knowledge is always changing

factors that contribute to the fragility of revered knowledge include cultural context, historical events, technological advancements, and the subjectivity of interpretation.

Art - Artistic knowledge often relies on personal interpretation. A piece of art may hold different meanings for different audiences, and its significance can evolve over time.

Natural Sciences - Knowledge is often built on prevailing theories, which can be overturned by new evidence.

Models, like those in math or science, are simplified representations of reality.

They help us understand complex things but leave out important details.

This raises the question of how do we know what we know

Our understanding of the world is often based on these imperfect models.

The statement highlights that what we "know" may not always be completely accurate.

Models, like those in math or science, are simplified representations of reality.

They help us understand complex things but leave out important details.

This raises the question of how reliable is our knowledge?

Our understanding of the world is often based on these imperfect models.

The statement highlights that what we "know" may not always be completely accurate.

natural sciences:

• knowledge explains mysteries (e.g., gravity, evolution), reducing the sense of unknown.

• but! deeper understanding can often raise new questions, preserving and/or enhancing wonder (e.g., quantum physics, hella complex)

arts:

• understanding techniques/symbolism may possibly deflate and "unmystify" artistic works

• however, knowledge can deepen appreciation and evoke new wonder at creativity and interpretation

conclusion: acquiring knowledge can both diminish and enhance wonder, depending on context and perspective.

Knowledge can kill wonder by explaining what was once imaginatively mysterious; deepened understanding inspires new intellectual awe.

Knowledge of historical events can diminish wonder by revealing the ordinary causes of extraordinary persons but may also encourage a heightened appreciation of the complexity of human societies.

In fact, knowledge often doesn't kill wonder but instead transforms it into a more informed appreciation of complexity and the unknown.

Depending on how it is approached, knowledge acquisition may either reduce or deepen wonder, often in ways leading to new forms of curiosity.

Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence”? Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences

There are two perspectives to interpret this question. 

1)The first is that ethical obligation is fundamental for both sciences. Ignoring the truth to keep things the same can lead to irreversible consequences, but be certain that history and human scientists taught that there couldn't be other information that affects the perception of knowledge. 

2)The second perspective is that disclosing this contradictory evidence can do more harm than good and change one's perception of certain things. Therefore, it leads to the question: Is it better to keep the truth a secret to not change anything? However, live with the understanding that we still do not know something.