User:Nicola.georgiou/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar group 3/History

Political ideologies
When looking at the origin of political ideologies such as modern liberalism and democratic socialism we must take a diachronic perspective to see the lead up for these ideas. As politics naturally evolves at a very fast pace it is hard to keep refining these ideas and so the original concepts are taken and translated onto the modern day. This results in many issues. An example might be how Prime Ministers refer to themselves as a given ideology, relying on the image of those who coined the terms in creating an image for themselves; a specific example would be Theresa May describing herself as 'One Nation' although her policies have been significantly different to those of Benjamin Disraeli who was responsible for the branch of conservatism. There's no way recreating the circumstances from which each ideology emerged and so it may be concluded that political philosophy is too static and cannot be fully applied to modern situations.

-Why are history and geography linked in French programs?
Mainly because of the history of the way we’re teaching those disciplines.

In France these two disciplines are widely related since the 19th century in bot primary secondary and higher education. The combination of these two disciplines was already used in antiquity to form the future rulers. A number of historic kings were trained to those two disciplines such as Louis 16, Roger 2 etc…

According to André Meynier (1969), after a decrease of the popularity of geography in the middle of the 19th century, the combination of those two disciplines become again a part of citizens formation after the Himly-Levasseur’s report (beginning of the 20th century).

Modern view on the national system sealed the association between history and geography as they are both considered to be part of the construction of the citizenship. Today, professor of ‘histoire-géorgraphie’ are also teachers of the program of ‘civic education’.

-‘Un couple orageux’
But even after those many years of coexistence, those two subjects are in a tumultuous relation (Pitte, 1994), geography is often seen as a ‘background’ for history or just as a pain for history teachers. A majority of secondary teacher have a formation in history. And history is often the priority, as it always seems harder to complete the history program than the geographical one.

-Towards a conciliation?
Scholars programs have tried to articulate the disciplines in a common logic, a common movement. In 1995, programs were changed and the program of ‘3eme’ changed to add a transversal analysis of the ‘world of today’, but this shift was canceled with the reform of ‘college’.

It seems that today the situation is still evolving with new reform of the scholar system. Teachers argue that this shift is the responsibility of the organization and state.

Biology
The science of biology was invented by Aristotle (384–322 BC). Before Aristotle, many Greek philosophers had speculated about the origins of the Earth and of Life, but their theorizing was unsupported by empirical investigation.

Purpose: may be linked to the evolution, and medicine. Medical research, researching the environment and life around us, from plants to animals

Examples of history of biology: living world-class the diversity of life

Paradigm: Darwin is the biggest paradigm shift in biology.

Physics
Origins: The field of physics was begun by Ancient Greek philosophers, many of whom theorized about the nature of the universe. Specifically, Thales is widely considered to have begun the field, because his theory was the first to explain natural phenomena without gods.

Purpose: True to its origins, the field of physics has always endeavored to understand completely the material universe. This main goal remains to this day. Nonetheless, physics has paved the way for incredible innovation in technology, as well as in other academic fields.


 * Threshold Concepts: The threshold concepts in physics are matter and energy - resulting in sub-concepts such as momentum and time.
 * Paradigm: There have been many paradigm shifts throughout the history of physics. However, perhaps the greatest paradigm shift in recent history was due to Albert Einstein, who proposed the existence of spacetime, as well as essentially creating the field of quantum physics.
 * Schema: Schema in Physics include atoms, space, Einstein, mathematics, black holes, etc.
 * Lexicon: Lexicon in Physics is quite definitive. For quantitative definitions, it defines the fundamental quantities (distance, time, mass, current, temperature, etc.) and everything else is an extension/derivation of those. For qualitative definitions (such as “a planet is…”), definitions are relative to some established reference e.g. “A planet is any celestial body which orbits a star.” But, as we’ve seen with the above example, these references are subject to change. A planet is now “a body that orbits the sun, has enough gravity to make it round, and has ‘cleared its neighborhood’ of smaller objects around its orbit.”

Mathematics
Origins: There have been records of mathematics being used from as early as 3000BC in civilisations in Mesopotamia and later Egypt. Arithmetic, algebra, and geometry were mainly used for purposes such as commerce, taxation, and astronomy. However, mathematics didn't formally become a discipline until roughly the 6th century BC when mathematicians such as Pythagoras and Euclid in Greece largely defined and contributed to the discipline.

Real numbers: We are familiar with Pythagoras' theorem that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle gives the square of the hypotenuse but we are often unaware of why this left the man disgruntled. As children we are introduced first to whole, counting numbers (natural numbers), then negative numbers (integers) and then fractions (rational numbers. This is a sensible progression as we can see how one follows on from the other. An issue arises with a right triangle of side lengths each 1 unit - the length of the hypotenuse is root 2. This new number does not belong in any of the established groups, thus creating the Real numbers. The geometric discovery made thousands of years ago had a significant impact on modern mathematics - without the concept of real numbers (and following on from that, complex numbers) we would not have been able to develop our systems for engineering, weather prediction or population studies - to name only a few examples.

