Aubree Strickland

Chambers
TOK
4 September 2014
Belief, Doubt, and Discovery
By doubting we are led to enquire, and by enquiry we perceive the truth an insightful
quote by the French philosopher Peter Abelard. I believe it to be true, but is it true all the time?
There have been cases throughout history in which doubt leads to truth, but there are also times
in which truth is discovered through belief. So is it skeptics or believers who lead us to the light?
Well, some of the first foundational discoveries came about through doubt. In the age of
the New Worlds first colonization, it was universally accepted that the earth was flat. Soon,
however, people began to question this. How could one sail endlessly yet never reach an edge?
And how had no ship yet fallen over this edge? With these doubts in mind, scholars began to
enquire more deeply into the matter, and found answers which seemed largely impossible yet
seemed scientifically correct. These ideas were met with great dissent in the beginning but were,
as we see, eventually unanimously accepted. So, was it the dissenters or the hopeful scientists
who facilitated this discovery? The easy answer would be, of course, the scientists that put in the
research and intellect. But it isnt so simple. The scientists themselves started as dissenters of the
traditional theory.
Another, more recent example is that of continental drift. This idea arose more from
study than dispute over a current theory, because there was not an exact standard. It was akin to
someone suddenly suggesting that the sky was not blue. The earth did not make such massive
changes it simply always had been and always would be. But intellectuals who studied the
earth and its foundations began to notice strange things, such as the earths continents looking as
though they might fit together like puzzle pieces. This idea, too, was scoffed at to begin with.
Now, we have instruments to measure such things and give us what we call indisputable proof.
Now, we might say we can measure everything, but there will never be a state in which
science is fully evolved: it is always changing. Yet, it is always constant. The way that nature
works does not change, but simply our perception and understanding of it. Looking at things
thus, we could say that simple human emotion and intellect control science.
So, then, did the belief in extraterrestrial life lead to the discovery of water on mars? And
did doubt in traditional belief lead the tomato becoming a fruit? Or the revocation of Plutos
planetary status? Well, both aspects of human nature are needed in order to allow discovery. The
idea of something new instigating belief, and then previous beliefs drawing doubt it is the
endless cycle of human knowledge.