Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge?

Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

The constant evolution of tools in different areas of knowledge has played a central role in

facilitating progress by improving the experts’ understanding of different phenomena. In the

natural sciences, the advancement of tools has significantly improved scientists' capacity to

observe and analyze phenomena previously inaccessible to the human eye. From the application

of simple microscopes to the exploration of galaxies through formidable space machinery, the

reach of science has been highly enhanced. In a similar manner, history as an area of knowledge

has consistently depended on the advancement of interpretive tools such as historiography,

archival research, and digital databases to improve our understanding of the past. This thus raises

a pertinent question: To what extent do improved tools in natural science and history result in the

production of knowledge that is more valid and reliable? In this instance, the term tool may be

defined as a method, technology, or system that aids in gaining, processing, and applying

knowledge about a particular field. Knowledge, on the other hand, refers to belief that is justified

and true. As such, this essay will show, through the study of natural sciences and history, that the

reliance of ever-improving tools in an area of knowledge always leads to the production of

knowledge that is of higher value.

In the context of the natural sciences, the advancement of tools has consistently yielded

knowledge that is more valid because these instruments refine the methodology through which

knowledge is generated. The scientific method, used in natural science research, involves the

identification of specific observations, the formulation of hypotheses, and empirical research

data (Kampourakis 2). In general, each step of this method is made much stronger with the

development of tools relied upon. New tools enable scientific researchers mainly to consider

more complex data and, in general, cover much broader tasks. This capability is important in

establishing patterns that might not be easily noticed through normal analysis. When these

experts use broader data, they can begin to understand the subjects under study in a better way.

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is one of the ways that innovative tools in biology have

advanced knowledge and utility in recent years. When the SARS-Cov-2 virus which causes

COVID-19 was first detected in late 2019, researchers quickly turned to next generation

sequencing to sequence its genome (Chen, Kang and Luo 4). The use of this advanced tool

provided researchers with information about the viral architecture and the genetic materials

which were vitally important during the development of diagnostic tests, treatments, and

vaccines. In weeks, the entire genome sequence was released; thus, laboratories across the globe

could develop PCR tests to identify the virus. Therefore, during the pandemic, NGS was a

valuable tool to trace the mutations and variants of the virus to see how it developed and spread.

This capability of operating and interpreting genomics data not only supported the amenability of

information sharing at the international level with the scientific community, but also ensured the

replicability of results that form the foundation of academically sound knowledge. This example
therefore underlines how better tools in biology consistently lead to the production of more

sound knowledge in the natural sciences.

On the other hand, one might make the argument that progress in tools in the natural sciences

does not always lead to an enhancement of knowledge. Although new technologies employ

increased accuracy and speed, this can pose a problem mainly due to the enhanced confounding

factors that tend to challenge the researcher when interpreting the results. This increased

complexity can lead to many complications and possible misinterpretations of data which

become barriers. However, confusion is inevitable as researchers start dealing with more

complex data and state-of-the art analysis tools. This can cause confusion in the conclusions

made, which in turn hampers the advancement of knowledge in science. An example that

illustrates this claim is the studies carried out with the help of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

and the discovery of the Higgs boson. For instance, with the setting up of LHC that generates

near about 30 petabytes of data every year and uses complicated techniques of detection,

researchers faced some complexities. The algorithms used to process the large amount of data

and the computing power required to analyze it turned the task of finding the signal in the noise

posed by background events into a very challenging one (Jenni and Virdee 279). Along these

processes, the researchers were confronted with challenges of determining the property of the

particle. Early fluctuations in the measured mass of the Higgs boson caused differing views to

physicists about the significance of the discovery and further revealed that the very aids intended

to improve clarity ultimately caused confusion. Therefore, this instance serves as an example of

how the improved detection and analysis tools that are supposed to enhance scientific research

can also bring about ambiguity in analysis and interpretation resulting in uncertain conclusions.
As such, it is evident that the improvement of tools in this area of knowledge does not

necessarily result in the improvement of scientific knowledge produced.