Film studies
Origins: It emerged in the twentieth century, decades after the invention of motion picture. Film studies exists only with the creation of film theories and the writing of film historiography. Early film schools focused on the production and subjective critique of film rather than on the critical approaches, history and theory used to study academically. Since the time film was created, the concept of film studies as a whole grew to analyze the formal aspects of film as they were created. Hence, today's career options include both critique and production. Film studies, as opposed to other similar disciplines, focus on narrative, artistic and social/ideological choices rather than, for example, technical improvements to production. Established in 1919 the Moscow Film School was the first school in the world to focus on film. However, it took a while for the discipline to be truly accepted as one. This is partially due to the, previously mentioned, divide between theory and practice. It led to confusion and blurry boundaries whom progressively became clearer.

Anthropology
Anthropology is a discipline involving humanities, social sciences and natural sciences; it is the study of societies, human behaviour and humans in the past and in the present. The American anthropologist Eric Wolf described the discipline as “the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the social sciences”. The etymology of the word reveals its main purpose; in Greek “anthropos” means “human being” referring to humanity, and “logia” means “study”. Therefore the etymology of “anthropology” reveals that it is “the study of man”. Although the origin of the word is Greek, there is a lack of any denotation prior to the Renaissance. In the age of Enlightenment Europeans started to abandon the religious explanations of the origin of humanity and turned to science seeking for reasonable answers. Curiosity was motivated as well by the first European colonisation wave, increasing considerably the known variety within human kind, and encouraging the development of natural sciences. Thus, in the words of Herbert Spencer, anthropology can be described as the "natural history of society".

Truth in art
Whereas the studies on art go back to prehistory, its nature is still undetermined. For some people it may be an academic discipline, for others a lifestyle. We disagree about its meaning and the characteristics that make art out of someone’s work. Although art has no universal definition on which everyone agrees, it is certainly related to creativity. As a reference and starting point to seek for truth in art, creativity is related to the ability to perceive the world in original ways. Thus art can be seen as the expression of such interpretations of the world. It is why Plato placed it as far as possible from truth; for the Greek philosopher art was the strongest form of illusion. Plato believed the world of Forms is the reality and the physical one (the one we perceive with our senses) an imitation of the first one. Whereas art is an expression, an imitation of what some may perceive from the physical world, it is further from reality than the ordinary world. But Plato’s theory was grounded on the belief that reality, therefore truth, lies beyond the physical world we can perceive with our senses. But we can also think that the world we perceive through our senses is the only reality. If art is the expression of an alternative and maybe a deeper perception of the world, it could be the bridge that connects our understanding to reality. This way it allows us to see further than we do relying exclusively on empirical evidence. Art can enlighten past events, showing historians a deeper version about historical events than evidence does. If we apply this concept to History of Art, we have an example of how art contributes to the study of events, allowing History to a more complete reconstruction of the past.

Truth and philosophy.
The common sense of the word truth defines a ‘true’ proposition or theory as conforming with reality, a true proposition is conformed to reality thanks to observation and experimentation. This is the same approach as the one use in philosophy, but only in a certain mesure. Philosophers teached us, since Socrate not to define truth in a too sharp or naïve way. Truth depends on language, and language is a conventional system. Conventions are, by definition, contestable. Indeed, the human are struggling to conform on a common definition of truth.

Truth and reality.
Basically, we don’t know the truth. Platon observes in the Ménin that, if we knew what truth is, we wouldn’t have to be looking for it; or this research defines philosophy. Common language often confounds truth and reality. <hen we say the wool is real, we mean that the wool is natural, in the sense of authentic, not in the sense that the wool is the truth. Because a thing doesn’t say a thing, or only what is say can be truth or false. A politician who speaks truly cannot be confronted. But the problem gets trickier when we deal with scientific truth or philosophical truth.

Criteria for truth.
We often admit that the truth is subjective, that means that what is true for me is true. We call relativism the doctrine by which every opinion has the same valor, every opinion is true or false, depending on the point of view. Philosophy has been fighting with the relativism ever since it was created. Even if the truth is hard to define, we never should stop the quest for a definition. Not only because lies are dangerous but also because of the ethic.

Is there a methodical way to reach truth?.
As mentioned previously,"truth" is a complex and often subjective term that possesses various definitions. Is there a method that enables us to clearly define what is true and what isn't? French philosopher, believes that with the mathematical method everything can be demonstrated and defined ; including truth. This mathematical knowledge consists of four rules:

Evidence : Accept as true only what is indubitable/obvious Analysis : Divide every question /difficulty into manageable parts Synthesis: Begin with the simplest issues and ascend to the more complex Verification : Summarize every operation and review frequently enough to retain the whole argument at once

A global observatory for gene editing

Biology and Ethics
Whereas biologists may tend to suggest that gene editing has improved the human condition, (bio)ethicists would probably suggest the opposite. Indeed, gene editing raises some crucial questions about what truth is, because if you modify genes, then you also do modify the truth of that initial gene and hence force others to accept a truth which you have created. Therefore, their truths would arguably never coincide dynamically because of the oppositions present in their disciplines.

