TOK – To what extent is objectivity possible in the production or acquisition of knowledge?

Object 1. Auction of Souls, Ravished Armenia

Apfel, Oscar, director. Auction of Souls. Ravished Armenia, First National Pictures, 19 Jan. 1919,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTnCaW-Uo_s. Accessed 2022.  

The following scene is from a silent film entitled Ravished Armenia or Auction of Souls. It is based on the memior written by Aurora Mardiganian, a survivor of the Armenian Genocide. Occurring during the World War One, it depicts the atrocities of the genocide committed by the Ottomans from the perspective of an Armenian woman.

Having this cinematic picture be a product of a firsthand account has its merits, in terms of the accuracy a perspective of someone actually involved in said events would have in retelling the most basic circumstances of the event. However, recollections increase in complexity as opinion and bias are factored in. As a sufferer of the genocide, Mardiganian stands in condemnation of the atrocities committed during the period, and her inability to distance herself from forming opinions out of tragedy is clear. Objectivity in this context can only be achieved when one can approach a situation without factoring in any bias that may stem from human emotion. Thus, the objectivity of Mardiganian’s experience is practically nonexistent, save for the few larger-picture descriptions that can be corroborated over multiple sources. This may be seen as a devaluation of her account, but it must be noted that the subjective, personal details are what attract the audience to her story, therefore, pure objectivity was never the aim.

In an effort to properly represent Mardiganian’s account whils simultaneously attracting audiences to view the film, the movie falls short in terms of its objectivity in the depiction of the Armenian Genocide. This object was deemed appropriate for inclusion in this exhibition as it manages to demonstrate an instance where objectivity, although severely limited in the production and acquisition of knowledge, does not discount the quality of the object itself.

Object 2. “Experiments on Plant Hybridization”: Gregor Mendel’s Pea Plants

Mendel, Gregor. “Versuche Über Pflanzen-Hybriden.” 1866, https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.61004.  

Gregor Mendel, a celebrated scientist in the field of genetics laid the foundation for the basic principles of heredity by dedicating his life to breeding and studying thousands of pea plants. Through careful observation, he was able to discern which traits were passed onto the next generation and which traits remained only with the parent. Above is the original journal in which he initially published his findings. I first became accustomed to his contributions in my Biology HL class during our genetics unit, when we were learning about dominant and recessive genes.

Although his contributions are applicable to various modern biological theories, it has been revealed that in his endeavors to acquire new knowledge in this discipline, he allegedly falsified his data to better correspond with his preconceived notion of what the outcome of his studies should be. These assertions arise primarily from the fact that Mendel’s published data contained no extreme deviations from the expected trend, a phenomenon almost unheard of when performing experiments so extensive when factoring in human error and uncontrolled variables.

Mendel’s postulations, though accurate, were built upon his unconscious biases. Because he had a preconceived notion of how the pea plants were supposed to behave in terms of their heredity, the approach should have severely limited the accuracy of the theories derived from the results. Mendel succumbed to ignorance and sought knowledge with a fixed endpoint in mind, a dangerous pursuit when attempting to derive truths in the world of science.  Although approaching the experiment with objectivity would have likely led to similar if not the same results due to the basis of genetic theory, internal influences prevented such occurrences, therefore leading to flawed data. Mendel’s falsification provides a real life instance where objectivity could have been achieved in an experiment, but subjectivity prevailed.

Object 3. The Sting of the Wild: The Schmidt Sting Pain Index

Schmidt, Justin O. The Sting of the Wild. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016. 

The Sting of the Wild, written by entomologist Justin O. Schmidt, was a work published in 2016 that contains the most recent version of the scientist’s famous “Schmidt Sting Pain Index,” a system of classification utilized to categorize pain caused by the sting of different insects. Over the course of his career, Schmidt managed to record the stings of 83 different Hymenoptera through personal experience, ranking sensations on a scale from 1–4 (“Stung By 83 Different Insects”).

Through the attempted synthesis of a pain scale that is as applicable as possible for all members of the general public, approaching the stings with a high degree of objectivity is vital. The detriment to the validity of Schmidt’s scale is that the concept of pain is entirely subjective, being predicated on human interpretation and including the differing tolerances of individuals. Thus, Schmidt’s evaluation of an insect with a pain level of “1” could vary immensely from someone else’s. Though the book itself was not the original source of the publication of the index, it was chosen for this exhibition as it demonstrates Schmidt’s continuous efforts to make the scale as objective as possible. Namely, this version contains descriptions of the physical sensations of the stings, which contribute to its findings’ applicabilities.

Because this index is comparative in nature, requiring obvious benchmarks to make its ratings, the further Schmidt would have striven to acquire new knowledge in regards to this subject (through experimentation with a wider array of Hymenoptera), the more objective his scale would have been. Though practically impossible, Schmidt’s specific pain tolerance could have even acted as a controlled variable contributing to the objectivity of the experiment, had he managed to rate every single type of insect sting eligible to be on the index.

Schmidt’s efforts to increase the objectivity of the scale bring it closer on the spectrum to pure objectivity, but certain limitations dictate that that may never be achieved. Similarly to Mendel’s experiment, an entirely objective approach would have led to the best results produced, but like Ravished Armenia, unavoidable human subjectivity resulting from personal judgment limited the acquisition of this knowledge through sole objectivity.

References

Staff, NPR. “Stung by 83 Different Insects, Biologist Rates His Pain on a Scale of 1 to – OW!” NPR, NPR, 15 May 2016, https://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477852486/stung-by-83-different-insects-biologist-rates-his-pain-on-a-scale-of-1-to-ow.