In the field of the Physics, there is no uncontested law or fact, because the knowledge in the science is based on repeated experiments. So it seems unlikely that doubt will be hardly a key, which serves to disclose, or explain what is unknown. Consequently, Science is not affected by ways of knowing such as emotion or language because logical reasoning is largely universal. If enough data are supporting the theory that is hypothesized, people will believe that the theory is true. Yet doubt, I believe, has different meaning or use in the science. It is merely an another tool of logical reasoning, which serves to guide scientists to test the theory in various conditions in order to verify that the theory is true regardless of the change in condition or with a limit. For example, Albert Einstein contributed major advances that changed our view of how everything interacts with each other by the rules of general relativity (Arthur I. Miller). It explained all interaction with another object with mass flawlessly in macro scale (J. S. Rowlinson), yet with the scrutiny of scientists, they soon realized his general rule of gravity did not describe the phenomenon at an subatomic level or the environment that is extreme (Bas C. Van Fraassen), such as the singularity or the black hole (also known as The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox). This consequently led to the development and formation of quantum theory by Max Planck, which describes the movement and action of the matter at a subatomic level, not by an exact equation, but by the probability of the described phenomenon occurring (Jonathan P. Dowling). As result, the inquisitorial nature of the science, which brought doubt to the well established fact, certainly allowed science to progress forward and acquire new knowledge. This led me to have doubts about the fundamental laws of science that are not contested, but merely believed because they seem to describe the phenomenon of the nature most of the time, such as invariable speed of light. This doubt intensified as I moved into recently formed division of the science, such as micro biology.
The field of natural sciences, for example, cellular biology, heavily depends on visual perception to lend evidence concerning what is the truth. As result, the limited ways of knowing helps the biologist as it is not affected by other ways of knowing, but at same time hinders them by limiting their certainties since the nature is spontaneous and visual perspective is not an accurate tool, which is hindered by education and culture. During the 17th century when the cell theory was formulated, Robert Hooke was able to physically observe the various stages of the cell division (Howard Gest). He then hypothesized that cell has certain shapes or characteristic when it divided. After observing many “frozen” cell divisions, due to inability to see the living cells under the microscope, Hooke concluded that the observed phenomenon was indeed cell division (L. Wolpert). However, at times biologist believed that they were observing cell division, but he could have been seeing something else. Robert Hooke and his colleagues could have seen a mutated cell, or simply something other than a cell, which were unknown back in the 17th century. In this case, the biologists would have allowed their previously acquired internal beliefs, supported with visual conformation, to interfere with what actually happened. As a result of believing that if cells had certain characteristics, or a certain pattern, they divide, the biologist “saw” cell division. However, with repeated experiments or observation, Hooke could have noticed the slight difference between previously acquired knowledge and the results of the trial, forming a doubt. Consequently they would be able to look back to that specific cell and realize it was not a cell division. He would have corrected the unintended mistake and the knowledge would have become valid under all or in limited condition. So I consider the Sciences indeed needs the doubt to gain new knowledge, but could doubt be an effective tool to other area of knowledge, like as math, which is absolute?
Mathematics is the most stable and consistent area of knowledge that has ever existed. I think it is only areas of knowledge that is not affected by any ways of knowing. This is because every belief or basic principle in math went through logical reasoning and tested exhaustively. Doubts in math, however rare, are still the causes of this stability. Every uncertainty that is formed in mathematics has one of two results, either an absolute truth, or a false statement. This is because with the multitudes of formulas that have already been formed and combined with logical reasoning, almost any doubts can be proven to be true or false. The basic principles of math have evolved over time from counting to dizzying calculus and so forth. It is the factual support that each of these principles has, makes it difficult for any doubts to arise against mathematics that are already proven. Yet in field of pure, theoretical mathematic, the doubt is again a valuable tool to acquire new knowledge.
Until recently, one of the most pursued mathematic theories was the Fermat’s Last Theorem. I saw the video about the theorem which highly intrigued me to look further into the challenge it brought to mathematicians. The theorem looked obviously simple enough to most people to be considered as the truth, yet there was no definite proof to this fundamental and simple solution (Andrew Wiles). The conjecture was the base for the rules of right triangles and fundamental corner stone to the Trigonometry and geometry, depended on. If the theorem was proven to be a false statement, it could have radically changed the way we go about solving problems. Doubt washed over the community of mathematicians at a point when no one was able to provide the general proof. However, Andrew Wiles, who used newly discovered modularity theorem, cleared the doubt and strengthened the mathematics by eliminating the uncertainty.
However, not all doubts lead to knowledge. For example, I have an important final in Calculus coming up in two weeks, and I doubt that I am going to get an A for the final; this does not lead to knowledge, but only to get myself nervous. Consequently, not all doubts, without a logical reasoning, will lead to knowledge. The way of knowing of emotion rather hinders the mind and do not reach any conclusion.
As human beings, we perceive, observe and reason with the help of our senses to understand a concept. Doubt has become another way of knowing to most of people because it probes the nature, value and limits of reason, and the techniques associated with the logical rigor that many suppose is a shared standard of evaluation. So this is why I think that doubt should be largely encouraged by many area of knowledge other than math and science, to explore the unexplored thoughts and ultimately gain the new knowledge that benefits the humanity as whole.
Final word count: 1698
Work Cited
Andrew Wiles, , , Second Series, Vol. 141, No. 3 (May, 1995), pp. 443-551, Annals of Mathematics
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118559>
Arthur I. Miller, , , Vol. 1982, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers, (1982), pp. 377-402, The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association, <URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/192432>
Bas C. Van Fraassen, , , Vol. 29, No. 1/4, Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Dec., 1974), pp. 291-309, Springer
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/20115001>
David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, , , Vol. 55, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 338-354, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3166822>
D. W. Morehouse , , , New Series, Vol. 75, No. 1932 (Jan. 8, 1932), pp. 27-32, American Association for the Advancement of Science, < http://www.jstor.org/stable/1657403>
Howard Gest, , , Vol. 58, No. 2 (May, 2004), pp. 187-201, The Royal Society, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142050>
Irving A. Kelter, ,
, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 273-283, The Sixteenth Century Journal. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542790
Jonathan P. Dowling, Gerard J. Milburn, , , Vol. 361, No. 1809, Information, Knowledge and Technology (Aug. 15, 2003), pp. 1655-1674, The Royal Society
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/3559215>
J. S. Rowlinson, , , Vol. 59, No. 3 (Sep. 22, 2005), pp. 255-271, The Royal Society, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30041502>
L. Wolpert, , , Vol. 349, No. 1329, Evolution of Eukaryotic Cellular Process (Sep. 29, 1995), pp. 227-233, The Royal Society, < http://www.jstor.org/stable/56216>
Owen Gingerich, Robert S. Westman, , , New Series, Vol. 78, No. 7 (1988), pp. i-viii+1-148, American Philosophical Society, <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1006552>
P. T. Greenland, , , Vol. 361, No. 1803, Quantum Dots: Science on the Smallest Scale? (Feb. 15, 2003), pp. 379-391, The Royal Society, < http://www.jstor.org/stable/3559143>