Perspectives on Gene Editing
With new technological advances, such as machine learning, we are increasingly able to read DNA like code, and therefore to crack it and hack it.


 * Information Technology perspective: Technically, DNA can be viewed like a computer code, so if we can edit computer code then why shouldn’t we treat our DNA like code and edit it to make amends/improvements?


 * Biological perspective: If we are able to edit our genes to make us resistant to diseases and to remove the risk of getting genetic diseases, why shouldn’t we? This would make our species stronger as a whole, while drastically putting a halt to the idea of natural selection (Charles Darwin) as there would no longer be selective pressures causing us to mutate and adapt, due to us ‘mutating’ our DNA ourselves and therefore adapting in a different way.


 * Ethical perspective: Of course, we have to question the morality of gene editing. Where do we draw the line between what we can edit and what we can’t/shouldn’t edit? For example, if you know your family has this genetic disease running in their genes, then it would make sense to remove these genes from your future baby’s DNA. However, once you get to this stage, would you then want to choose the baby’s gender, or change its personality traits? We certainly feel more inclined to say that removing genetic diseases is more acceptable because it has to do with health, but when it comes to editing /choosing gender and personality traits we look down on it and view it as selfish. However, we still have to remember that removing genetic diseases is still interfering with one’s DNA, so is that still fine?


 * Politician perspective: Politicians have a crucial role in the genetic revolution, as ultimately, they are the ones with the power and who can pass law regarding this. They would have to carefully consider the huge cultural, religious and social implications this would have. Some cultures and religions would be strongly against gene editing, but if it were to be legal and people started removing genetic diseases from their offspring’s DNA, would these cultures and religions be at a significant disadvantage just because of their beliefs? Would this cause even greater isolation? What would the cost of gene editing be? Would it only be available to the wealthy, so to cause an even greater divide between the rich and the poor, and causing the wealthy population to be significantly healthier? And again, where do we draw the line with what we can or should edit? These are the kinds of things a politician should think about while creating laws to do with gene editing.

How they work together in a dynamic way: I think each perspective has something different to offer, yet I find it interesting that they always conclude with the question of ‘where do we draw the line’. All four may agree with the aspect of editing for genetic disease, with the ethical perspective and perhaps politician being more against this, due to the morality of it. However, I think that at least for now, all four would disagree with gene editing with regards to gender and personality traits, simply for the fact that it can be deemed as selfish, unnatural and morally unjust to have control over the DNA of an unborn offspring when it still has no rights.

Gene Editing Controversies
The first human gene editing has already been done. In November 2018, the twin girls Lulu and Nana were born with a CRISPR-altered genome. The scientist who edited their genomes, He Jiankui, said that because the girls' father had HIV, he tried to immunize them to the virus. Although he claims to have succeeded to an extent, there was enormous backlash from the scientific community. Among other criticisms, He's peers said that there were other, less risky solutions to the situation, and that the technology was not ready for human testing.

Many argue that gene editing should not be done at all on humans, but especially not at this juncture, because even one human's genetic edits (if they affect germ line cells) can spread reproductively into the general population. Since gene editing is not fail-safe at this point, and may never be, they claim it is unethical to put future generations at risk.

Gene editing is obviously a very contentious topic. It is (or could be) used on humans in a multitude of ways, some being more controversial than others. This being a non-exhaustive list, the most controversial uses or proposed uses include: genetic disease and homosexuality/LGBTQ+ erasure; designer babies; mail-order DNA kits; and bioweapons.


 * Genetic Disease and LGBTQ+ Concerns: There is little contention as to whether genes that predispose deadly diseases, such as cancer, should be edited: most agree that it is ethical to remove such genes. However, non-deadly genetic conditions are another matter entirely. One major concern from disabled communities is that, should gene editing procedures be developed for genetic conditions such as deafness or dwarfism, their communities will disappear. Many members of these communities feel that their genetic conditions are part of their identities; some furthermore claim that gene-editing their conditions in the name of "the good of the species" is essentially eugenics under another name. To an extent, this issue is already playing out in the real world: couples who attempt to have children through in-vitro fertilization (IVF) are able to have their embryos tested for genetic diseases prior to implantation, then decide whether to use the embryo. In a similar vein, some members of the LGBTQ+ community have expressed concerns that, should a genetic cause be discovered for a person to be LGBTQ+, parents may choose to remove these genes from their children's genomes.


