monumental discovery for both the scientific community and the world as cold fusion had the potential to power entire power stations. Fleischmann and Pons had produced knowledge, contributing through their report to the shared body of knowledge in the scientific field. Upon the announcement of this discovery, the scientific community attempted to replicate Fleischmann and Pons’ experiments. While no experiment was able to replicate the findings of Fleischmann and Pons’, the possibility remained that other experiments were not replicating the exact conditions. After being pressured by the scientific community, Fleishmann and Pons’ agreed to cooperate, however, their initial results remained irreplicable. This led the scientific community to dismiss the claim that cold fusion had been achieved. Without the aspect of replicability, the knowledge produced by the fusion study was deemed valueless. This demonstrates the importance of replicability in the Natural Sciences: knowledge can only be produced and shared in the Natural Sciences when it is replicable. This conclusion is further supported by Karl Popper’s theory of falsification. Falsification theory states that “a statement is falsified by a single genuine counter-instance” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022). In the context of replicability, falsification theory suggests that a scientific theory is true if it is replicable by any means of testing. By both the scientific method and falsification theory, replicability can be deemed necessary in the production of scientific knowledge.

 

In the majority of the Natural Sciences, iterative and replicable experimentation is possible and necessary to produce knowledge, however, in some areas controlled experimentation is not possible. Yet, many of these irreplicable experiments yield scientific knowledge. The irreplicability of an experiment may be due to ethical concerns, for example, the use and impact of nuclear weapons, or due to the inability to cause an event to occur, for example, tectonic activity. Tectonic activity, while irreplicable, provides the majority of evidence for scientific knowledge about the lithosphere. In 2015, the Gorkha earthquake occurred in central Nepal. While the earthquake cannot be repeated, using data collected before and after the earthquake, geologists were able to conclude that the Main Himalayan Thrust transitions from gently sloping in the south, to more steeply sloping in the north (Stanford University, 2019). This information has given researchers in Nepal a better understanding of the cause of earthquakes and how to predict them. While the knowledge produced was based on an irreplicable event, shared scientific knowledge can still be produced. Thus it can be concluded that the replicability of an experiment is not necessary to produce knowledge in all Natural Sciences. However, reevaluating the seeming irreplicability of this type of knowledge within the Natural Sciences, it can be determined that while replicability is not necessary in experimentation, it is necessary in to justify and therefore produce shared knowledge in the scientific field. This comes back to falsification theory, the aforementioned scientists were only able to produce knowledge because their conclusions had been replicable, therefore in line with conclusions from different investigations, thus, until falsified, the claim remains true to the best of the attainable knowledge. Although it may not be apparent at first glance, all production of scientific knowledge relies on replicability. While replicability is always necessary to justify scientific conclusions, the necessity of replicability in experimentation depends on the nature of the field.

 

In The Arts, the necessity of replicability to produce knowledge becomes more intricate. Replicability is not necessary and almost detrimental to the production of knowledge in The Arts when the artwork is a painting or sculpture. It is important to consider that The Arts can produce many types of both individual and shared knowledge: knowledge about history, knowledge about one's identity, and knowledge about society to name a few. Art represents the artist’s and certain time period’s expression while also creating a reflective subjective experience for the viewer. Replicability can therefore be examined from two perspectives: the technical replication of the artwork, and the replication of the emotional response to the artwork. In 1937, Pablo Picasso painted Guernica, an extremely large painting depicting the German bombing of Guernica, a city in Spain. The painting is famous for raising controversies about the Spanish civil war. Its impact was widespread, not only commenting on Spanish politics but also depicting the senseless violence and horrors of war. Although the painting itself can be replicated through technology or through its use as inspiration, the impact the painting had is irreplicable. The exact positions and perspectives that Picasso had are not replicable, even if individual techniques are replicated, the impact of this would not have the same impact that the original painting had. Thus, whether the painting is replicable or not has no impact on the knowledge it produced. Furthermore, replicability can be approached from the perspective of the audience. The Arts have a different impact on each individual based on current emotions, age, and the environment. In this way, it is not necessary, or arguably even possible, to create a replicable interaction with a piece of art in order to produce new knowledge, in fact, it is in the irreplicability of one’s interaction that new knowledge is produced. Considering both perspectives, it can be concluded that it is in a painting’s irreplicability that it is able to produce new knowledge.

 

While in some art forms, replicability is unnecessary to produce knowledge, in others, it is essential to produce knowledge. In the performing arts, artworks can only produce knowledge because they are replicable. Consider the art form of music. The majority of knowledge in music is produced through the language of music: scores. By definition, scores are made to be replicable, in the replication of music through the use of scores, knowledge is produced in the same way as it is in other art forms. Hence, scores that are irreplicable cannot produce knowledge. ‘Islamey’ composed by Mily Balakirev in 1869, is a piano piece so difficult that it was only recently performed for the first time. In the performing arts, knowledge is produced when a piece is played or performed, different knowledge can be produced in different replications of the artwork. This can be due to the location of the performance, the performers, and the response of individual audience members. Although the knowledge produced can be different, the piece remains the same. While it can be argued that the artwork changes with each performer, the essence of what makes the artwork a piece of art stays the same. Thus, an unplayable and therefore irreplicable piano piece like ‘Ismaley’ produces no new knowledge. In 2018, a 15-year-old prodigy performed the piece for the first time, this produced knowledge about the piece and an emotional response to the piece. However, no new knowledge will be produced until the piece is played again. Thus replicability is necessary to produce new knowledge about The Arts.

 

To conclude, replicability is necessary for the production of scientific knowledge, however, in The Arts, the necessity of replicability depends on the type of art form. The Natural Sciences produce a clearer answer to the initial question. In order to establish scientific knowledge in all fields, conclusions must be replicable. In contrast, The Arts pose a much more complex answer to the initial question. In non-performative art forms, like painting, replicability is not necessary to produce new knowledge, in fact, in the artworks irreplicability, its value is held. In performing arts, like music, it is in their ability to be replicated that it can produce new knowledge. Replicability is an important concept in all Areas of Knowledge, it speaks to the justifiability of claims and the functionality of produced knowledge. It is important to consider other factors that affect the production of knowledge, including the perception of knowledge for individuals versus perception of knowledge to society. While replicability is important, it is not the only factor when discussing the production of knowledge.

Arns, Robert G. "Detecting the Neutrino." Physics in Perspective, vol. 3, no. 3, 2001, pp. 314-334.

 

"Evidence of Plate Tectonics." California Academy of Sciences, www.calacademy.org/explore-science/evidence-of-plate-tectonics.

 

Oxford Learner's Dictionaries | Find Definitions, Translations, and Grammar Explanations at Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/.

 

Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ProbDema.

 

"Swing Low, Sweet Chariot: How an American Slave Hymn Became the Anthem of English Rugby." The Telegraph, 19 June 2020, www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what-to-listen-to/swing-low-sweet-chariot-history-origin-meaning/. Accessed 28 Nov. 2022.

 

Tucker, Danielle T. "2015 Nepal Earthquake Offers Clues About Hazards." Stanford Earth, 26 June 2019,

 

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/2015-nepal-earthquake-offers-clues-about-hazards#gs.iunl9d.%20Accessed%2018%20Jan.%202023.

 

University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley. "Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behaviour." Understanding Science - How Science REALLY Works.., 2012, undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/cold_fusion.pdf.

 

Zelazko, Alicja. "Guernica." Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/Guernica-by-Picasso. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023.