Can People still rely on knowledge from experts? Essay -- essays resea

There is no evidence that scientists always tell the truth, and the chances are that they are except margin altogethery more honest than, say, politicians (New Scientist)Knowledge can be defined as an organised body of information which through experience, theories and studies help the human sagacity discover and develop new information. Different forms of familiarity include medical, religious, scientific, and common-sense and these in turn have their own language and status and there is privileging of some knowledge i.e., scientific. Like everything, knowledge is also part of a social construction and in this assignment I will take a look stomach at the past and compare it to how we handle knowledge in todays society. By evaluating different forms of knowledge and looking at the evidence condition it will become clear that whether we can corporate trust experts isnt actually the problem, rather its that we really have no quality, if we cant trust the experts and they are not as accurate as they make out, then who can we trust? This is actually quite a scary suggestion.When one hears the volume specialist, one automatically assumes important, accurate and truthful. One would never have criticized someone in the medical field say 30 or forty years ago, doctors were like God and knew best for everybody. Experts being well trained through demanding and rigorous apprenticeships acquire good reputations and credentials and so obviously deserve our respect and trust, no? In the past the answer would have been yes as it was only a handful of people who had the opportunity to go to university (mainly men). But in our day and age it is the expectation of nearly everybody to acquire a degree, and it has now become the norm. We have a society in doubt and not knowing who they can trust. This can be seen by book sales and depend results on the Internet, the desire to acquire knowledge must(prenominal) mean we are less confident in believing the professionals. Fo r example TV05 shows an increase in visitors to natural health clinics for advice on MMR jabs, this does show uncertainty yet as one lady commented in the program, there is much more choice and flexibility than the past. But on the other hand, as Tim Smith pointed out, the search for alternative information other than that of an expert may have been solely for verification purposes. Perhaps what they really wanted from the exper... ...days experts, tomorrows fools (Kate Brown) Moreover, medical specialty being a key example, scientists constantly change their minds from one day to the next on what is good for us and what is not. One day a birth control pill is overconfident with the best intentions then we find out later that we have put ourselves at risk by taking it. For example, Thalidomide was a drug prescribed by doctors to combat morning sickness in pregnant women. Hundreds put their trust in the so-called experts with disastrous consequences. Despite acute denial, we are all now aware Thalidomide causes birth deformities. (Kate Brown) So, can we trust expert knowledge? It seems very clear that we cant, but do we have much choice over the matter being another question.ReferencesNature. (London). August17th 1968 (editorial) New Scientist, September 5th 1968, p.497TV05 Audio Cassette 9 side B Goldblatt, D (ed.) Knowledge and the Social Sciences Theory, method Practise, London, Routledge/The Open Universityhttp//www.unesco.org/courier/2000_04/uk/doss01.htmtopDr David Goldblatt DD100 Course Team CoChairKate Brown, Weald of Kent Grammar School. (www.culturewars.org.uk/2003-01/trustexperts.htm)www.godstruth.org/chap13