Prescribed title 6: In knowledge there is always a trade-off

between accuracy and simplicity. Evaluate the statement in

relation to two areas of knowledge.

During one of his physics lessons, the great physicist Richard

Feynman endeavoured to prepare a freshman lecture explaining a

simplified version of Fermi-Dirac statistics. However, a few days later he

said: I couldn't do it. []. That means we don't really understand it."

(Goodstein, J., and Goodstein, K., 1996). I found this perception to be

intriguing, because it seems to contradict the assertion that simplicity and

accuracy cannot be attained simultaneously when dealing with facts and

truths. Through this exploration, I aim to answer the knowledge question:

Is it possible for a dichotomy to exist between simplicity and accuracy

when conveying, acquiring, and interpreting knowledge? Contrary to the

prescribed title, I believe that a simultaneity may be achieved between

simplicity and accuracy in knowledge, and I intend to exhibit this by

analysing their involvement in knowledge in History and the Natural

Sciences, especially through language and reason.

The Natural Sciences can be seen as a systematic exploration of the

mechanisms that make the world work. It could be claimed that simplicity

does not contribute to any of the aspects of complex scientific knowledge.

Regarding language in particular, using watered-down lexis when

describing intricate scientific concepts may not allow for a thorough

understanding of the knowledge. Accepting abbreviated versions of

scientific information, without pursuing and extending it at higher levels,

could diminish the scientific accuracy of the information transitioning

between shared and personal knowledge. For example, one could use

simple jargon to describe both fluorescence and chemiluminescence as

the production of light from chemicals, which to a school student may

make them appear to be identical processes. However, this is an

inaccurate assumption as chemiluminescence is refers to production of

light in chemical reactions whereas fluorescence refers to a process in

which energy from an external source of light is absorbed and reemitted

(The Bioluminescence Webpage, 1999). Moreover, simplification could

also be detrimental to knowledge in the Natural Sciences due to the

complexity of the reasoning processes associated with scientific

exploration. This is especially important to scientist. Without a

comprehensive understanding of scientific theories and processes, one

cannot continue to develop and pursue their own endeavours of scientific

discovery. This is apparent in the scientific method, which can be defined

as a non-linear, iterative process, consisting of different routes with

undetermined outcomes (The University of California Museum of

Paleontology, 2012). I personally experienced this progression while

completing my internal assessment in Biology. I had to not only enrich my

knowledge regarding seed anatomy, but also consider the factors that

could affect germination and make my results unreliable. It was only

through this complicated integrative process that I was able to create an

experiment that yielded accurate results. A one-sided view to scientific

reasoning risks the development of an incompetent approach to this body

of knowledge, posing a threat to the basis of scientific development. As

Isaac Newton once said, If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the

1
shoulders of giants. (BBC, n.d.) An extensive understanding of accurate

theoretical knowledge is necessary for development of scientific

information, and a linear approach to the sciences jeopardises the

accuracy of that knowledge. This supports the notion that simplicity is a

threat to acquiring, conveying, and developing accurate knowledge.

On the other hand, I believe that simplicity is not necessarily

detrimental to achieving accuracy in the Natural Sciences. Considering the

complicated nature of information in subjects such as physics, concise

forms of presentation, such as diagrams and flowcharts, are often better

in conveying concepts clearly. Therefore, simplicity could aid the transition

between personal knowledge and shared knowledge within the realm of

science. The strategies used by scientists to deliver knowledge play an

essential role in the publics reception of scientific facts. The use of

complex, highly-specific scientific jargon deters peoples basic

understanding of the concepts being conveyed, and consequentially the

acquisition of knowledge among people unfamiliar with those terms. The

greater possibility of misunderstanding therefore supports the

development of erroneous personal scientific knowledge. Oftentimes it is a

scientists ability to simplify information that shows true insight and

understanding. Simplicity is also connected to accuracy of scientific

knowledge by the principle of Occams razor. (Baker, A., 2013). The theory

supports the notion that "The explanation requiring the fewest

assumptions is most likely to be correct." (Gibbs, P., 1996) Although it is

not part of the reasoning process, it is an approach to logical thinking

2
which supports clarity and precision. A parallel can also be drawn between

the mechanism of simplification and reasoning by induction. Inductive

reasoning involves the inference of universal ideas or theories based on

specific sets of observational data. Through induction, scientists have

been able to generate uniform theories that encompass all of the

occurrences of set phenomena present in the world around us. The

simplification does not deter the accuracy of the knowledge generated by

scientists in this case. Rather, it promotes a more comprehensive

approach to obtaining and presenting scientific knowledge.

Looking at History as another area of knowledge, historians achieve

accuracy by conveying the intangible aspects of the past as close to the

truth as possible. Therefore, abridging sources and not including thorough

detail increases the risk of bias in historical representations, since not all

perspectives are being considered. Progressively condensing a multitude

of information into a less complicated version of events exponentially

increases the historians susceptibility to only consider what they

personally see is historically correct or important. Such classification is

heavily subjective, and this process leads to the formulation of biased and

inaccurate conclusions. Language has a distinct contribution to the

establishment of subjective historical knowledge, because of the role it

plays in conveying meaning. Take, for example, the case of Alexander the

Third, king of Macedonia, better known as Alexander the Great. This

nickname, comprising of a simple adjective, supports this figures

portrayal as a legendary military leader. However this label does not take

3
into account the wide-spread destruction he lead on the Persopolis in 331

B.C. (Livius, n.d.). This viciousness is not depicted in the cult of character

built by the epithet, influencing inaccurate and imprecise knowledge to be

developed regarding the important historical figure. This illustrates how

simplicity may hinder the establishment of accurate historical facts, as it

hinders the consideration of the multiple perspectives involved in

historical events. Simplification in language can also be linked to a logical

fallacy in History: periodisation (Lewis, B., 2009). Periodisation involves

historians use of single terms to encompass eras of global history.

