A model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the world. In what ways may models help or hinder the search for knowledge?
NAME
IB NUMBER
Word Count: 1599
IB NUMBER
Word Count: 1599
Take one specific instant of any situation–say, for example, the moment a rocket launches for takeoff– and analyze it so that every single component of this particular instant is understood. Can it be done? In an absolute sense, it cannot. To know the process of every single atom in the launch of a rocket is an amount of information too extensive and overwhelming for the human mind to comprehend. It is also unnecessary. An understanding of the collective processes of groups of atoms, such as air resistance, gravity and trajectory, can result in a successful launch of the rocket –every single detail is not needed. These processes model the atoms, by simplifying the actions of single atoms and representing them by the nature of the group. Simplification and representation are necessary for establishing understanding.
Simplification and representation are functions performed by a model in order to help present different aspects of the world for the ease of understanding; they can help individuals gain knowledge. In the search for knowledge on the broader scale however, models hinder our ability to actively collect new knowledge. These claims are to be explored in the areas of natural and human sciences, with focus to the use of perception, reason and emotion.
We should note the difference between “knowledge” and “understanding”. Knowledge refers to established factual information based on observations made of the world around us, while understanding is the comprehension of this knowledge.
When I was first introduced to the “atom” in school, I was taught that the
Bohr-Rutherford model depicted the structure of an atom. The Bohr-Rutherford model presents each atom with protons in the centre of the model within the nucleus, and electrons located in successive circular shells extending outward from the nucleus. There are some rules for the function of the atom in this model: each shell has a finite holding capacity for electrons; and electrons only transfer from the outermost shell of the atom.
Bohr-Rutherford model depicted the structure of an atom. The Bohr-Rutherford model presents each atom with protons in the centre of the model within the nucleus, and electrons located in successive circular shells extending outward from the nucleus. There are some rules for the function of the atom in this model: each shell has a finite holding capacity for electrons; and electrons only transfer from the outermost shell of the atom.
The Bohr-Rutherford model provides us with a structure of the atom. Models are particularly useful in the area of natural sciences because they often provide the simplified representation of some aspect of the physical world so it can be studied for further application. They can represent objects that cannot be observed plainly by the human eye, like the miniscule atom or our massive solar system, and abstract concepts such as the nature of intermolecular forces. Initially, it is impossible for us to perceive such objects as they are in reality since they cannot be observed. A model can provide us with some physical representation, giving us a perception to work with when analyzing the object. We then have a means of relating different functions of the object as they would occur within the model, such as the process of chemical bonding in an atom using the Bohr-Rutherford model. Understanding is achieved through the model in a case where the object cannot be observed.
A problem arises however with the introduction of the “quantum atomic model” in later studies of chemistry. Unlike the simple Bohr-Rutherford representation, the quantum atomic model deals with orbitals and it occurs in three-dimensional space. Orbitals are no longer just circles; their shapes range from well beyond recognizable structures. After having grown accustomed to a simplified perception of the atom provided by the Bohr-Rutherford model, transitioning to an understanding of the quantum atomic model was difficult. The
Bohr-Rutherford representation simplified the concept of the atom beyond its role as a model, and thus oversimplification became a problem.
Bohr-Rutherford representation simplified the concept of the atom beyond its role as a model, and thus oversimplification became a problem.
The fault in my perception of the atom was that I understood the workings of the oversimplified Bohr-Rutherford model but not the workings of the actual object in question. This made applying a new model difficult because the foundation of my knowledge of the atom was misplaced. The fault of a model rests in its quality –its ability to provide us with a simplified perception of reality. In my case we can see that in representing reality, a model had been mistaken for reality. Once we have settled on a perception of something, it is difficult to change this perception because it is as if we are changing our view of some aspect of the world; understanding therefore becomes confined. This is particularly true for cases where the object to be modelled cannot be observed, because models are all we have for a representation of its physical form and therefore understanding may be founded entirely on a model rather than the object itself. In this way the nature of the model justifies Thomas Kuhn’s notion of crises preceding paradigms shifts in scientific knowledge –if the quantum atomic model is found to be a misrepresentation, our knowledge of the atom must be re-established on some other foundation[1].
