“The quality of knowledge produced by an academic discipline is directly proportional to the duration of the historical development of that discipline.” Explore this statement with reference to two disciplines. “Knowledge” involves an individual's awareness of a theoretical or intellectual interpretation of a phenomenon. It takes into account several factors, such as facts, skills and descriptions. These factors are acquired through learning, experiences, perceptions or discoveries. The 'quality' of knowledge is the value we give to disciplines in relation to how useful they are to us and how good an explanation they provide for a theory. 'Historical development' is the analysis of a theory deduced through the comparison of years of development of a phenomenon. It is understood that evaluation, and therefore knowledge development, is a predominant factor that helps determine the quality of the information presented. Therefore, the crux of the matter explores the extent to which it is possible to measure the quality of knowledge solely by its historical duration, ignoring other biases. The value obtainable from a particular discipline is often determined as a product of multiple factors. These factors go beyond the limited scope of simply time invested in the discipline. For example, the course in which I have chosen to embark on my career, Medicine, is considered coveted, not only for the time required to master it, but also for its indispensability and, consequently, for the equally many resources invested in it. Therefore my decision to dedicate myself to this discipline is based on the historical development and the general framework of knowledge that derives from it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay However, how do you decide which knowledge should be considered of better quality? The investments made, both in terms of time and money, for the development of discoveries in disciplines such as Medicine demonstrate the progress of knowledge in that field. To support this statement, one can consider an example of technological advances in the field of cancer nanotherapy. A recently used method, this process meets the need for more precise treatments in a cost-effective manner. This is an evolution from the previous use of chemotherapy drugs, first used in the 1940s, which, although still widely used, are not believed to be as functional as this recent development. Applications of reasoning, along with the consensus of truth, are what ultimately produce justifiable knowledge, which is used to improve and concretize our views on the world. Accepted theories, such as Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, for example, are the best explanations available yet for how the world works. Such theories have been rigorously examined, authenticated, and used as the basis for new developing speculations. However, new methodologies can alter an individual's perception and change his or her inclination towards new knowledge produced at a relatively later date. It can therefore be agreed that more time dedicated to the historical development of a particular domain of knowledge produces more complete, and therefore better quality, knowledge. Isaac Newton's theory of "classical mechanics", constructed in the 1600s, was a simple but rewarding set of mathematical equations deemed credible enough to explain the movements of objects in space and on Earth. The theory has been applied in several studies. However, over time, the theory of Classical Mechanics wasoverwhelmed by Albert Einstein's 1900 theory of "Special Relativity". It was hypothesized that when one rearranged one's frame of reference, the evaluation of space and time also underwent a reform. Hence, Special Relativity became widely accepted and received greater interest, while at the same time providing space for further investigations along the lines of this exploration. By generating accurate conclusions, the theory was not only widely verified, but led to the creation of a new phenomenon supported by concrete explanations. Then, this example goes on to show how over time there is an incessant modification of theories and an evaluation of how these previous explanations surpass the previous one. The newly developed theory is then accepted as the norm following the evaluation carried out on this basis. As seen in the cases cited above, the historical development of disciplines tends to improve the quality of knowledge presented over time. But do time and the development of a discipline progress at a directly proportional pace? “Direct proportionality” is described as the correlation between different quantities whose values ​​increase or decrease in a corresponding ratio. Although it is clear that the historical development of a discipline is necessary for the quality of knowledge to become more precise, the direct proportionality of this association is difficult to measure. Therefore, it is easy to invalidate and/or refute. For example, when comparing the disciplines of Philosophy with Psychology, it is recognized that Psychology has achieved a position of higher value in terms of corresponding knowledge production. When a prisoner is subjected to a sentence, he does not go through a philosophical test, but rather a psychological one, simply on the basis that psychology deals with a practical application, a validation of a statement or theory, which is generally valued more in the community. While philosophy is important, its foundations in exploring the nature of knowledge existing in the world do not have as far-reaching consequences as those of psychology. Therefore, it is possible to understand why the development of knowledge in psychology proceeds at a significantly faster pace than in philosophy. But what are the variables that determine the quality of the development of knowledge over time? Several factors could explain the unusual hierarchical position between the two disciplines of psychology and philosophy that goes against the conventions of the central issue such as methodology used, evidence obtained, acceptance, belief and applicability. However, it is not possible to demonstrate that, although Psychology progresses much more rapidly than Philosophy, the quality of the knowledge produced by the discipline is directly proportional to its historical development, since this is an unattainable quantification. So how do you know if the development of knowledge in a discipline is going in the right direction, such that you can successfully determine the quality of the corresponding knowledge? The investigation into the evolutionary origins of the Figwort family was conducted by taxonomists, who compared the base sequence of three chloroplast genes. Through this experiment, it was established that much of the family was associated with the flowering plant Scrophulariaceae. Upon further examination, it was also shown that Figworts were the product of 5 different clades instead of 1.[2] This discovery led to a major reclassification after accumulated evidence and experimentation demonstrated the aforementioned. This layering provided insight into the direction to take to improve the validity of a discipline. Furthermore, factors such as a.