Compare and Contrast

Knowledge is some what of difficult word to compare and contrast with. The only thing that comes to mind would be to compare and contrast how knowledge is gained and applied. The easiest way to achieve this is to compare and contrast how knowledge is gained by the masses and scientific communities. I'll start out with the comparison of the two. For starters, after gaining knowledge both will apply this new information in a manner they see fit. Say if both gained the knowledge of using stem cells for disease control treatments, they would apply this differently into their life's, but they still apply it none the less. The masses might use the new knowledge of medicine for treatment of a particular disease, while the scientist use it to create new treatments for different forms of a disease. The two parties are using the same basic knowledge of what the stem cells do, but for two different outcomes. Also, when gaining knowledge both sides know personal observation is key. They both realize that one can only truly understand a certain subject or idea by actually witnessing it first hand. I also believe there is a similarity in how the two parties observe before committing something to memory as fact. When an everyday person goes about learning, they tend to research a subject or idea a great deal before they make a decision on whether it's factual or not. In the same way, a scientist does research and tests in a lab on a particular hypothesis they might have. So in many ways the two have similar traits with gaining knowledge, more so that the application of that knowledge.

Contrasting the gaining and application of knowledge between the masses and the scientific community comes with a little more ease. How both go about trying to research a subject or an idea comes in two completely different outlets. The scientific community researches mostly using the scientific method. They come up with a hypothesis, set up experiments, and run multiple tests before coming up with a conclusion to their data from the experiments. This allows the scientific community to have well documented information to share and be judged by their peers. For the masses, we have: books, media outlets, other people, the Internet, and personal observation to base our ideas on. These kinds of information tools are wonderful, and usually will provide an answer, but they don't allow us to share our knowledge. Even if it did, it's not necessarily backed by concrete evidence like a scientist's work would be. This also leads to the application of that knowledge. Most science works can be read and applied directly to life with little effort, so the knowledge there is less trial and error. I believe knowledge of the life lessons we learn have to be repeated more often before we as everyday people start to realize a pattern. So the two parties seems to be intertwined at points, and polar opposites at others. It just depends on which side one looks at.