 * Designer Babies: One step forward from the above controversy is the more far-off concern about genetically engineering children, for non-disease-related reasons, before they are born. Many have concerns that if/when DNA is so well-understood that it can be "hacked", parents will choose to genetically edit their children, selecting the traits (e.g. intelligence, height, eye color, athletic ability, etc.) that they want their children to have. These hypothetical offspring would be called "designer babies." This eventuality raises ethical questions of how much power a parent should have over their child's life. Furthermore, presumably only the wealthy would be able to afford such procedures; thus, their children would have an even greater pre-existing advantage over the less wealthy general population.


 * Mail-Order DNA Kits: At this time, most major countries have little to no legal regulations in place for CRISPR or other gene editing technologies. It is currently possible to order a DNA-editing kit online, relatively cheaply (the first Google result is $159), and there is a community of DIYers who use these gene-editing kits on themselves. DIYers claim to mostly use CRISPR for benign reasons, although some also do "stunts" such as muscle enhancement. However, many argue that this is extremely dangerous, and that people should not be allowed to edit their own genomes. Furthermore, the free availability of DNA editing kits raises public health concerns (see below).


 * Bioweapons: The free availability of CRISPR and other gene-editing tools has raised concerns of genetically targeted bioweapons. It is theoretically possible, for example, to use a virus to target people with high melanin expression, i.e. people of color (see the Netflix show Designated Survivor to watch this scenario play out dramatically). Once again, the tools to create such weapons are freely available on the internet, and anyone with the technical know-how may be able to create such bioweapons. Sleep well.

Gene Editing and Environmental Science
The impact of gene editing on the environment and its ecosystems is a topic that must be considered before implementing such techniques in the real world. As gene editing has a potential of completely changing the ecosystem and environment, looking at gene editing from the point of view of environmental science can reveal more truths of its potentially large impacts.

For example, there has been a success in the effort to eliminate the population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes through the use of gene editing. The female mosquitoes carrying the edited genome wouldn’t be able to reproduce or suck human blood, while its male counterpart will develop normally and pass on the edited genome until eventually, the whole population goes extinct. This new discovery in the field of gene editing seems entirely beneficial as it eliminates the threat of malaria, which is known to be the most deadly disease in the world. However, using the basic truths of environmental sciences, further implications of the study can be revealed.

The first truth in environmental sciences is the idea of the interconnectedness of the various aspects that make up our environment. This represents itself, for example, in the idea of ecosystems. Each species in the ecosystem has its role, and the altering of one species can have a potentially disastrous effect on both the other animals in the ecosystem and on the environment in which it lives. This truth can be applied to see the effects of potentially removing the entire species of malaria bearing mosquitoes. They have the role of subduing other potentially harmful mosquitoes by occupying the most dominant position as well as serving as food for species of fish. Wiping out the mosquitoes can also wipe out or heavily alter the lives of the fish, thereby altering the ecosystem.

The truth that environmental science brings to the table can also be used to improve the function and lower the potentially disastrous effects of gene editing. By bringing to light such potential downsides to the idea, it can then be used to make sure to keep the ecosystem intact or approach the problem from a different angle.

Artistic approach of gene editing
As gene editing can be seen as an improvement of our life conditions, some people, including artists, perceive it as a threat to mankind and thus try to depict the fear they feel when they face this issue.

Released in 1997, Gattaca is an anticipation movie which depicts a world where gene editing has become mainstream and so widely used that people are afraid to have babies “naturally”. The movie describes a cloned society where only these perfect human beings have access to decent employment, and normal individuals who are not killed before their birth are less valued than clones because they are full of natural defects. The movie tries to make us understand that even if we are capable of producing genetically perfect individuals, they will not necessarily be better than their natural counterparts, and that in any case, by “playing the role of Nature”, we are finally going to lose our humanity.

Another way of feeling how gene editing is often seen as a threat is a cover of the Newsweek magazine published in 2004, which headline reads “Boy or girl, now you can choose, but should you, the new science of sex selection”. This document shows that technology and science have progressed so much that today, even the most natural aspect of life can be altered by progress. Science now allows to “manipulate” the natural process of having babies, allowing to choose the gender, getting rid of some imperfections, and selecting a few features, such as the color of the eyes, hair, body type, etc. Science clearly influences what used to be natural odds, and people are scared about it. Ethics and moral considerations are taken into account, and the magazine clearly shows it as it directly asks the reader "should you?".

The cartoon named Clones R Us, published in 2012, is an anticipation cartoon in which we can see an assembly line with 5 individuals on a speedwalk. 4 of them are strictly identical, tall and muscular, with perfect body features. The fifth one is much smaller and thinner, and the machine above them picks him up to eliminate him from the line. He is put in a crate for rejects. It can be considered as the genesis of a new era of eugenics. This cartoon can be considered as a warning: if in 2004 it was only possible to see basic commercial implications of cloning, in 10 years, preoccupations have considerably evolved: we are not excited anymore about choosing a baby’s eyes color, but we are scared that if technology keeps on evolving, it could constitute a threat to mankind; threat that would result in a uniform society, where difference would be seen as bad, and thus eliminated.

