“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.
One of the aspects that occurs in most psychological experiments is replication. “Replication in terms of psychology is to describe the repeating of research work, generally with new participants and subjects, to test if the original study’s key results can apply to them. Replications of experiments with high reliability will not reveal any new advances, but replications with low reliability potentially reveal a variety of theoretical advances because of new knowledge production”.[3]
For instance,“Asch conducted a lab experiment in which 50 male college students from the United States took part in a “visual assessment.” Group pressure contributed to the participant’s wrong response in a line assessment exercise when the answer was obvious. Although the answer was usually obvious, the results indicated that participants chose the majority response at least once. According to Perrin and Spencer, the importance of obedience and conformity has altered, as has the status of students. This indicates that there is a clear production of knowledge through the replication of this psychological experiment, as the results of the replicated study differ from the original study, which could be due to cultural differences, and students nowadays, unlike unnoticed members of society in the 1950s America, are empowered to ask questions. while the replication is being done over 30 years later”. This also implies that the study’s low experiment reliability is one of the key responsibilities in the production of new knowledge.[4]
However, the 40 male volunteers in Stanley Milgram’s most famous experiment were told that the study’s principal goal was to investigate the interplay between punishment, learning, and memory. The researcher next introduced each participant to a stooge, informing them that they were also participating in the study. The experimenter instructed the participants to take an exam in which the teacher tested the learner on learning and recalling pairs of words. As the teacher would increase the voltage of the shock with each mistake, the learner would pretend to cry in pain.[5] According to the results, Milgram discovered that most participants continued to give the shocks despite hearing the learner and some even continued to give shocks till the maximum voltage was finished.[6] At Santa Clara University, Jerry Burger replicated Milgram’s study in 2009, however with some updated measures in place such as keeping the maximum voltage lower, etc. According to Burger’s findings, participants obeyed at a very similar rate to Milgram’s study.[7]
This counterclaim makes it quite evident that replicating this experiment does not produce any new knowledge, as the results of the original study and the replicated study are similar. This is due to the experiment’s high reliability and validity.
The production of knowledge entirely relies on the validity and reliability of the original study. When discussing replication in the AOK of art, for example, Replicating ancient paintings. “Generations of painters at China’s Dunhuang Academy have replicated nearly 2,000 artworks and more than 50 polychrome pieces from the Mogao cave temples. These artists explore their ancient ancestors’ inner lives by replicating their works in the time-honored Chinese artistic tradition, hoping to recreate both the final product and the original creative process. An unintentional fingerprint impression was once found in a mural by a co-worker while they were exploring a cave from the fourth century. The biometrics, which appeared to be the result of a painter touching a freshly painted wall before it had completely dried, was quickly covered over by colors, but the imprint persisted. Theory suggests that this pattern was left by a mentor from the Western Regions (Xiyu), or perhaps further away, based on the antiquity of the cave and the way it was created. They frequently felt that they were having direct conversations with old masters when working on paintings and drawings with their backs to the wall in the quiet darkness of the cave.
As increasingly absorbed into the wall paintings their replicating skills improved, eventually becoming engrossed in the technical skill and creative spirit of the original pieces. They were taken back in time as they alternated among the mental states of self (wo), self-forgetting (wangwo), and no-self while working (wuwo). In the broader context of artistic expression, replication is sometimes perceived as uninspiring imitation and is occasionally ridiculed, if not openly rejected. Because of the characteristics of Chinese painting, however, replicating is a crucial instructional tool for understanding the set of guidelines that govern the artwork”.[8]
Thus, replicating an ancient artwork benefits the production of knowledge since it allows the artists to see the techniques they adopted and critically analyze their work. and putting into practice the ideas they have drawn from other ancient masters.
As a counterclaim, there are Replica goods. Replica items include first/close duplicates of original products. They are also known as knockoffs and are recognized as exact replicas of well-known products. As a result, despite their uncanny resemblance to actual artifacts, they are not advertised as such. Because replica items lack the trademark of the trademarked product, they are seen as being authentic replicas. Therefore, even if a replica of a well-known or branded product may have the same features and functioning, it typically has a distinct symbol or emblem that is admittedly like the original. Indeed, replicating goods or products does not result in the production of knowledge.[9]
Another example that can be given as a counterclaim is Forgery. Forgery is the act of creating, manipulating, or copying items or documents. Forgery is even viewed as an art form in some sectors. People are hired to forge in most parts of the world. Forgery is also considered a crime. As an outcome, if forgery is considered permissible or unacceptable depends solely on its desired target. Currency, paintings, papers, certificates, and identification documents are some of the most counterfeited items. Forgeries are frequently linked to other types of fraud such as check, insurance, or application fraud. Forgeries can also be done electronically in a less traditional way, such as the establishment of false personal profiles on social media platforms or the manipulation of emails. As a result, the act of forging does not produce knowledge since no matter how many times you duplicate the original commodities, such as signatures or fake documents, it does not produce any new data at the end of the day.[10]
This leads me to the conclusion “that replication is not always necessary for the production of knowledge” since there are instances in which replication may be pointless, such as extremely reliable experiments, forgeries, and replica products. However, this does not imply that it is always useless; there are instances where replication is advantageous, such as with low reliable experiments and ancient artworks where there is a lot to learn by replicating the original. I would want to conclude my essay by stating that to produce knowledge replication is not always necessary. It is helpful in certain situations but not all, that certainly relies on the context.
References
[1] “Definition of REPLICATION.Www.merriam-Webster.com, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replication”.
[2] “Nosek, Brian A., and Timothy M. Errington. “What Is Replication?” PLOS Biology, vol. 18, no. 3, 27 Mar. 2020, p. e3000691, 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691”.
[3] “Cherry, Kendra. “Why Many Psychology Studies Fail to Replicate.” Verywell Mind, 24 May 2020, www.verywellmind.com/what-is-replication-2795802#:~:text=When%20studies%20are%20replicated%20and”.
[4] “Mcleod, Saul.Asch Conformity Experiment.Simplypsychology.org, 28 Dec. 2018, www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html.”
[5] “Hopper, Elizabeth. The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order? ThoughtCo, 17 Dec. 2019, www.thoughtco.com/milgram-experiment-4176401.”
[6] “Mills, K.I. More Shocking Results: New Research Replicates Milgram’s Findings. Apa.org, 2022, www.apa.org/monitor/2009/03/milgram#:~:text=Milgram%20found%20that%2C%20after%20hearing”.
[7] “The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order? ThoughtCo, 17 Dec. 2019, www.thoughtco.com/milgram-experiment-4176401”.
[8] “Jie, Lou. An Artist’s View of Replicating Ancient Paintings.Getty Iris, 25 Oct. 2016, blogs.getty.edu/iris/an-artists-view-of-replicating-ancient-paintings/.”
[9] “The Difference between Counterfeits and Replica Goods. Red Points, 27 Sept. 2020, www.redpoints.com/blog/fake-vs-replica/”.
[10] “Forgery – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Www.sciencedirect.com, 2015, www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/forgery.”