History

In history, the presence of ever-improving tools always results in the generation of more accurate

knowledge. This aspect is well illustrated by historiographical methods which began as mere

documentation of historical facts by historians to act as sources of information for future

societies. Over time, tools and methodological approaches of historical studies have evolved,

providing researchers with new greater and more helpful insights into the past. For example,

whereas historians used to rely on manual search mechanisms to gather primary materials, the

advancement of digital archives have completely revolutionized knowledge inquiry. This process

has enabled historians to work with sources that they would not have been able to approach

previously, either because of geographic distance, or other restrictions. This in turn has resulted

in the refinement of historical knowledge. A recent example that supports this claim is the

digitization of the “Hispanic American Newspapers” by the Library of Congress which paid

attention to Spanish newspapers published in the United States between 1808 and 1980 (Library

of Congress). Prior to this digitization initiative, historical researchers working in the field of

Hispanics were limited in their access to primary sources as many of these newspapers were

located in local facilities and were not readily accessible. The improvement of digitization

technology led to the publishing of newspapers online whereby historians and researchers were

able to study a wealth of narratives that up to then had been excluded from historical

representation. An example of such a historical event is the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s.

Besides enhancing the number of sources that can be used by historians, this project also opened

the voices of Hispanic Americans into historical inquiry. The digitization of “Hispanic American
Newspapers” is therefore an apt example of how improved tools like digital preservation

enhances history and improves knowledge on the past.

However, it could also be argued the use of ever-improving tools in history does not always

result in the production of knowledge that is more valid. Thus, the dependence of historians on

enhanced tools, including technology, means that history as an academic process can lose basic

methods of reasoning that rely on context. Much of the subtle differences between interpretations

of history may thus be hard to interpret if not for human intervention as automation tends to limit

the depth of analysis. For example, digital tools can use statistical analysis to process big data

and find patterns that can be missed by humans but lack contextual understanding that explains

those patterns. An example of this is the utilization of digital databases in the study of the trail of

tears and its relation to the Cherokees people. Scholars have quite recently utilized digitized

materials such as census records, treaties, and correspondences to better understand the removal

of the Cherokee people in the 1830s. Although these tools have proven useful in making analyses

on large datasets, details of environmental and cultural contexts are often harder to interpret. For

example, digital archives have been useful in determining the extent to which Cherokee

populations were displaced (Thornton). However, while this approach has provided measures of

displacement it has also failed to capture the real stories of individual families, the cultural

practices that were affected and the testimonies of those who were forced to make the journey.

This also explains why relying on advanced tools can turn people into mere statistics instead of

focusing on the human aspect of history. This case thus shows how better tools are indeed

helpful but can also replace traditional approaches that involve longitudinal historical analysis

and critical evaluation, to the detriment of understanding the past at a deeper level.

Conclusion
All in all, it has been clearly seen from this analysis that increasing reliance on more improved

tools in natural sciences and history consistently leads to knowledge that is more valid. For

example, in the natural sciences, the introduction of next-generation sequencing has opened up

the ability of researchers to investigate complex phenomena to a much greater extent and has

provided the scientific breakthroughs needed to improve this investigation. In the same way,

history has adopted changes in tools, which has enhanced historians’ ability to search for,

analyze and use primary resources. But it should also be pointed out that this faith in more

advanced instruments does not always result in better understanding because of issues with

regard to aspects such as interpretation. Nonetheless, despite better tools in both fields, it is

useful to bear in mind that there is always potential for tools to improve knowledge production

but there are also constraints involved. This recognition acknowledges that these developments

are two-fold in nature and shows how such progress in the natural sciences and in history entails

understanding that methodological refinement must be accompanied by the commitment to the

depth of issues and their context.

Chen, X., et al. "Next-Generation Sequencing Reveals the Progression of COVID-19." Frontiers

in cellular and infection microbiology (2021): 1-14.

Jenni, P. and T. S. Virdee. "The Discovery of the Higgs Boson at the LHC." Schopper, H.

Particle Physics Reference Library. Cham: Springer, 2020. 263-309.

Kampourakis, Kostas. "The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method." Science and

Education 25.1 (2016): 1-2.

Library of Congress. Hispanic Studies. 2024. 23 September 2024.

<https://guides.loc.gov/hispanic-studies>.

Thornton, Russell. "Cherokee Population Losses during the Trail of Tears: A New Perspective

and a New Estimate." Ethnohistory 31.4 (1984): 289-300.