Through these three examples we can see how artists, in various artistic disciplines such as cinema or drawings, can perceive gene editing as dangerous in different ways, and thus convey several truths (that can actually coexist) about a same topic.

What is the link between truth and history of arts ?
First of all, we can establish that truth in history can be found only by trusting historians and their objectivity. However, we’ve seen during the seminars that art relies on subjectivity more than it does on objectivity. Thus, relying on the artist’s objectivity is an inefficient way to find the truth (if it exists) in a piece of art.

That’s why we are facing a problem. On the one hand, objectivity is the criteria to be able to reach historical truth. On the other hand, it seems that artists are moved by their subjectivity and that the concept of truth is quite blurry in art. History of arts being a combination of both, that is to say a study of art, through the ages, made by historians; none of the criteria mentioned before would be pertinent to achieve our quest for truth, if we keep them separated.

Hence, we need to embrace both of them and to combine them in order to approach the truth in history of arts. Firstly, a good historian is an objective historian, and we are going to use this quality to reach our goal. Indeed, his knowledge and studies will allow us to recreate the environment (whether it is politically, economically or ideologically) in which the artist has evolved and created. The historian will depict a precise period of time and its values.

We said previously that artists were defined by their subjectivity, but some writers, such as the French novelist Emile Zola consider that human beings are mostly influenced by their environment. Thus, we can infer that artists’ subjectivity is the result of their time, which as we said, has been described by the historian. Theses researches allow us to understand deeply this subjectivity and to seize the artists’ message thanks to the context he has lived in.

This is why we can say that history of arts and truth are intimately linked: studying art through history of arts allows us to get closer to the truth. Indeed, we won’t simply study the artwork, we won’t simply study the historical context: we will combine both in order to make sure to seize the message in the most efficient and precise way. Therefore, we are able to differentiate the part of the piece of art that has to do with subjectivity only, since we were able to define and set the borders of this subjectivity using the historical context.

For example: Spanish painter Francisco de Goya painted “El Tres de Mayo” in 1814. He depicts how Spanish patriots were slaughtered by the French army during the war. His painting can be understood more clearly with the context: the French Emperor Napoleon, wanted to invade Spain, and thus thousands of innocent Spanish people have been killed. De Goya stood alongside them and this is why he represented this scene, showing a French army without mercy, slaughtering Spanish harmless and unarmed citizens. His subjectivity as a Spanish patriot allows us to understand the pictorial choices he has made for this painting.

Law
Even if evidence evolve depending on the country we are dealing with, it seems that we can clearly define 4 type of proofs in law: The literal proof, the testimonial proof, the confession and the oath.

The perfect modes of proof
The literal proof and the oath are the two forms of perfect proofs. The perfect proof is an instrument of the ascertainment of a juridical fact.

Literal proof
Traditionally the literal proof is on a paper support, but lately in a majority of countries the informatic support became part of the literal proof.

Confession
The confession is a declaration by which an individual recognizes facts that can have a negative influence on him. It is a perfect proof as a receivable confession is made during a proceeding. In French law for example the confession has an absolute power of probity.

The oath
The oath is a proof is the result of a declaration made under oath at the tribunal. This is a very risky process as the court. As it asks the jury to rely on honesty.

Testimony
Finally, the last evidence is the testimony, the proof by which a person attest he knew the experience. The testimony must deal with direct facts.

Presumption
Presumptions are opinions based on the elements' coherence and plausibility. They are generally made by a judge who is trained in this action and who will use them in case of missing elements for a judgment. They are not evidence as such but rather the result of a certain amount of evidence. These are clues on which the judge will rely to establish his conviction. These presumptions have a reduced admissibility. They are the intervention of human intelligence in the issue of evidence.

Evidence in Photography
Since their invention, photographs have been used as forms of evidence. They started to be used enthusiastically by organisations like the police as legal proof, which was very innovative. Photographs are very persuasive, when we hear about something happening but doubt its occurrence, we tend to believe it to be true when shown a photograph of it.

Despite this, artists working with photography began to create images which relied on the manipulation of their photographs using techniques like combination printing, undermining their use for providing evidence

In addition, we live in an era of "fake news" and nothing convinces people of the apparent 'truth' of a story than seeing it in a photograph. Doctoring images is one thing but fake news can still be made by misusing photographs as forms of evidence. Inventing captions, presenting unrelated images side by side and cropping are all ways of exploiting the believability of photographs.

This leads to the fact that photographs often require the addition of words to secure their meaning. People tend to think that the image, in itself, is an evidence or that the image, in itself, is almost never an evidence. It has to be validated, legitimised, interpreted, read and delivered by an expert who is providing words.

