Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way it is, it is how we understand it - & in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history & the natural sciences.

Humanity has always used various concepts to explain the complexities of our world. However, have we ever been able to explain it as it truly is, without adding our own perspective? In the presented phrase of the Life of Pi by Yann Martel, the idea of a single fixed truth of the world is challenged. Instead, reality is seen as a blend between objective events and our subjective interpretations, shaped by our individual experiences, perspectives, beliefs, and culture. Consequently, it is considered to be unique for everyone, essentially causing them to live in their “own personal realities.”. Nonetheless, contrary to negative misconceptions, this quote demonstrates the value of this phenomenon. This is because when these individuals with diverse perspectives engage and exchange ideas, they ultimately contribute to shaping society's collective understanding of the world. However, the applicability of this concept differs between the various areas of knowledge, as for some, such as History, which significantly relies on perspectives, this idea might be partially accurate. On the other hand, for others that aim to be more objective, such as the Natural Sciences, finding the degree to which it is relatable might be more challenging. Therefore, this essay will explore the extent to which this quote applies to both the different fields of History and the Natural Sciences.

 

In the case of History, it can be said that historical events can be interpreted in various ways, where each of these alters how we, and those to whom we present this information, view the past. Its own definition of a “dynamic, contested, evidence-based discipline that involves an exciting engagement with the past” exemplifies the importance of varying perspectives in its field. For example, the Latin American Wars of Independence, such as the Peruvian one (1809-1821), were perceived by its citizens as a battle for freedom. On the other hand, for the Spanish, these might have been considered a rebellion against their established monarchy, showcasing the contrasting ideals that can be brought about by a particular event. However, these viewpoints were not only present during this period, but continue to be spread to the Latin American, Spanish, and even foreign citizens over time. Additionally, due to globalization and increased communication, the individuals of the presented regions are exposed to not only their ancestors’ views but also to completely opposite ones, such as those brought up by their “opponents.” Therefore, this gives them a more holistic understanding of the event's nature and its impact on all those involved. All of this shows how events, and thus the world, can be seen in multiple ways depending on the different understandings about it that arise. Also, it shows the value of expressing our points of view and those of others, as they allow society to comprehend reality considering multiple perspectives.

 

Moreover, this quote also holds true if we consider that as new evidence is discovered, such as archeological findings, our historical understanding evolves over the years. For instance, the discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799, an ancient Egyptian slab of stone that contained inscriptions in three scripts, discovered an unknown reality, as it allowed humans to decipher and understand hieroglyphs. Therefore, it can be said that discoveries like this have enabled humanity to comprehend the world, which continues to have many undiscovered secrets, better over time. Still, this knowledge is bound to evolve as time passes and more individuals share their perceptions about how they understand the world.

 

However, this phrase can be challenged if we highlight that some facts or principles remain universally accepted, regardless of personal interpretation. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948, is “a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.” Therefore, the fundamental rights expressed in this document, like the right to life and liberty, are equally recognized and understood by nations and cultures worldwide. This demonstrates how the outcomes of certain events remain unchanged, regardless of an individual’s background, belief, or cultural context. Moreover, it exemplifies how history can also have an objective nature and a shared global understanding.

 

All of this has shown that the proposed quote mostly holds itself true if analyzed using History as an area of knowledge, as it has shown how particular events can have multiple interpretations, which also help bring new understandings and perspectives to consider for society. Also, as humans discover new evidence, our understanding of the world we know can change drastically, depending on whether we choose to believe it or not. Nevertheless, it is also true that certain understandings about history are widely accepted across diverse contexts and remain unaltered, regardless of humanity’s subjective judgments, therefore contradicting this phrase to a certain extent.

 

In contrast, the Natural Sciences, defined as “the study of the physical world and its phenomena ... excluding social sciences, abstract or theoretical sciences,” face a completely different approach. This is because, to achieve its primary aim for objective results, it relies on empirical data and rigid procedures that help minimize subjective interpretations as much as possible. For instance, the impartial system of organization that categorizes elements according to their inherent properties, known as the Periodic Table, exemplifies something that is not influenced by human behavior whatsoever. Instead, the reason why elements in the same group share similar characteristics and chemical behaviors is not one with multiple explanations based on different perspectives but just one, which is due to the number of electrons on their outer shell. This implies that in this situation, humanity’s subjective perspective has a poor value to the knowledge that can be obtained by this tool, which helps us understand the world as it is. In fact, no matter if new scientific theories arise, this tool will always allow scientists to accurately and unanimously predict the properties of elements that have not yet been discovered solely depending on their atomic number.

