Theories about Poliomyelitis Vaccine Treatment

To commence, although the term ‘theory’ has innumerable definitions, I believe that a theory is a coherent ideology that rationally explains and illuminates a significant concept. A limitation to a theory is a distinctive situation where individuals or organizations create alternate explanations with the aim of rationally explaining and illuminating the same concept in a different manner. Moreover, I agree with the explicit knowledge claim in the title: retaining a multiplicity of theories within a particular discipline culminates in the development of a cross-pollination of ideas, which helps individuals to understand the world from several different perspectives.

I firmly believe that we understand the world through comprehending the significant conceptualizations from important academic disciplines such as Natural Sciences and Mathematics.

According to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “change is the only constant in life.” Thus, the formulation of innumerable theories ensures that our perspective on worldly affairs is congruous with the current level of scientific information and knowledge in the world. Through the Knowledge Question, “To what extent do we need reason and intuition to form multiple theories that help us understand the world from an objective perspective?” I plan to comprehensively discuss my position on the aforementioned title.
The primary Knowledge Claim that I have developed is, “Reason is an imperative factor that helps individuals form multiple objective theories that help us understand the world better.” This Knowledge Claim is best explained through the theory of spontaneous generation within the Area of Knowledge of Natural Sciences. This theory was that life could arise from decayed substances, provided there was a significant amount of vital heat.

Prior to the advancement of scientific and technical innovation in the 19th century, biologists and philosophers alike understood the world through this theory. They believed that life could arise from nonliving matter in ideal conditions. Their beliefs stemmed from the robust history of this theory, rooted in Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe, and supported by eminent individuals such as Aristotle and van Helmont. As scientific and technical innovation profusely developed, the scientific community found themselves unable to objectively verify this theory through a variety of experiments and observations. Because the scientific community at large could not use reason to verify this theory, it had a conspicuous limitation. Therefore, scientists such as Spallanzani and John Needham began to develop alternate explanations to the theory of spontaneous generation to help them better understand the origin of life.

As a result, reason is an important factor that helps individuals to form multiple theories to strengthen their understanding of the world. Because scientists could not objectively verify the veracity of this theory, individuals began to acknowledge its limitations and construct alternative explanations to help them better understand the world. Furthermore, retaining a multiplicity of theories eventually helped scientists understand the truth about spontaneous generation; Louis Pasteur disproved this theory during his “swan-neck flask” experiment in the 19th century. Hence, within the Natural Sciences, developing a multiplicity of theories through robust objective reasoning aids in better understanding of the world.

Next, the second Knowledge Claim is that “Intuition is an imperative factor that helps individuals form multiple objective theories that help us better understand the world.” This Knowledge Claim is best explained through the Pythagorean-Hippasian conceptualization of whole and irrational numbers within the Area of Knowledge, Mathematics. During the 6th Century BCE, the theory of Pythagoreanism (the notion that all numbers could be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers) spread rapidly through Ancient Europe. For several years, individuals alike believed in the veracity of this theory and understood the world through this lens.

However, numerous reports indicate that Hippasus, a strong disciple of Pythagoras, had an intuitive sense that the theory of Pythagoreanism was erroneous. Consequently, his intuition led him to believe that there were limitations in this theory, convincing him to create an alternative explanation. This alternative explanation, the notion that not all numbers could be expressed as a ratio of two whole numbers (such as the square root of two), is widely supported in modern times (conceptualized as irrational numbers). Hence, intuition is an important factor that helps us better understand the world from an objective perspective, as Hippasus’ intuition led him to form another objective theory that helped him better understand the world. In turn, this fostered the growth of the discipline of Mathematics by providing an integral concept to the aforementioned field.

However, a counterclaim to the Knowledge Claims above is that while reason and intuition are important factors that help individuals and organizations to form a multiplicity of theories to better understand the world, they are not imperative factors (i.e., other factors such as emotion can contribute to the development of a theory without the presence of reason or intuition). Even though the disciplines of mathematics and the natural sciences are predominantly objective in nature (theories and assertions can be easily proved through a series of objective experiments, observations, and other methods using empirical evidence), emotion can also contribute to the formation of a multiplicity of theories to help individuals better understand the world from an objective perspective.

Thus, the counterclaim for this Knowledge Question is that “Subjective factors, such as emotions, equally contribute to the formation of multiple theories to help individuals better understand the world.” This is seen through the robust difference in theories developed by scientists Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin in the 20th Century regarding the cure for polio. In 1955, the existence of polio created rampant and widespread complications for people, culminating in an international epidemic. At that time, the scientific community believed that there was solely one method for curing polio: by developing a vaccine using a destroyed poliovirus.

However, there was a fierce rivalry between Salk and Sabin at that time. Consequently, when Salk was the first scientist to develop a polio vaccine using a destroyed poliovirus, Sabin’s robust sense of competition and intense rivalry with Salk culminated in him emotionally rejecting the conceptualization developed by the scientific community. His intense reluctance to concede defeat to Salk meant that he developed his own theory that a polio vaccine using a live but weakened form of the virus was a more effective manner of curing polio.

Consequently, although his idea to formulate an objective conceptualization was based on a multiplicity of factors idiosyncratic from reason and intuition (such as anger, frustration, and despondency), Sabin’s vaccine was ultimately used for mass inoculations. Consequently, our understanding of polio and its vaccination is based on the retention of a multiplicity of theories. Had the rivalry between Salk and Sabin not existed, it is possible that polio could still be a widespread epidemic. Therefore, subjective factors—such as emotions—can help individuals form multiple objective theories that help us better understand the world.

In conclusion, I would like to restate the words of the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus: “Change is the only constant in life.” By retaining a multiplicity of theories to understand the world, our apprehension of multifarious topics, such as irrational numbers and polio, has vastly strengthened. Opening our minds to a multiplicity of theories allows our understanding of significant concepts to be appropriate to the level of scientific information and knowledge in the world. For example, even more effective treatments than the polio vaccine may be developed based on both Salk’s and Sabin’s conceptualizations of the ideal vaccination. Hence, I strongly agree with the title: the retention of a multiplicity of theories is beneficial for communities at large, especially scientific ones.

Lastly, in response to my Knowledge Question, I believe that we need reason and intuition to form multiple theories that help us better understand the world from an objective perspective to a vast extent (i.e., their presence is critical). This notion was developed in the first two real-life situations, where our current knowledge about the origin of life and irrational numbers stemmed from the reasoning and intuition of individuals and organizations. This prompted them to form alternative explanations that rationally explained and illuminated the same concept in a different manner. It is through Pasteur’s reasoning and the intuition of Hippasus that we currently understand the world within the academic disciplines of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. However, while the presence of reasoning and intuition is critical to the formation of a multiplicity of theories, their absence isn’t necessarily detrimental. A myriad of other factors, such as emotions, can help individuals acknowledge limitations in theory and develop their own alternative explanations that illuminate the same concept through their understanding of the world. Consequently, retaining a multiplicity of theories to understand the world encourages critical and creative thinking, promotes independent exploration, and fosters a collaborative environment.

Did you like this example?

312

13