We can thus interpret the omnipresence of photography as evidences as a form of threat. Being considered at first as the "ultimate" proofs, they have been manipulated over time in order to create an alternative truth. Examples of this misusage are numerous. We can cite photographs taken during the "yellow vests" riots in France, that allowed different versions of a same event to coexist in public opinion, whereas only one of them actually corresponded to what happened during the protest.

Evidence in WW2 and Cold War
Atrocities have been committed on both sides, yet we tend to focus mostly on the Axis'. What about the Soviet Union, the USA, France or Britain ? Have they committed no crimes ? Where is the evidence for that ? What is the role of evidence ? If we take for example the massacre of Jews by the USSR during WW2 (although it happened before). The USSR shot more than 33,000 Jews in Ukraine in 1941, but who has ever heard this ? Probably a minority, because our knowledge has been conditioned to focus on the 'bad guys', the one who lost the war and have to live on with the consequences of their action and blame for doing such atrocities. Perhaps the USSR hid this in its archive before they were opened in 1991. Yet, we cannot but wonder how the government of the USSR had the guts evidence from its people and the world community and often even deny that such thing ever happened, either by physically removing the sources (had they been people or books) or 'mentally' by using propaganda and reshaping the education of its young people using its 'own' evidence.

Evidence in History
History is a discipline that very much relies on evidence, which is used to construct the timeline of events we now see in our history books. Historians most often use three key types of evidence: primary and secondary sources and oral tradition.

Primary sources consist of original documents, letters, artefacts, and other pieces of information that were created during the time under study. For example, if the ancient Egyptian era was being examined, this would consist of statues and jewellery as well as scripts written during the time. This type of evidence tends to be valued the most as it has the most credibility and authenticity.

Secondary sources are usually sources such as books, scholarly articles, and magazines that most typically analyse or interpret a primary source from a different perspective and/or a different time. Although primary sources can be more reliable, many primarily use secondary sources as they can provide an insight into primary sources that are now gone or a time period with little to no primary evidence.

Oral tradition is often highly used in historical research. This consists of traditional stories typically not written down but passed down verbally, usually from a first-hand witness to later generations. This type of source is important when looking at the history of specific cultures where history isn't commonly documented in writing. Oral tradition is sometimes classified as a primary source; however, there currently is a debate on whether it does indeed fit the requirements to be a primary source.

Historians use these various forms of evidence to form their conclusions and insights into the era in question. Despite using clear evidence, this is when the historians' individual ideas or biases may form and shape their view of the era. It is important when researching in history to look at multiple sources and types of evidence before drawing conclusions.

Evidence in Philosophy: Empiricism
Empiricism is a philosophical theory of knowledge that claims that all beliefs or conclusions must be based on experience. There are many interpretations of this general definition (e.g. some only include sensory experience, while others include internal experiences, and some add science as empirical); however, one significant objection to this school of thought is that there is no empirical evidence that evidence must be used to come to conclusions. In fact, there cannot be, since it would be circular use evidence to prove that one must use evidence. While this difficulty is perhaps not practically useful or even relevant, it should be kept in mind when exploring "empirical" evidence.

was a philosopher of this theory of knowledge. He justified empiricism with various examples, relying on theological texts such as the Bible and previous philosophers. For instance, in his book Enquiry into Human understanding, he points out how Adam would never have been able to guess that water, which at first sight appears as fluid and transparent was capable of drowning him, or that the light and warmth of fire could consume him. Reason is unable to tell, just by looking at an object or phenomenon the causes that produce them, or the effects that arise from them. It is only with experience and therefore evidence that one can determine what is real and what is not. Opposing views include those of and the idealism philosophy which claims that only reason enables us to know reality, or those of, who combines the latter and argues that reality is known when one asks questions, through reason, and observes the answers, through experience/evidence.

History
Do we sometimes forget the beneficial consequences of some historical events that we, at first, considered to be enforced upon us by some powerful people? Let's take a look at one highly controversial event is this regard: the Industrial Revolution. The usual argument that one could find is that the upper-class forced people to work "between 14-16 hours a day" to increase their profit. However, we also tend to forget what such exploitation of workers brought to our society today. Did you know, for example, that thanks to the scientific discoveries following the Industrial Revolution, which started in 1760, the life expectancy of a British man raised from 35 to nearly 43 by 1850? This piece of evidence is breathtaking as it suggests that life expectancy nearly increased by a year increased every 9 years. Thus, before deciding whether a discipline is biased regarding issues like power, we should really consider its impact years later to form a proper judgment.

