“In knowledge there is always a trade-off between
accuracy and simplicity.” Evaluate this statement
Thesis
To really know about a subject, you must acquire knowledge in depth
Simplicity in terms of knowledge means knowing little. Ergo, simplicity equals mediocrity
There Is however, a relationship between simplicity and accuracy.
When transmitting information, you must be as simple as you can to
transmit the most ammount of info possible
Possible Counter Arguments
Sometimes knowing the essence of a subject, you are equally understanding the
whole subject. And therefore, in this case, being accurate means to be concise
There is a great correlation between Accuracy and simplicity. Being accurate means to be
precise. To be specific. To do that, you need to keep your ideas quite simple...
History
To be accurate about History, you must learn in depth the details. And in this case
there is no correlation between accuracy and simplicity
Example: to know about the second world war, I must know first about Hitler´s story,
the German Historic context (Versailles treaty for example) and the possible reasons for
a war to storm Europe as it did
Ways of knowing:Language,
Memory
Natural siences
You must know full procedures and reasoning to understand certain laws. Or even to
understand man- made conclusions. No simplicity is allowed
Ways of knowing: Reason, Memory, Language, Intuition
Example: You must know and understand in depth the
scientific method to be able to use it
To what extent there is a correlation between accuracy
and simplicity linked to knowledge?
Can simplicity and accuracy be combined when acquiring knowledge?
I what extent is acquiring knowledge something that has to be done with simplicity or accuracy?
Reasons that I´m Interested in the Title
I consider it relevant to two Areas of Knowledge that I am
particularly interested about
It is quite easy to discuss wether if accuracy is linked to simplicity or not
Accuracy and Simplicity can be confused very easily. And I would like to attempt to differenciate them