“Human behavior arises from three main sources: desire, emotion and knowledge. » - Plato These three elements of the quote really differentiate humans from other animals. Desire is what we live for and have a goal in life to achieve. Emotion is a means of knowledge, meaning we gain knowledge through emotions. Knowledge is the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Knowledge is what leads us to the destination we desire. So, without knowledge, we do not experience desire. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In our cycle of life, two things never stop flowing: time and knowledge. From our birth until our death, knowledge continues to circulate around us. We acquire and share knowledge; we acquire knowledge from different places like school, university, work, real life situations, experience etc. With so much knowledge surrounding us, the quality of knowledge is very crucial as we need to choose the right knowledge for our needs. And the big question arises: who measures the quality of knowledge? This is where authority comes in, authority can be a person or a group of people with power. There are different authorities for different areas of knowledge. The question that awaits resolution is who decides the quality of knowledge: is it the majority of people or is it the experts or authority? This also leads to a debate between experts and non-experts. This led me to ask my knowledge question: “To what extent does an authority play a role in measuring the quality of knowledge from the natural sciences and humanities?” » I have always been fascinated by studying the natural sciences and humanities, because you learn how complex nature is in the natural sciences, for example, how our bodies and brains work and how human beings respond differently to various situations; So, the title of my TOK essay will be analyzed using natural sciences and humanities. My first claim authority plays a major role in measuring the quality of knowledge, supported by the example of Ignaz Semmelweis and childhood fever. Ignaz Semmelweis was a doctor who, during his 2-year appointment as an obstetrics (childbirth-related) assistant in a teaching hospital, discovered the reason for the high mortality rates of mothers who give birth in the hospital . He found that women delivered by doctors and medical students had a much higher post-delivery mortality rate of around 13-18% (due to puerperal fever or puerperal fever) compared to deliveries by midwives and trainee midwives, only about 2%. After knowing this fact, he wanted to find the reason behind the huge differences in the mortality rate, so I will use reason as a way to find out (WOK). The reason he found was that the higher rates among medical students and doctors was that before delivery they were involved in autopsies, i.e. handling of the corpse, as well as the post-mortem examination of a corpse, which led to the spread of infections. At that time, he did not know the reason for the infection which was later discovered after the discovery of germs that spread the infection. After discoveringThis, he implemented mandatory hand washing using chloride of lime solution, which reduced the mortality rate to 2% and he further reduced the mortality rate after cleaning medical instruments. His senior, Professor Klein, a member of the academic "old guard", disagreed with Semmelweis and rejected his conclusions and gave a reason why the lower mortality was due to the new ventilation system of the 'hospital. His work was revisited two decades after his death and was accepted and credited. So, since Ignaz Semmelweis' conclusions were correct and they also contained evidence, they were not accepted, because his superior, who had the authority or power, did not accept them. His knowledge was not accepted because he did not have the power he had worked as an assistant. So, here the authority plays a major role in measuring the quality of knowledge because his superior did not accept his work, it was not accepted and then was accepted when another authority (a group of scientists) revisited his work and examined germ theory. Claiming that authority alone does not play a major role in measuring knowledge quality is supported by Phlogiston's theory. This theory was proposed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667; the theory stated that all objects that could catch fire (also called combustible objects) all contained an element called phlogiston. During the combustion process of the element, phlogiston is released, causing the burned substance to lose weight as it loses phlogiston. He proposed this theory through reason and intuition. As he wanted to find the reasons behind the combustion process that led to his intuition about a substance known as phlogiston which was later discovered to be oxygen, so I will use reason and intuition as a means of knowledge (WOK). In the early 18th century, other chemists like Georg Ernst Stahl agreed with the phlogiston theory and expanded it by stating that corrosion of metals was another form of combustion. He believed that metals in the air, when converted to calx, lost the phlogiston element, which would cause the substance to lose weight. Other experiments, carried out after the discovery of oxygen by Antoine Lavoisier, revealed that the substance after combustion would weigh more than before, which was Contrary to the theory of phlogiston, Lavoisier, with one of the discoveries of the 'oxygen, discovered that oxygen was the element always involved in the combustion process. Around 1800, other chemists recognized the validity of Lavoisier's theory of oxygen and the phlogiston theory was rejected. In this example, the authority accepted the knowledge and it was also accepted by the people, but due to other factors such as advancements over time, the theory accepted by the authority and other people has been suspended. So, here, authority alone does not play a major role in measuring knowledge quality. My second claim that authorities produce valid knowledge is supported by the Supreme Court's banning of eyewitness testimony in many countries. The United States Supreme Court prohibits eyewitness testimony in many cases. One of them is that of Darrill Henry, convicted of murdering a woman and her daughter in 2004 in New Orleans. The only evidence present for the investigation was the testimony of neighbors who claimed to have seen the incident. The Supreme Court did not allow the use of eyewitness accounts because they are considered not.