Submit your order instructions

Get essay writer assigned

Receive your completed paper

Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge?

This IB Theory of Knowledge essay, based on ToK Essay Titles – May 2023, explores the necessity of replicability in the production of knowledge, with a focus on the natural and human sciences. The essay investigates whether the ability to replicate research findings is essential for establishing valid knowledge, using examples from various scientific fields. Through a critical examination of studies and theories, this ToK essay highlights the complexities and debates surrounding replicability, offering insights into how different disciplines approach and value this concept.

September 18, 2024

* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.

Is Replicability Necessary in The Production of Knowledge? Discuss with Reference to Two

Areas of Knowledge

Institution

Student’s Name

Course Title

Instructor’s Name

Date of Submission

Is Replicability Necessary in The Production of Knowledge? Discuss with Reference to Two

Areas of Knowledge

Replicability has been considered a foundational aspect of knowledge inquiry for the past

few centuries, particularly in the sciences. For different types of research, the credibility of

experimental results that cannot be replicated, particularly within an empirical setting, is often

undermined. This also applies to other areas of knowledge (AoKs), where establishing the

replicability of research findings has been crucial for determining errors in the knowledge

produced. However, knowledge inquiry is not always a perfect process; aspects such as bias and

lack of absolute truth cannot jeopardize the replicability of knowledge. This thus begs the

question of whether replicability is a prerequisite for the justification of valid knowledge within a

specific AoK. This is what the prescribed title is inviting us to examine. Within this context,

replicability will be defined as the ability of scientific experiments or trials to be repeated by

experts to obtain consistent results. Is replicability required for the justification of knowledge

produced? This essay will seek to establish that replicability is a necessary component in

knowledge production by examining the natural and human sciences.

Natural Sciences

Replicability is a necessary factor in the knowledge production process in the natural

sciences because it facilitates the independent verification of data and is also considered a

significant principle of scientific research. In the scientific method, there are self-correcting

mechanisms such as replicability that strengthen the validity of evidence and findings by

ensuring that other researchers are able to reproduce the findings of a specific study. For

example, John Ioannidis, a Stanford University, medical researcher, highlights the significance of

replicability by arguing that its necessity does not only stem from scientists trying to justify the

‘correctness of results’ but also guaranteeing the transparency of what transpired in a specific

line of research (Ioannidis, 2014). Therefore, across the natural sciences, research is considered

valid when an independent team is able to replicate a published experiment. Replicability can

therefore be considered a significant part of scientists’ process of building evidence that supports

accepted theories. In the field of physics, the significance of replicability can be illustrated by the

fact that a century after Albert Einstein presented the general theory of relativity to the scientific

community, experts are still replicating his tests to establish the validity of his predictions

(Norton, 2015). This has allowed experts to find, for example, where Einstein’s description of

gravity tends not to apply. Based on this information, it can be surmised that different disciplines

in the natural sciences rely on replicability because it allows credibility to accumulate through

independent replication, which makes it a necessity within this field.

Alternatively, one can also argue that replicability is not a necessity in the natural

sciences because it is not the sole factor that determines the justification of knowledge. Due to

aspects such as the limitations associated with the empirical method, it is evident that scientific

theories can completely be determined by replication. In some cases, while the scientific

community has accepted some theories and studies, their findings cannot be replicated. In recent

years, this issue has attracted considerable interest within the field of science, with various

studies producing evidence that shows that research might not always be reproducible. For

example, in a 2016 survey conducted by Nature, the researchers revealed that in biology alone,

70 percent of researchers failed to replicate the findings of other experts. Moreover,

approximately 60 percent of these researchers could not reproduce their findings (Baker, 2017).

Even in disciplines such as physics, replicability has been shown to be a problem due to the use

of different methods and measurements. For instance, when it comes to the expansion of the

universe, two groups of scientists have produced vastly different values, with one reporting that

the universe is expanding at a 9 percent quicker rate than the other (Panek, 2020). This has

created a great puzzle for scientists, with some terming that the discrepancies being reported to

highlight why the nature of science complicates replicability. This research shows that

replicability is not necessary when it comes to knowledge production in the natural sciences.

