总的来说，有价值的不仅仅是困难产生的知识。在艺术领域，轻松和困难的作品都是有效的，而在科学领域，最简单的理论往往最受重视。逻辑归纳和有效推理是自然科学知识的核心。通常，最简单的理论和实验可以提供这一点，因为它们强调基本的、有效的原则和事实，而这些事实是不能被证明的，比如数学知识。即使是破坏我论文的实验，比如Fleischmann-Pons，也通过它们的简单性对科学做出了贡献。根据卡尔·波普尔的可证伪性定理，反驳假设是自然科学的核心。从Fleischmann-Pons中学到有价值的经验教训，例如科学方法的重要性。因此，无论它的有效性如何，以简单为基础的知识在科学中是有价值的。与此相反，在艺术中，知识的产生很难精确地定义为困难或简单。可以说，任何一件艺术品的创作都可能涉及到他们眼中的一种困难的技术、高推理或专业的感官感知。后来，艺术中既重视轻松又重视困难的知识。然而，难道所有的艺术都是杰作吗?如果我说创作一件艺术品对我来说很困难，这是否让我成为了一个老前辈，并把我和格里柯放在同一水平上?我的论文对自然科学的启示是，如果有困难产生的知识在较小程度上受到重视，这是否会减少有困难产生的知识?有争议的是，有困难产生的无效知识是有价值的:我们从它们广泛、严格的推理或方法上的错误中学习，并从这些改进中产生有效的知识。因此，即使是有困难产生的无效知识也不应该被完全抛弃。在艺术中，无论有无困难产生的知识都是有价值的，这使我们对什么使艺术伟大有了一个非常广泛和广泛的定义。这就最小化了知识守门人的角色，并导致我们质疑艺术中的共识。然而，如果认知方式——在波洛克的案例中，在格里柯的感觉知觉中——决定了艺术的价值，这就意味着艺术是一种思维方式，而不是一种表达方式。此外，如果像波洛克的例子那样，艺术因为打破了之前的共识而受到重视，这将严重削弱共识的作用。这让我怀疑我们是否应该质疑艺术的价值，我们是否应该仅仅为了艺术而创造艺术。
加拿大留学生paper代写:困难产生的知识
Overall, it is not only knowledge produced with difficulty that is valued. In the arts, both works produced with ease and difficulty are valid, whereas in the sciences, it is often the simplest theories are often valued the most. Logical induction and valid reasoning is central to knowledge in the natural sciences. Commonly, the simplest theories and experiments can provide this, as they stress fundamental, valid principles and facts which cannot be disproven, such as mathematical knowledge. Even experiments undermining my thesis, such as Fleischmann-Pons, contribute to science through their simplicity. According to Karl Popper’s theorem of falsifiability, disproving a hypothesis is central to the natural sciences. Valuable lessons can be learnt from Fleischmann-Pons, such as the importance of the scientific method. Hence, regardless of its validity, knowledge produced with simplicity is valued in the sciences. Contrarily, in the arts, the production of knowledge is difficult to pinpoint as difficult or simple. Arguably, one could state than any creation of an artwork involves a difficult technique, high reasoning, or specialist sense perception in their eyes. Subsequently, it is both knowledge produced with ease and difficulty that is valued in the arts. However, does this make all art a masterpiece? If I say the creation of an artwork was difficult for me, does this make me an old-master, and put me on the same level as Géricault?The implications of my thesis in terms of the natural sciences is that if knowledge produced with difficulty is valued to a lesser extent, does this diminish knowledge produced with difficulty? Arguably, invalid knowledge produced with difficulty is valued: we learn from mistakes in their extensive, rigorous reasoning or methodology and produce valid knowledge from these improvements. Therefore, even invalid knowledge produced with difficulty should not be entirely discarded. In the arts, stating that both knowledge produced with or without difficulty is valued leaves us with a very broad and inclusive definition of what makes art great. This minimises the role of gatekeepers of knowledge, and leads us to question consensus in the arts. Yet, if ways of knowing- in Pollock’s case intuition, in Géricault’s sense perception- determine the value of art, this implies that art is a way of thinking rather than a form of expression. Furthermore, if, as in Pollock’s case, art is valued due to it breaking previous consensus, this severely undermines the role of consensus. This leads me to wonder if we should question the value of art at all, and if we should instead simply create art for art’s sake.