Despite the potential faults of the quantum atomic model, we must acknowledge that without a form of representation it would be impossible to study the atom to any degree. Even with the use of technology, atoms are far too small to observe with the human eye and representation is necessary. More importantly, understanding can be achieved with a model even if the model does not have an accurate representation of the physical nature of an object. This is especially true in the case of natural science, where models are often logically created using reason based on concepts and processes rather than physical properties. The Bohr-Rutherford and quantum atomic model have one thing in common with our present knowledge of the atom, and that is the process by which electrons are transferred. This is because both models were formed to facilitate our knowledge of electron transfer. Models in this situation are a product of our ability to use reason to form a representation of something that cannot be merely observed. We use these models to strengthen our knowledge of the subject by establishing a basis from which to expand our understanding.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a psychological assessment used to classify personality types, and it serves as a model in the area of human sciences. It takes the broad and seemingly random nature of human behaviour in all people and classifies it based on the way an individual judges and perceives. The complexity of the human character is therefore simplified into sixteen different templates. These templates represent the personality of an individual by identifying their fundamental characteristics, and the conflation of these characteristics allow for more extensive descriptions of an individual. For example, my Type is the INFP (Introverted iNtuition Feeling Perceiving), which classifies me as an individual who is an idealist and a perfectionist, with a reserved exterior but deep interior[2]. It is oddly accurate. In the area of human sciences and within the field of psychology, it can be difficult to analyze with accuracy the ambivalent nature of an individual. The MBTI acts as a model that places structure to this variability. The act of classifying the human character into templates allows us to analyze a personality and further understand the behaviour of an individual. This model therefore helps to expand our understanding.
The question then is the degree to which the MBTI model can effectively represent an individual’s personality. With so many gradient factors present in the makeup of an individual, it is necessary for a model to simplify and combine these factors. Again, the fault of the model rests in its quality –it is a simplified representation, and as a model it cannot take into account all factors that are present. Though simplification is needed for understanding, elimination of too much can hinder. If variables are lost, the accuracy of the representation becomes questionable. Furthermore, in modelling the human personality, the MBTI inevitably attempts to model emotion since it is an important part of who we are. The causes of emotions are various however, ranging from our upbringings for the shaping of our emotional tendencies, to external factors which determine our immediate emotional reactions. They are yet to be fully understood and cannot be bounded in a model.
The MBTI attempts to achieve a very ambitious goal by modelling the human character. It should be acknowledged however that its results are broad and generalized because it is a simplified representation. In my opinion the MBTI is a successful model for this reason. The broadness of its results gave it accuracy in describing my personality, but it would not be able to achieve this if it attempted to be more precise in its predictions.
It should be noted that the creation of all aforementioned models required the use of previously established knowledge –knowledge of the atom based on observations through experimentation, and knowledge of human nature based on observations about character. Knowledge is needed for the creation of a model because its foundation cannot be baseless; logic and reason must be used in establishing accuracy in the structure and functions of the model. For this reason, the direct application of models do not help us progress in the search for new knowledge. However, these models are then used to establish understanding within an individual. Understanding of knowledge allows us to explore knowledge further. With understanding, we have a basis to question our knowledge and implement new means of verification which can lead to the collection of new knowledge.
Models use simplification and representation to help establish understanding. However this can lead to misrepresentation and a confinement of understanding from oversimplification. The key is to find the line between justifiable and unjustifiable simplification for the purpose of achieving understanding. When this is done, models become a useful tool in our search for knowledge.
Word Count: 1599
Bibliography
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1962.
Press, 1962.
Samuels, Andrew. Jung and the Post-Jungians. London: Routledge, 1990.
