# data[].attributes.body
According to the given prompts, write your introductions (2) including your thesis, claim and counterclaim:

1. Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”?

2. Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge?

# data[].attributes.body
We can never be certain about most things. One thing we can never surely be certain about is our past. The written history may contradict itself; two sources from the same time period may have varying facts and perspectives over the same historical event, creating questions for an already hard to understand event. The way the human brain works also has baffled scientists throughout the years, the conscience being an example with countless theories. However, what is important is if these historians and scientists should take these contradicting evidences seriously or continue believing in what's been accepted in the modern times. It's is important they inform us about the constantly changing theories and advances yet it might cause conflict upon the public.

Improving tools

The device you are reading this from gets improved everyday. Even now, new advances are being made to your phone, tablet and laptop; but how are these affecting us; but are we using these tools to their fullest potential? These tools help us with calculations and research to help improve our knowledge over ourselves and the world; however, these advances may also result in casualties. The highly complicated computers we use for information are also used in war. So are these advances really helpful?

Tayfun Talayman

# data[].attributes.body
Hhistorians and human scientists have a fundamental ethical obligation to not ignore contradictory evidence. Ignoring counter evidence should be considered dishonesty. This kind of failure is basically a breach of the social contracts between the scholar and the public, as research informs public policy and education, thus, presenting a skewed or incomplete picture is a irresponsibility that risks misleading society and causing potential harm

Counterclaim: A researcher can't be required to engage with every single piece of conflicting data. To stop analysis to address every minor counter argument would lead to paralysis preventing the production of any useful knowledge.

--------

Tools grant access to previously hidden realities. The electron microscope revealed the inner workings of the cell and the Telescope showed us the deep universe. However, improved tools do not guarantee improved knowledge because their use is filtered by human interpretation

For example, over reliance on sophisticated tools like artificial intelligence can lead to a decline in the foundational skills and thinking required for true understanding

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ethical Obligation of Historians and Human Scientists
The directive “do not ignore contradictory evidence” is central to the pursuit of truth in both history and the human sciences. My thesis is that historians and human scientists do have an ethical obligation to acknowledge such evidence because ignoring it risks producing biased or misleading knowledge. The claim supporting this view is that recognizing contradictions ensures intellectual honesty and strengthens the credibility of their work. The counterclaim, however, is that the abundance of contradictory evidence can sometimes overwhelm or delay the process of interpretation, potentially limiting the ability to produce clear conclusions.

2. Tools and Improved Knowledge
Ever-improving tools, such as advanced technology or refined methodologies, are often assumed to guarantee better knowledge across disciplines. My thesis is that while new tools frequently expand the scope and precision of inquiry, they do not always guarantee improved knowledge. The claim is that tools like DNA sequencing or digital archives can uncover previously inaccessible data and refine our understanding. The counterclaim, however, is that reliance on tools can sometimes lead to overconfidence, misinterpretation, or neglect of critical thinking, thereby hindering genuine knowledge progress.

# data[].attributes.body
historians and human scientists do have to acknowledge and consider contradictory evidence. since both history and the human sciences are fluid and open to interpretation, research in these fields often reflects bias. contradictory evidence serves as a necessary check, reminding scholars to aim for for objectivity in their work. however, it's important to note that ethics itself is a subjective concept, many view it as a personal matter rather than a universal standard.

---

there is a clear direct relationship between the development of better tools and the growth of new knowledge. as advancements are made, we gain access to more specialized insights and potentially broaden our areas of study. however, this perspective is quite optimistic and overlooks the reality that humanity is often prone to corruption. these tools may not always be used as intended, potentially leading to knowledge that is either unnecessary or lacks real value.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge?

# data[].attributes.body
Thesis: The ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge.

Claim: Improvement of scientific knowledge depends on improvement of tools because improved tools make better research possible.

Counterclaim: Improvement of scientific knowledge can't depend on improvement of tools because all new tools have a margin of error.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.	Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”?

# data[].attributes.subject
1.	Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”?

# data[].attributes.body
When we study the past or human behavior, evidence does not always fit neatly into one story. Historians and human scientists often face conflicting accounts, sources, or data. Considering all available evidence can help prevent bias and distortion, yet not all contradictory evidence is equally trustworthy. Sometimes leaving out unreliable sources can actually make knowledge clearer and more accurate.

2. Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge?

Throughout history, advances in tools have shaped how we see the world: telescopes expanded our view of the universe, and modern imaging reveals details of the human body. Better tools often give us deeper and more precise insights, but they can also create new limits. Overreliance on technology or misinterpretation of data can mean that progress in tools does not always guarantee progress in knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
1-) As the time went by, the technology has been developed with the affect of humanity. Today, historians and human scientists have an important role in humanity and for the future to be developed. But in order for humanity to develop, they need to produce something ethical and for the benefit of humanity. Contradictory evidence has an important role for scientists to produce ethical obligation. Contradictory obligations can help people reach accurate information by challenging themselves and their surroundings without taking a particular side. However, this can also create confusion and create conflict between people.

----

2-) There is a important relationship between the word 'improving' and knowledge. Humanity can improve themself if it gain knowledge. So ever improving tools of an area of knowledge is an important factor to improve knowledge. But ever improving tools are not always beneficial in knowledge improving. This can cause contradiction in people's minds.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to address contradictory evidence. As society relies on both historians and human scientist to obtain a type of knowledge, they should have an aim to obtain and share knowledge which they can only achieve by creating theories then proving the truth of them. Evidence that contradicts their arguments can possibly prove their statements to be false, human scientists and historians should pursue this contradictory evidence to provide society with a more reliable theory. Though it can also be argued that not all evidence has enough integrity to be able to disprove a theory.
2. The ever improving tools of an area of knowledge may not affect the value of the knowledge they produce. Tools allow us to complete a task simply and more effectively. These tools include computer simulations, advanced telescopes, microscopes and other new technologies. Using these tools, science has been able to advance quickly. This shows that improving tool may only accelerate the acquisition of knowledge. It can also be said that improved tools produce more reliable knowledge which can be considered improved knowledge.