In a subject area like Mathematics, the methodology is more important than the content itself because it is the methods which we learn and remember how to imply for future use. Since kindergarten we have been taught that 1 + 1 always gives us 2. We have been shown and proven this from counting two fingers on our hands to drawing two lines on a piece of paper and then saying the answer is two. Yet, we do not learn this through complex content. There is no other proof that the addition of 2 ones does not give us 2, and therefore we just accept it from the methods we are told to use to calculate and find this answer to.
However, areas of knowledge such as Art, whether in the literature perspective or the artistic perspective, it is defined through the content rather than their methodology. When analyzing an art piece, you would analyze the content of the picture rather than analyzing the methods used. For example, we would be taught to analyze the tone, color, and positioning of lighting in an art piece, but little is analyzed about the brush strokes that are being used or the kind method that is used to paint or draw the painting. In a literature piece, whether a prose or poem, we are all told to analyze it’s content and the moral of the story. Yet, this is arguable as when analyzing a text, it is important to analyze about the literary devices used in a text, and this can be classified as a method of defining a certain area of knowledge, and in this case, literature.
Yet on the other hand, it is true that the main controversial subject is the sciences. It is split into two main sciences, known as Human and Natural Sciences. The Human Sciences is defined as the investigation to human life through sensory and psychological experiences. Natural Sciences can be proven to reach a given conclusion, such as Biology or Chemistry. In Human Sciences, the content of an issue defines that area of knowledge, but it is the methodology that does so in Natural Sciences. Examples of Human Sciences are history and geography, and both are subjects of which knowledge are passed down and/or are learnt from books. In history, we learn about both world wars from textbooks as it is recorded. Vivid description of every single event that led up to both wars allow us to fully understand the information that has been given to us. However, we learn about natural sciences, such as Biology, through experimenting, as a conclusion given in the textbooks can be proven. This shows that in Natural Sciences, we learn through methods rather than content, but in human sciences, we learn through the content that has been given to us.
Methodology and content define different areas of knowledge differently, yet they have their own advantages and disadvantages of using one aspect to analyze an area of knowledge individually. If we analyze a subject through methodology, for example, a text, and analyze how it is written, we will then neglect the possible true meaning behind. Likewise, if we analyze a subject through the content only, we will then neglect the ways that are used to show and support the points that has been written in the text. Therefore I think that the extent areas of knowledge whether it should be defined by methodologies or content should be equal.
