In areas of knowledge such as arts and science,do we learn more from work that follows or breaks convention??

Question

THIS IS AN ESSAY FOR MY TOK (THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE) IN MY IB DIPLOMA... NEED SOMETHING PRETTY DEEP AND THOUGHT PROVOKIN'. NOT TELLING YA GUYS TO DO MY HOMEWORK HAH...BUT PLZZZ HELP...IM RUNNING OUTTA TIME...SOMETHING IN DETAIL. PLZZZ SHARE YUR IDEAS AND EXAMPLES THAT FOLLOW OR DISAGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT..... ID REALLY APPRECIATE IT.....!!!!

THX GUYZZZ.....GOD BLESS YU...

using i guess examples in the past tht were not accepted but eventually accepted thru' research etc etc.....which led to true knowledge. i need such examples.....my brains a dust bowl nw...

thx ha...appr it'

Answer 1

I believe that the expansion of knowledge comes from those who break with "tradition" and go out in a slightly different direction. If one always complies with the "norm," then there is no room for further growth and development of ideas and no way to explore a hypothesis that disagrees with some pre-established idea or theory. While you are doing the research for your paper, look at things that we take for granted in our everyday lives. . .the telephone for example. Trace its history backwards and look at the people who said that Mr. Bell was off his rocker for thinking that he could transmit his voice over a wire to some far off place...Whoops! now had Bell listened to them and believed what they said to him and about him, we'd still be sending smoke signals hoping that the wind didn't blow them away!!

Good luck with your paper!!

Answer 2

Work that breaks convention usually provides new insight into things ands areas that we never thought contained areas of interest to begin with. Who knew that perfect circles and squares painted single colors could be so widely accepted by the art community? who knew that paint slots and splashes like those of Jackson Pollock could be so artistic, when even a child can do it? (the reason is that his art questions the idea of art. what is art really? does it HAVE to be something life-like or pretty? or can it be anything that creates emotion in the viewer? art does not neccesarily have to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it can enrage you, THAT is what the really modern "paint splots" and "plain squares" are about)

however, work that follows convention can be just as thought provoking because if it has just the right touch, it can make us realize that we are moving in the wrong direction altogether. consider this haiku:
"the pretty flower
it is just so beautiful
growing in the sun"

it is just like every other haiku- praising nature and how beautiful it is. what about a haiku that breaks convention?
"a turlte swims by
it is extremely ugly
but it is nature"

or

"the winter trees are
reaching for the skies like a
buck naked cowboy"

can these too be just as insightful?

Answer 3

Bro, firstly, why are you wasting all of your time in college??? Money will not buy you happYness. Nor can you tow a U-Haul behind a hearse. You've got a mind, use it for good.

Your answer...works that follow WITH breaks in convention lead to progress. It's like the branches of a tree. Separate up close but together from a distance.

Ciao!!!

Answer 4

We certainly encounter growth and chart new paths of thought through that which breaks convention. But I'm not sure as much if its done for its own sake as much as if its a happy coincidence that something naturally flies in the face of the norm (true originality.)

Answer 5

you could only learn once you attempt something distinctive. in case you only blended an analogous quantity or form of chemicals jointly, then you might on no account understand what else you're able to make. In Arts you're able to desire to test besides on what works and does not paintings. you need to would desire to restart a drawing 5 tens of millions cases beforehand you get the wonderful composition. ((i'm hoping it somewhat is what you have been asking, and sturdy luck!))

Answer 6

It took two bicycle mechanics to do the first heavier than air flight. Here's what the scientists were saying at the time:

http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." -Albert. A. Michelson, speech given in 1894 at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab,
Univ. of Chicago,

"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere."
- Thomas Edison, 1895

"Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to to its true progress."
- Sir William Siemens, 1880, on Edison's announcement of a successful light bulb.

"We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."
- Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.


"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin, ?1900?


"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible." - Simon Newcomb, 1902.


"The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the
demonstration of any physical fact to be." - astronomer S. Newcomb,
1906


"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily
in high schools." - 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.

"This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialization will carry scientists."
-A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926

"Space travel is utter bilge!" -Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wolley

"The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]...presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed
impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually
accomplished."
-Sir Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E.
Cleator's "Rockets in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936

"Space travel is bunk" -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik

"Don't use quotations. Tell me what you know." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Answer 7

Works that follow convention strengthen knowledge, enlarge it. Works that break convention open qualitatively new scopes of knowledge, which then undergo of-course strengthening and enlarging by the following works.
So I think we learn equally from both kinds of works, they are logical parts of the knowledge itself.

Answer 8

I believe that depends on your perspective. I believe work that breaks convention makes more headlines but work that follows convention keeps society stable and supports the foundation of life as we know it and therefore is probably more important.

Answer 9

to enlarge on the announcement Quote Re: Edisons lightbulb.

Thomas Edison was afraid of the dark .

Perhaps we learn more from happenstance.