On the other hand, much of this evidence indeed indicates that historic power inequalities directly caused much of the rampant inequality of the present day. Take, for instance, the gender and race pay gaps, which are the results of systematic devaluation of these groups' work in order to maximize the profit of those in power. If one looks "decades" back, they may note that until 1980, "hysteria" was a formally studied mental disorder classified in the DSM, which only afflicted women. Apparently, it often did, since it usually acted as a blanket diagnosis for all mentally ill women; with the same diagnoses for different disorders, many women did not receive appropriate care and many suffered unnecessarily. Furthermore, gender differences in mental disorders (and the field of medicine, generally) have not been studied sufficiently, affecting women in the modern day. Looking "centuries" back, one may note that while British colonialism certainly was profitable to Britain, many former colonies are underdeveloped and have lower life expectancy, lower standards of living, worse education, etc. Of course, those resources historically saved by treating women and minorities unequally went to those in power; it cannot then be surprising that these groups profited with longer lifespans and better quality of life.

The fight for revelation and the dictature in Argentina from 1976 to 1982.
In Argentina, the dictator Videla took over the country in 1976, he was a conservative and militarist politician.

Right after the putsch, a left-wing contestation started to raise in the country.

Videla’s government started to apply a systematic terror movement, with the help of the army, and with ‘laisser-aller’ of the united states. Indeed, Videla was facing a communist opposition that really bothered the USA at the time, the USA were following the Condor plan, a strategy of supply for the South American dictatorships in order to prevent the communist’s revolutions (as it happened in Cuba).

But after a few years of calm and total leadership, Videla faced the first waves of demonstration when he decided to raise the price of transports and oil. A student revolution took over the country.

Videla deployed the armed forces and decided to start a new terror strategy: make people disappear.

'las abuelas de la placa de mayo'
The movement of ‘las abuelas de la place de Mayo’ was raised to find the children of this women. Every Thursday they gathered on the central place of Buenos Aires and demonstrated for hours. This is where the concept of power comes in place as the government of Argentina tried to hide this part of history for years, until the movement reached the international stage with interests from both the EU and the US.

The movement CHICOS was then created to sensitize other countries to this cause. Some children were found thanks to the will of this grandmothers. But the question of the conflict between history and politics is here very interesting.

We can ask ourselves about the will of the Argentinian government to hide this part of the past, the ethic of this practice, and the relations of power between history and politics and how politics can use history ‘et vice versa’.

The terror
So, the process was to send the army to an opponent house, take him to jail, then kill him, sink his body in the river or ship it from a plane to the ocean. His name was erased, and his identity forget.

But this strategy provoked a reaction from the elders of the country, indeed, the women who were taken pregnant had to give away their baby to Videla’s supporters before they were killed.

In History: 'La Terreur'
The period of ‘la terreur’ in France really illustrate the multiple influences of power on a discipline.On the one hand the interpretation of this event relays the point of view of the winner, as often in history. But on the other hand, there is a counter-interpretation of this event that developed through the 19th century.

The ‘winner’ point of view.
Robespierre, the political leader of France from 1791 to 1794 decided to lead a vigorous politic against democracies’ opposition. He passed a bunch of law thanks to his influence that led to large series of execution. This measure was, at the time, considered as essentials to fight against the inside rebellion for royalism. A witch hunt started and the ‘guillotinages’ became more and more common. In 1794, Robespierre was isolated by the city council and finally executed by the same process of ‘guillotinage’ that led to thousands of innocent deaths.

Questions on the role of Robespierre
Multiple critical source argued that the role of Robespierre wasn’t that important and that he was just the tool of a bigger system. Some historians showed that the vague of violence that took over France wasn’t the result of Robespierre’s will. But we can see a power influence in this new interpretation: there is a correlation between the point of view of these historians and the point of view of Napoleon Bonaparte. He argued that the ‘terreur’ wasn’t just the result of Robespierre, he explained that it is not because ‘terreur’ stopped with the death of Robespierre that the ‘terreur’ was Robespierre. But the fact that this view is common between the historians and Robespierre might create some kind of a correlation between the legitimization of Napoleon’s putsch and the will to establish and historical truth.

Questions that need to be solve
To conclude we can find the origin of this debate in the last month of life of Robespierre. The question is to define if either he wanted to defend democracy against oppressors or prone the regular executions just for terror and to keep the government in place. The other question that needs to be solve is the degree of manipulation of Robespierre.

Power in Science
The power structure in science affects the production of scientific knowledge.

The pressure of ‘publish or perish’ is something every researcher faces, and getting published in a high-quality journal helps move on to the next step (or even skip a few steps) and get to the next level. The journey from finishing a scientific study and getting it into the public eye can be long and strenuous. According to an Elsevier report, 1.8 million authors submitted 1.3 million manuscripts in 2015, however, only 400,000 (approximately 22%) of them were published. Nature publishes only 8% of the 200 papers it receives each week. So, while you may be making significant progress in your research in the confines of your lab, telling the world about it involves quite a few barriers — and also requires years of patience.