Although it is intended as an organisational tool, the established

chronology emphasises some historical events and diminishes others,

inevitably favouring the history of specific societies. An example is the

periodisation of the Middle Ages, as the term The Medieval Period is only

concerned with European civilisation, and yet is applied as an entire global

era. This not only fails to acknowledge different civilisations history, but

also forms a one-sided and underdeveloped investigation of world history.

As written in an article published by the UCLA Department of History,

nothing is more dangerous than a simple, monocausal explanation of

past experiences and present problems. This simplification through

sequencing time periods has no agreed-upon basis among historians, and

the consequent discrepancies risk the formulation of an inaccurate and

unreliable body of shared historical knowledge.

However, when developing historical interpretations of the past,

historians often find themselves considering multiple sources that depict

4
different perspectives. They then aim to make concise coherent narratives

using components of historical reasoning, which include contextualisation,

organisation, the use of sources, and the justification of arguments (van

Boxtel, C., and van Drie, J., 2004). Although their conclusions may be

relatively simpler, they are by no means less accurate, as the claims that

they generate are all supported by the same reasoning framework.

Moreover, the nature of logical reasoning within History is highly

subjective, as ultimately what a person believes to be a more convincing

conceptualisation of the truth depends on their own outlook. Therefore, a

straightforward narrative of a past events may be apply more to one

perspective compared to another due to the subjective nature of personal

analysis, and not the simplicity of the knowledge itself. Ultimately, the

reasoning power of a historical interpretation depends on the skills of

contextualisation and inquiry, and the rigor of the research process it

involves. This notion is supported by Babasaheb Purandares presentation

of the historical figure Maratha King through of simple poems (Tare, K.,

2015). He received criticism because many people believed that his

narration was a figment of imagination, however he argued that those

who write in simple language need to study more [] so that they wont

commit any mistake. (Tare, K., 2015) The differentiation in response

regarding the validity of Purandares work reinforces the notion that the

subjectivity of human nature that elicits this variation in perceptions of the

truth, and not the simplicity of the concepts conveyed. The diverse

reaction generated by the simple representations show that less complex

language aids in the presentation of knowledge in History. It allows

5
conclusions to be received and understood by a wider audience, therefore

promoting the generation of relatively accurate personal knowledge,

whether accepting or unaccepting of the historical interpretation. This

rebuts the claim that simplicity and accuracy cannot go hand-in-hand.

In conclusion, I believe that this critical evaluation has revealed that

a simultaneity may exist between accuracy and simplicity in History and

the Natural Sciences. Scientists simplistic approach to conveying

knowledge allows for a more universal acceptance of scientific

information. This is especially important, for example, in encouraging

students involvement in the sciences, and convincing the public of the

severity of global warming by clearly illustrating its negative

consequences using scientific evidence. Moreover, although abridgement

may risk the formation of biased conclusions, research and

contextualisation while producing succinct historical interpretations allow

for relatively accurate knowledge to be learnt from and considered by a

variety of people with different perspectives.

Bibliography
Goodstein, J., and Goodstein, K. (1996) Feymans Lost Lecture.
California Insitute of Technology. [Online]. Available from:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/563/2/Goodstein.pdf [Accessed
25/12/2015]

The Bioluminescence Webpage (1999) Common Misconceptions.

[Online] Available from: http://biolum.eemb.ucsb.edu/pdf/myth.pdf
[Accessed 13/1/2016]

Baker, A., (2013) Simplicity, The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/simplicity
[Accessed 29/12/2015]

6
The University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, and
the Regents of the University of California. (2012) How Science
Works. [Online] Available from:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/how_science_works.pdf
[Accessed 29/12/2015]

BBC Learning English. (n.d.) Moving Words Sir Isaac Newton.

[Online] Available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/movingwords/sho
rtlist/newton.shtml [Accessed 29/12/2016]

Gibbs, P. (1996) What is Occams Razor? [Online] Available from:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
[Accessed 13/1/2016]

UCLA Department of History (n.d.) Historical Analysis and

Interpretation. [Online] Available from:
http://www.nchs.ucla.edu/history-standards/historical-thinking-
standards/3.-historical-analysis-and-interpretation [Accessed
3/1/2016]

Livius (n.d.) Alexander Sacks Persepolis [Online] Available from:

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t12.html [Accessed
3/1/2016]

Lewis, B. (2009) The Periodisation of History. [Online] Available from:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/323/the-periodization-of-history---
excerpts [Accessed 3/1/2016]

Tare, K. (2015) Controversies Apart, Purandare Bats for Simplicity.

[Online]. Available from: http://m.newindianexpress.com/nation-
2/522378 [Accessed 3/1/2016]

van Boxtel, C., and van Drie, J. (2004) Historical Reasoning: A

Comparison of how Experts and Novices Contextualise Historical
Sources. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and
Research. 4(2) Available from:
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal8/8contents.htm
[Accessed 3/1/2016]