 

Additionally, particularly in the field of Physics, it must be recognized that certain constants are unchanging, challenging the idea that the world is purely a human interpretation. For example, the constant of the gravitational acceleration of the Earth (g), which represents the force of gravity acting on the Earth’s elements, has been established to have a value of 9.8 m/s². This is one that has been deemed as universal and unaltered, giving scientists across the globe the ability to reach consistent conclusions. Thus, regardless of different understandings or interpretations, this remains an objective fact that will not be altered by any sort of human subjectivity.

 

However, the claim that our understanding actively shapes the world could be said to be partially true if it is considered that, as individuals and experts gather new information, scientific theories start to evolve, and even new ones start to emerge. For example, Charles Darwin developed the Theory of Evolution to explain a once-unknown phenomenon to humanity. Prior to his revolutionary research, it was unclear how species evolved and changed throughout time. However, after thorough observations and an in-depth study in the Galapagos Islands, he discovered that finches had evolved to have different beak forms and sizes to allow them to adapt to their distinct diets and environments.9 Thus, with this discovery, he introduced a logical explanation that allowed for a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between species and their ecosystems. This did not only reshape his understanding but that of all those who believed in his discovery, bringing a way to view the world in a completely new way than before.

 

Therefore, it can be seen that in the case of the Natural Sciences, this quote is mostly contradicted due to its use of established processes and constants that avoid the possibility of multiple interpretations or results from arising. Instead, it aims to leave space for one universally accepted one that individuals worldwide can use despite their background differences. However, it can hold valid for other vital factors of this area of knowledge, such as when new theories arise. This is because they have been the result of individuals who have challenged the world as it is and tried to discover its secrets, bringing new understandings to society in the process.

 

In conclusion, this question has proven highly controversial due to its multiple interpretations and applications. In History, the idea that our understanding shapes the world has been mostly supported, as acknowledging the existence of the different perspectives that can arise about a particular event has been essential for the field. Nevertheless, it has also demonstrated that some universal understandings are shared amongst most of the population, poorly affected by personal viewpoints. In the Natural Sciences, however, this exact phrase has been contradicted more easily due to the field’s aim of an objective approach and its use of fixed global standards to interpret the world. Still, it must also be acknowledged that the sciences never questioned the existing knowledge, our understanding of the world would be very different.

 

Therefore, after evaluating the arguments and evidence, I have to mostly agree that the world is indeed shaped by our understanding. In my opinion, we will always live in our own realities as a complete understanding of the objective world remains a distant goal, even for the sciences. Thus, considering our knowledge restraints, this exploration has demonstrated the importance of personal perception and open-mindedness to consider others' views. This is because, in my opinion, this constant exchange of ideas will be the best way to try to approach the truth as much as possible. Hence, over the years, even the answer to this question will vary drastically as new ways of thinking will be brought by society.

American Chemical Society. (2023). Periodic Table of Elements. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/periodictable.html

 

Burrows, L. (2021, November 12). For Darwin’s finches, beak shape goes beyond evolution. Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/11/darwins-finches-beak-shape-goes-beyond- evolution

 

HarperCollins. Natural Science. (n.d.) In Collins English Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/natural-science

 

International Baccalaureate®. (2014, August 19). History. https://www.ibo.org/programmes/diploma-programme/curriculum/individuals-and- societies/history/

 

Royal Society of Chemistry. (2023). Development of the periodic table. https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/history/about

 

Scalf, F. (2023, February 11). The Rosetta Stone: Unlocking the Ancient Egyptian Language. American Research Center in Egypt. https://arce.org/resource/rosetta-stone-unlocking- ancient-egyptian-language/

 

United Nations. (2023). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

 

University of Kent. (2020, September 10). 1809 Small Rebellions in the Andes. War and Nation: identity and the process of state-building in South America (1800-1840). https://research.kent.ac.uk/warandnation/1809-small-rebellions-in-the-andes/

 

WDC for Geophysics, Beijing. (2023). Gravity of Earth. http://www.geophys.ac.cn/infowin/Gravity.asp