This shows how the production of scientific knowledge is affected by the power structure in publishing scientific journals, as there are many steps involved before getting published in a journal. These steps include choosing the target journal, manuscript writing, getting peer reviews, submission and review, sending letters/rebuttal letters to the editor and the whole post-acceptance publication process, as well as other smaller but still meaningful steps.

One can see how these steps can hinder the production of scientific knowledge, as great ideas could be stopped from being published at any step along the way depending on how they are presented.

On the other hand, this power structure could also help filter out what kind of knowledge is produced, in order to produce the most up to date and reliable knowledge there is.

Physics
The influence and power of religion greatly altered the ideas and research of physicists in the past. It is common knowledge that it was a Christian effort to back the idea that the sun and the stars revolve around the Earth, making Earth the centre of the universe, a move made to bolster the Christian idea of the Earth’s divine significance in God’s plan. When physicists such as Copernicus and Galileo refuted this idea with their new heliocentric view of the universe, the Church resisted the idea. However, it was during this period where more new significant advancements in physics and astronomy were made, a key one being Kepler’s discovery of equations that explain the planetary orbits, claiming their orbits to be elliptical when planets were previously assumed to move in circular motions. This is thought to be another big step towards secularism in science, as the discovery of elliptical orbits refuted the Christian view of an astral “dome” of the heavens revolving around the Earth. However, Kepler himself was a devout Lutheran and carried out his research with the purpose of revealing “God’s design” through the discovery of the fundamental equations that govern nature. He believed that his laws of planetary motion were proof that God does actually exist. In this way, religious power has had an effect of shaping physics and astronomy, both serving as an inhibitor as well as a motivator to pursue truth.

Literature
Power dynamics relating to gender, race, ethnicity, class and so on, have shaped various disciplines and literature is no exception. Whether it be regarding the authors or the characters represented, literary power generally seems to. be concentrated in the hands of “rich white men”.

Who is writing
American writer Roxane Gay published a paper entitled Where Things Stand, in which she looked at 742 books, across all genres, reviewed in The New York Times. She reports that “of those 742, 655 were written by Caucasian authors (1 transgender writer, 437 men, and 217 women). Thirty-one were written by Africans or African Americans (21 men, 10 women), 9 were written by Hispanic authors (8 men, 1 woman), 33 by Asian, Asian-American or South Asian writers (19 men, 14 women), 8 by Middle Eastern writers (5 men, 3 women) and 6 were books written by writers whose racial background we were simply unable to identify”. In other words, nearly 90 percent of the books were written by whites. The percentage of men writers also highly surpasses that of women (although improvements have been made since the 18th century and social emancipation of women writers and gender as a whole ). This particular study does not mention social status or class, but similar observations could be made.

Who is represented
The problem of power in literature doesn’t only concern who is writing but also who is written about. Indeed, literature as a whole notably lacks diversity. White men remain the most common characters. This issue is rather complex as the problem doesn’t rely solely on numbers but on characterisation as well. For example many women serve as characters in literature, however, they are often reduced to stereotypes and generalisations, whereas male characters show more depth and development. Sometimes, the lack of representation lies both in the numbers and narrative. For instance, characters of colour and un-heterosexual relationships are often both under and mis represented.

Who is reading
Finally, power dynamics and inequalities also play out in who has access to literature. Indeed, reading requires education, a luxury not available to all, especially young girls. Furthermore, it is not just a question of literacy but also of culture. Indeed higher social classes tend to participate more in "cultural activities" such as reading, going to the theatre, exposing in or visiting museums ...

Power in women's prison
Giddens (1984) refers to power as "the ability to achieve and desired and intended outcomes". A case study of two women's prisons shows the tactics and power in one open prison and one closed prison. Ideally, both prisoners and stuff developed their own set of manoeuvres in order to "survive" the system. As expected, being a prisoner is more challenging than being an officer, as you are apposed at 2 types of hierarchy: officer-prisoner, prisoner-prisoner.

The prisoner-prisoner relationship
Prisoners made use of tactical manoeuvres in order to solve problems generated by the constraints of imprisonment. It is highly visible that power of identity has a crucial part in a system such as a prison, where fear governs between the less advantaged ones. Prisoners took tactical approaches to achieving a variety of ends, from meeting basic material needs, to acting on grudges and rivalries with other inmates, and resolving complex problems of impression management. The nature of the problems prisoners sought to solve and the ways they found to do so were indicative of the precariousness of their position and the complex and often painful conditions of existence in a punitive environment, in which neither fair treatment, material provision, nor a smooth progression through a prison sentence could be guaranteed.

The officer-prisoner relationship
Police officers need to be able to cut tension between prisoners, developing in time different tactics to solve the issues.. In order to sustain their ability to ensure the smooth-running of the institution, officers must uphold prison hierarchies, staff solidarity and the asymmetric distribution of power between themselves and prisoners, in addition to safeguarding a certain level of co-operation and perceived legitimacy in relationships with inmates.