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.
1
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
2
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
3
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).
4
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
5
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
6
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.
7
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
* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.
