Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.

Discuss in relations to two areas of knowledge.

000592-0049


1

Out of curiosity, I asked the guy who got a 7 in Maths HL about how does he manage to
answer those complicated questions. What he said to me that I couldnt forget was about how he
identified the concept, gathered all of the facts inside his head and integrated it together by linking
the pieces that are coherent and it became something meaningful. This is interesting because it is
kind of a similar way to how academicians search for knowledge. We cant help but seek for the
truth by looking up for facts collected and systematically arrange it into a particular order by seeing
the relations between each other. This brings me to wonder; is knowledge nothing more than the
systematic organisation of facts? To what extent must the search of knowledge be found through
systematic organisation of facts only? I will delve deeper into the subjects Natural Science and Arts,
regarding this matter. For further clarification, I will define some of the key terms. Fact is what has
really occurred after having a lot of proof and a strong evidence that it is so. The word systematic to
me is defined as there is presence of a step-by-step proper way of finding knowledge, whereas
organization on the other hand is basically the act of arranging the facts according to a certain
pattern.
When I was in high school, one thing that really excites me was how my Physics teacher
could throw out a formula that came out of nowhere and derive very basic formulae to ensure that
we would understand. It was perfectly satisfying for me because I am the kind of person who
demands an explanation for every statement. An example that can be derived is the general formula
for force which is F = ma where m stands for mass, and a stands for acceleration. For example, if
one were to forget the formula of the impulsive force, they can do so just by deriving the basic
formula which is F= ma and relating it to the another formula which is a =

. The person will

Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.
Discuss in relations to two areas of knowledge.
000592-0049


2

find out that F =

. A person has to understand the process using reasoning and organise it in a

proper way so that the interaction of facts become proper and hence, it becomes a knowledge,
something that is meaningful.
While tutoring my friend, about the equations of parabola, I have noticed she has made a
mistake by not equating to 0 while factorising. This is due to her lack of understanding of the
meaning when we do factorising.

( )

It was clear to me that understanding previous knowledge plays a huge role in forming
knowledge. Without getting the meaning of the facts in the first place, one does not know how to
relate the facts and it will be hard to systematically organise them into knowledge. Thus, knowledge
is the systematic organisation of facts. But to say it is nothing more than that, is a hasty
generalisation considering that one needs to understand the facts before successfully organising it
systematically. Natural science consists of systematic organisation of facts.
Scientific method is necessary because it is a systematic approach to ensure that the there is a
confirmation to the evidence that we have gained and to make the knowledge as certain as possible.
While systematically organising the facts, they will find a certain pattern and link the facts together
according to a certain paradigm. However, because of this paradigm, there has been many

Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.
Discuss in relations to two areas of knowledge.
000592-0049


3

occurrences when scientists have made an interpretation of these facts that they thought was
correct, but it was proved otherwise in the future. For instance, DNA has been found since 1869,
but there has been no significant findings imposed on it until 1953 (Strange Science, n.d.). DNA
was supposed to be found about 100 years ago but the scientists in 1869 were blinded by their past
experience as they thought that there is no way a small thing can carry such great information. By
utilizing imagination, it would be easier to demystify the puzzle needed to connect those facts
together in order to form knowledge. Care must be taken though to not exceed our reasoning and
imagination must be coherent with previous facts while organising them. Therefore, imagination
also plays a big role in the search of knowledge, because science can explain only the things that
they have found (Koukl, Gregory, 2013) and not what they have not found yet. Thus, knowledge is
more than merely a systematic organisation of facts because imagination, too, is important in order
to break from paradigms that can be knowledge filters (H. Bauer, 1995).
What about arts? Is art nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts? Does it
even have facts to begin with? I agree to some extent that it has facts as it can be found through
the music notes seen on the music score. It is a known fact that the note G# is a form of sound
represented by symbols. What differs music than noise is the fact that it is organized. In fact,
Professor David Cope (Tech Closeup, Music Professor, 2007) has used a computer programme
in order manipulate the notes from the songs created by the famous musicians such as Mozart
and Beethoven. By seeing the pattern from the previous songs, he could find the relations
between each of the music and systematically organise the facts (which is the music notes
published) to re-create a song that could be produced by Mozart if he were to live today.

Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.
Discuss in relations to two areas of knowledge.
000592-0049


4

Therefore, there is a systematic way to build up the knowledge by using facts (ie music created
by famous musicians).
Although arts can be the systematic organisation of facts, it consists of a lot more. It can
be the systematic organisation of expressions, ideas, and others. Surely, there is a specific
technique to make a specific art. There are some ways to create art through tutorials, such as TV
shows like Art Attack, but to produce an art, one does not necessarily have to follow the same
way. Example of technique that I was taught in my art class was the tone technique where the
darkest colours needed to be coloured and followed by lighter colours in my colouring book.
This technique was deemed nice to my teacher. However, if everyone were to follow the same
exact way to produce an art, wouldnt there be lack of originality? Different artists use emotions
which are unique to other people to create their own style. This is what makes their work of art
special. Hence, arts is more than the systematic organisation of facts, but its not as rigid as other
areas of knowledge and can be unsystematic too.
Apart from knowledge in arts being systematically organised, I do think in order to gain
knowledge in arts is through experience and trial and error. As a violinist in my school orchestra,
I found myself learning through observation and repetition while learning how to read the notes.
I used to take music classes a while ago which teaches me how to play by scales. Unfortunately,
I am unable to catch up with what is taught theoretically. When I commit self-learning, through
my sense of perception, I am able to detect if I played it wrongly using my sense of hearing,
reason out that the further the finger is from the tip implies higher notes, and feel if the music is
being played according to the score. There is a friend of mine who is able to compose a music
score randomly, but he does not even know the basics of writing music! This is done by using his

Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.
Discuss in relations to two areas of knowledge.
000592-0049


5

own intuition and emotion, so by basically unifying those feelings coupled with his sense of
perception which is listening, he managed to produce a work of art that is brilliant. So,
knowledge is more than the systematic organisation of facts because it consists of experience and
intuition.
As a knower, I found that there are huge overlaps between different areas of knowledge.
Realize it or not, knowledge gained on arts are mostly derived from the concepts of Physics.
Why do we need to vibrate our fingers as we put it on the strings of the violin, and why do we
need to set a certain aperture on the SLR camera to get the best shot. An artist and a scientist
have different views and interpretations on building up knowledge due to the nature of their
subjects. An artist would consider practicing at different angle, and the skill can be sharpen
through experience. On the other hand, a scientist uses his reasoning to estimate the angle, the
brightness and other things to produce a perfect picture. Thus it can be concluded that,
knowledge is a systematic organisation of facts but it depends on the system that which we are
using. Despite of them being organised in a certain area of knowledge, they still have connection
between each other.
In conclusion, knowledge is build up through systematic organisation of facts. However,
understanding and imagination are important in order for the knowledge to be built up and
knowledge too consist of more than just mere systematic organisation of facts. In a more
objective part of the knowledge continuum, natural science is more likely a systematic
organisation of facts due to its nature of finding the truth through verifying facts, rather than arts,
the most subjective knowledge is more than just systematic organisation of facts. Through facts
and other matters integrated together systematically, knowledge can be formed dynamically.

Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organisation of facts.
Discuss in relations to two areas of knowledge.
000592-0049


6

(1590 words)






Bibliography
Websites
1. Strange Science, (n.d) Science Channel Retrieved 12 Jan. 2014, from
http://science.discovery.com/strange-science/10-science-mistakes.htm
2. Koukl, Gregory (2013) What Science Can't Prove. Stand to Reason. Retrieved 12 Jan.
2014, from http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.UtJqALTh0po
3. H. Bauer, Henry (1995), Knowledge Filters. In Ethics in Science Retrieved 1 Jan 2014,
from http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/hbauer/hbauer-filter.html
4. Tech Closeup: Music Professor. (2007)YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved 12 Jan. 2014
from, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFImmDsNGdE