“All knowledge depends on the recognition of patterns and anomalies.” - TOK (Theory of Knowledge)

In the study of TOK in DP-1 (11th grade), I have learnt about the ways of knowing, and two of the areas of knowledge - natural sciences and human sciences. Of all the discussions and explorations done into these areas of knowledge, there can be patterns observed in the methods of experimentation, data collection, data analysis and also assumptions being made when generalizing situations. In some of the above points, human sciences is similar to natural sciences, while in the others, the ideologies and working is different.

Natural sciences and human sciences for instance both use experiments as a form of data collection but the methods and outputs are different. Natural scientists have lesser moral values to take care of compared to human scientists such as psychologists. Psychologists are directly dealing with humans and hence need to take more ethical implications into consideration. Secondly, human scientists conduct experiments on a large set of people - not limited to one race or gender unless it is required. Natural scientists do not require survey type data. Here, a single scientist conducts the experiments.

Both the types of experiments are empirical based though, direct experimentation is more in natural sciences while human sciences are more observation based. But experiments in human sciences have more unpredictable results due to what is known as the Hawthorne effect. This effect explains that when a particular group comes to know that they are under observation for a experiment or an analysis, they tend to be more productive. These cause errors in results of human science experiments especially the ones of psychology.

Even economics - another human science is quite unpredictable except for the common generalizations being done on previous observations of economic conditions in the history. The basic economic laws tend to take a lot of assumptions into consideration and also a lot of economic knowledge is hidden. Eg. the wood that is cut down by industries and processed is considered into the aggregate supply of the country but what a tribe cuts down and uses for themselves is not considered into the aggregate supply. So at any point of time, the economy of a country is underestimated along with another concept of unemployment.

These mark the differences between human sciences and natural sciences - especially in the methodology and the making generalizations. But, in both types of sciences, making of generalizations is common. These generalizations lead to formation of patterns in that particular subject. In natural sciences, these patterns are usually represented by mathematical equations while in human sciences, these patterns may be represented either in a statement form or mathematical form. An example in natural science is ‘V=IR’ which is the Ohm’s law. It is written in mathematical form whereas generalizations in human sciences include the ‘Law of demand’ of economics which states that ‘As the price of a good or service increases, its demand decreases’.

In more determinable subjects such as natural sciences, making a generalization has lesser chances of making an error because every generalization made has a particular set of factors affecting it. If these factors are all included, the possibility of an anomaly is much lesser due to negligible existence of errors. This is not the case with human sciences such as psychology. In these subjects, there is a big problem while observing patterns and making generalizations which is the confirmation bias. When identifying a pattern, most of the time, there is existence of previous knowledge. He starts making mindsets on how the result will be. His work will tend to sway towards what he believes will be the result of his survey / experiment / other means of data collection.

These confirmation biases are very influential towards the generalizations and often lead to the formation of an anomaly. Anomalies are those which cause a gap or a deviation from the generalization. These often lead to wrong theories further in the future but many times are also corrected by experiments. Thomas Kuhn who was a physicist and a philosopher had put forward a paradigm (model) which showed the formation and removal of anomalies. This is now known as the Kuhn’s paradigm. This paradigm explains to us that when a paradigm is operating, gradually anomalies might be observed. When many anomalies are observed, the paradigm is no more fit and is discarded. When this happens, many new competing theories arise of which one is chosen to succeed the previous one. This is now the new paradigm. Between the two paradigms, there is no paradigm operating.

This paradigm repeats itself more frequently in human sciences than in natural sciences due to the fact that human scientists always face situations such that there might be many exceptions. Another reason is that as the name suggests, human scientists study humans; human’s mindset changes over the years. For example there was a generalization made through observation that girls like pink while that is not the matter of fact although this stereotype continues to be used. An example of the Kuhn’s paradigm in natural science had happened in the history of physics. Sir Isaac Newton had deduced the speed of sound through his experiments to be around 280m/s. Through a long period of 125 years, there were anomalies coming up and then Laplace did further experiments to determine a close value of speed of sound to what it is today - about 330m/s. During the period between their experiments, there was no value actually accepted.

Human sciences especially psychology and economics have several anomalies in the patterns observed through large-scale experiments. Patterns in human sciences are true only up to some extent due to the reason that these type of sciences are very prone to change in situations on immediate basis. For example, in economics, quality is very important when buying a good or a service. Low quality objects are demanded less while high quality objects are demanded more. Along with high quality, there is also a high price. Hence, the law of demand suggests that there should be less demand at this price. But this rises to an anomaly and hence a new theory called “Veblen goods” where the demand rises along with the price.

Thomas Kuhn who was a physicist and philosopher and who also proposed the aforementioned paradigm shift also says that “Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e., with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science” (Kuhn 52)  in the book The structure of Scientific Revolutions. This simply shows us that an anomaly is the key to the next discovery. Unless uncertainties or problems do not rise, people do not think the need for discovering new things.

Another important thing to be noted is that all knowledge that exists is either subjective, objective or a mixture of both. But areas of knowledge that are more objective such as natural sciences rather than human sciences show more need for anomalies. This is because subjective areas of knowledge would have lesser chances of establishing a pattern (due to a very variable data) and hence anomalies cannot be recognized easily for further research. This is the case with psychology which is a human science. Here, anomalies are not the ones which usually drive the future research but the scientists own initiation.

A last thing where anomalies are not very important to establish knowledge is when the anomalies also form a pattern i.e. when anomalies are formed in such a way that there could a scientific explanation to it, it becomes an exception to the general pattern. However, when scientific explanation could not be provided to it for a long period of time, scientific revolutions take place to form a new theory. An example in chemistry is that Copper is supposed to have an electronic configuration [Ar]3d94s2 while its actual configuration turns out to be [Ar]3d104s1 due to the tendency of a complete orbital.

Hence, after looking into both perspectives - the importance of anomalies and patterns and the non-importance of anomalies while determining some types of knowledge, going back to the initial question, I would say that patterns and anomalies do have big roles in determining knowledge but not completely. Establishing knowledge also requires scientist’s will and the need for discovery.