“Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge”.
When I was a child, I never really understood the difference between a replicated work and an original one, and I was constantly confused about it. I used to think it was pointless to replicate something if it was going to appear precisely like the original piece, but as I got older, I realized how replication may influence how people perceive the original work. I began to realize that if replication is applied properly, people can learn a lot. All this curiosity led to the beginning of my research. As a result, I was able to clarify my concept of the definition. Replicationcan be described in a variety of ways, such as a duplicate or an identical copy.[1]This highlights the question of whether replication is necessary to produce knowledge.However, few scientists say that the goal of replication is to improve concepts by evaluating current concepts with new data. It seems, that when present understanding is at its weakest, replication may be most effective. Theory advances through fits and starts, due to concept breakthroughs, unexpected findings, and a patchwork of evidence.[2] If I define replication in terms of human sciences and the arts, it is the performance of an experiment or the procedure of the same thing more than once to achieve the desired results. To make the necessity of replication in the AOKs of Human Science and Arts more clearly understood,I would want to delve deeper into these AOKs, starting with the human sciences in the discipline of psychology.