Human Sciences

In the human sciences, replicability is considered a benchmark upon which the reliability

of findings or experiments is established and is, therefore, a necessity in knowledge production.

Replicability has continuously been cited as one of the foundations of the scientific method. As

such, the basic principle for knowledge production within this AoK is that an independent

researcher should be able to replicate experiments under similar conditions and ultimately

achieve the same result. Replicability, in this context, acts as a guide to whether experiments or

findings contained any inherent flaws and whether the initial researcher paid due diligence to

aspects such as the nature of the experimental design. Therefore, reproducibility is considered

vital for fostering credible and robust research and for the promotion of scientific advancement.

The significance of replicability can be highlighted by a series of studies that started in the mid-

twentieth century by psychologist Walter Mischel referred to as the ‘marshmallow test’ studies.

In these experiments, Mischel found that children as young as four could resist the temptation of

indulging on marshmallows placed in front of them to hold out for a more substantial reward in

the future, i.e., more marshmallows. This experiment proved that when these children grew

older, they were more likely to earn higher incomes and finish college. Since the late 1960s, this

experiment has been replicated by different researchers. These studies reported that individuals

who deferred gratification were more likely to receive higher SAT scores and become more

competent (Watts, Duncan, & Quan, 2018). While, in a sense, these experiments might seem

simplistic, they highlight the significance of replicability in the human sciences and why it

should be considered a necessity.

To counter this claim, it could be argued that the nature of the human sciences ensures

that replicability is not necessary for knowledge production. While this analysis has indicated

that replication is considered a cornerstone of the scientific method, direct replication studies are

particularly rare in fields such as psychology and sociology. These disciples are much more

complicated because researchers have to rely on organisms such as human beings, which often

exhibit a huge amount of variation when it comes to aspects such as behavior. For example, in

2015, scientists attempted to replicate 100 psychology studies, with the researchers only being

able to replicate fewer than half of the studies (Handwerk, 2015). What this project showed that

replicability is a problem that plagues the human sciences. In addition, scientific truth in the

human sciences is not absolute but contingent on aspects such as context, time and method used.

A factor such as time can create a different context for behavior, creating different experiences

during the process of experimentation and rendering psychological phenomena innately variable.

Therefore, this shows that replicability is not a prerequisite in terms of knowledge production in

the human sciences.

Conclusion

All in all, this analysis has been able to establish the claim that replicability is necessary

for both the natural and human sciences, particularly in reference to knowledge production.

Replicability has been shown to aid data integrity in these different fields by ensuring that

through repeated experiments, research or studies, the scientific community can confirm the

validity of a particular discovery and facilitate scientific advancement. In terms of knowledge

that has formulated a consensus, the most certain knowledge is that which has been replicated

several times. However, it is essential to highlight that in some cases, such as the social sciences,

replication is not necessary for determining validity. Due to factors such as methodological

difficulties and sheer impracticality, replication is not possible. Regardless of this, these studies

are still accepted by the scientific community.

References

Baker, M. (2017). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(1), 452-454.

Handwerk, B. (2015, August 27). Scientists Replicated 100 Psychology Studies, and Fewer Than

Half Got the Same Results. Retrieved from Smithsonian Magazine: https://

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-

and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Medicine, 11(10),

e1001747.

Norton, J. D. (2015). Replicability of Experiment. Theoria, 30(2), 229-248.

Panek, R. (2020). A cosmic crisis. Scientific American, 322(1), 32-37.

Watts, T., Duncan, G., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual

Replication Investigating Links Between Early Gratification Delay and Later Outcomes.

Psychological Science, 29(7), 1-33.

September 18, 2024

24/7 custom essay writing by real academic writers

WPH

Academic level:

IB Student

Type of paper:

IB ToK Essay

Discipline:

Natural and human sciences

Citation:

APA

Pages:

6 (1600 words)

Spacing:

Double