1. Is the value of knowledge related to how easy it is to access?

Develop your answer with reference

to two areas of knowledge.1. Religion is good for this

2. Every theory destabilizes as much as it solidifies our view of the world (Nathan Jurgenson).
Discuss.

2. A list of different ways a theory would destabilize our world view. Attempts to flesh out the view that
destabilization is wrong is wrong. Solidifies our view of the world. Maybe providing a more complete
view of phenomena beliefs. Have greater confidence that understanding is correct. What you know
about the phenomena a list of different ways a theory could solidify our view of the world. Refrain
from defining view of the world- bear in mind though that view of the world needs some meta element
to it like paradigms/meta narratives..

A theory stabilizes as much as it destabilizes as long as it does it to the same extent/as much as
(recommended). Its likely for as much as you will be hard pressed to find some metric for comparison.
Hard to tell which one does more. You need a broad understanding of both terms first. When talking
about specific examples, because they are completely different ways if you can point out why one is
more epistemically significant than the other.

Example about dinosaurs being thought of to be reptiles. Solidify our understanding of how dinosaurs
look and their homeostatic processes, but it clearly destabilizes how we understanding evolutionary
biology, upsets certain views in the world.

The term demands the essay to be at a conceptual level. Dont go through every single theory explain
the concept. Can use 1 example, however, while its easy to do that the better essays will show why
people may think it does not actually destabilize as much as it stabilizes.

The easiest way to counter is to give an example, giving an example for why people may think the
statement is correct. (try to argue)

3. Over time, knowledge has become more accurate. Discuss this statement with reference to two
areas of knowledge. Easy but common common is not bad

Depending on the kind of AOK you may talk about the prismatic theory of truth the idea of being more
accurate, hard to come up with an antithesis. Understand the word accurate is very important. Not so
ideal title TCM, math is ok history is great for this,

Complexity of social sciences (do this instead) paradigm shifts (hard to find examples)

Social Sciences?
4. Areas of knowledge have methods for testing and supporting knowledge claims. How can we know
that these methods themselves are reliable? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of
knowledge. A bit hard tangled title

Testing and supporting methods may overlap, but they not be the same. As with question 1, how you
flesh out these methods are going to be pegged to the nature of the phenomena that is being
investigated. Certain empirical methods may not be accurate for different AOKs. Define reliable well.
What does it mean for something to be reliable? To do what? If the objectives of the natural sciences
have been declared to be tied to manipulation of phenomena then reliability is respect to prediction ,
methods of testing and supporting must be reliable as in they give you theories to predict phenomena.
The goal for these testing methods, may not be always to give you something that I tied to reality.

History is trying to identify links between different events so the communist revol

The methods for supporting knowledge claims in history arent merely about being accurate- but
forming cohesive worldviews. You must understand whether a testing mechanism ive you historical
claims that help you create that cohesive narrative.

Look at the goals of creating the Knowledge claims, which are pegged to the AOKs.

Can use ethics but very hard rozier equilibrium does not make sense.

Knowledge claims about artisitic interpretation, art is built in art criticism circles.

Need to be clear that you are talking about reliability of a certain method, very objective based.

Concept of reliability is tied to objectives of AOK, any way you use to check whether methods are
reliable have to take things into account

5. The simplest explanation is the best explanation. Discuss this statement with reference to two
areas of knowledge.

5. Allows for sophistication occams razor, the one that postulates the least amount of shit.
Evolutionary scientists gets rid of God, however there are two other sides number of entities
ontologically synthesis vs syntax synthesis. God is more ontologically complicated but more syntaxtically
simple, science is the other way round. A bit hard to find examples that are simple both ontologically
and syntax

Conclusion: Look out for conditions to be fulfilled for a point/statement to be true does it apply to
both AOKs?

6. The production of knowledge seems to require creativity at every stage of the process. Discuss
this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
6. Concepts of creativity needs some novelty, how helpful do theories of creativity help you, it tries to
explain where creativity comes from. New knowledge is put together from experimentation, every state
is crucial and needs what stages of knowledge production are, just needs to be clear about the stages,
part about every needs a knowledge claim that is generated. Indigenous knowledge is the easiest
method