To what extent is the knowledge constructed in some areas of knowledge more reliable than the knowledge constructed in others?
To add on from the presentation we made as a group, we are to determine whether or not some areas of knowledge are more reliable than other areas of knowledge, the answer should an emphatic yes.
To start off, knowledge acquired in the fields of natural sciences is far more reliable than that collected in social sciences. An example of this would be physical laws in physics vs the social theories in Econ. Physical laws are rooted within physics due to the fact that they are a constant. gravity is a perfect example of physical laws. Gravity is a constant and it is constantly applied to every single one of us. It’ll not change because of human behavior, it is an unchanging constant. But on the other hand, social sciences like economics depends on these social theories that change based off of human behavior. A fact today may not be a fact 10 years from now. A great example of this is Keynesian economics. With Keynesian economics, the world was able to pull itself out of the great depression in the ’40s. But when another global recession loomed following the end of world war 2, his theory became ineffective because consumer patterns have changed.
The knowledge constructed in natural sciences is more solid because they are less about human subjectivity/interpretation. Physical laws of the universe do not change over time or in different cultures. While knowledge created within social sciences will always change as long as human behavior changes as well.