“It is More important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts”.
This great dilemma, which the question is based on, is in choosing between discovering new ways of thinking about what is already known and discovering new data or facts, is quite a complicated task. Before I begin, the terms “new ways of thinking”, “facts”, and “data” must be defined. According to various dictionaries, data is defined as a series of observations, measurements, or facts; information is defined as an event which is known to have happened that can be verified through experience or observation. The phrase “new ways of thinking”, seems more ambiguous because how can there be new ways of thinking? However, for this essay, the definition of thinking from a different perspective or thinking in a way that is different from all previous ways of thinking is used. This, however, allows different people to have different new ways of thinking. A new way of thinking to one person would no longer be the same to another person.
Most often, people would firmly say that new ways of thinking are innovative and new advances are advantageous; for example, in Economics, advances in technology would lead to a greater productive and allocative efficiency, which would result in greater levels of economic growth for a certain country, which, of course, it’s a great benefit for the society.
However, there is also a need for discovery new data and facts to broaden our knowledge, and we can’t overlook this. It’s human nature. Humans seek to understand the world in which they live in: its physical and non-physical aspects. This need in man is natural, and can be described as an impulse that has driven our kind through the generations and lead evolution into the areas of breakthrough.
Using examples such as in economics, art and science, I will attempt to prove the equal importance in discovering new facts or data, and discovering new ways of thinking about what is already known.

My first knowledge claim, Economics, is based, both in theory and in the real world, mostly on two currents, two different views: ← The Neoclassical ← The Keynesian.
Classical economics is widely regarded as the first modern school of economic thought. Its major developers include Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill.
Adam Smith's “The Wealth of Nations”, in 1776, is usually considered to mark the beginning of classical economics. The school was active into the mid 19th century and was followed by neoclassical economics in Britain beginning around 1870, or, in Marx's definition by "vulgar political economy" from the 1830s[1].
Keynesian economics is a school of macroeconomic thought based on the ideas of 20th-century English economist John Maynard Keynes. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy[2].
Classical economists generally think that the market, on its own without any intervention by either the Government or Banks, will be able to adjust itself, while Keynesian economists believe that the government must step in to solve problems, for example from preventing a crisis. The two camps have differing ideas on the causes and solutions of unemployment. The Classical economists believe that unemployment is caused by excess supply, which is caused by the high price level of labour. Based on supply and demand, when wages are held too high by social and political forces, demand would be low and supply would be high and that excess supply represents unemployed people. Classical economists believe that if the economy were left on its own, it would adjust to reach an equilibrium wage for workers and the economy would be at full employment[3]. On the other hand, the Keynesians, argue that if a market was left without any intervention, in the long-run, it wouldn’t be able to adjust itself in a cyclical way, and it would fall in a depression.
The key point which I want to arrive to is that, as we can see from the dates above, new ways of thinking about what is already known, in our case with the Keynesian views, introducing new arguments which provide better information and new opinions about economic theory, nearly 200 years later, on top and in contrast to what the Classical economists stated, would definitely provide great advantages to future economist’s generations broadening their possibilities and evaluative topics.
However, completely new theories might open a new economic frontier which could both broaden the theory behind economics, but also introduce new arguments between economists, leading to the born of new economic parties.
Overall in my opinion, in my knowledge claim, I agree with the statement “It is More important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts”, and this choice was lead by the greater amounts of benefits which new opinions about topics which are already known, would bring to our society nowadays, for example to new ways or new options to prevent economic crisis, for example let the market flow as a Classical economist would say, or intervene as a Keynesian economist would state.

My second knowledge area is that creativity in different type of arts is not brought about by new ways of thinking, but rather by combining previous styles and techniques together to create something new, a new poetical movement for example, or new artistic currents. Examples of the most influential art movements could be he Baroque, which is a period of artistic style that used exaggerated motion and clear, easily interpreted detail to produce drama, which started around 1600 in Rome, Italy and spread to most of Europe[4], Cubism, which was a 20th century avant-garde art movement, pioneered by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, that revolutionized European painting and sculpture, in which subjects are broken up objects, analyzed, and re-assembled in an abstracted form[5], and expressionism, which was a modernist movement, initially in poetry and painting, originating in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, in which the typical trait is to present the world solely from a subjective perspective, distorting it radically for emotional effect in order to evoke moods or ideas[6]. I am going to concentrate my second knowledge claim on Cubism. This movement lasted nearly from 1920 to 1940, and it was a period during which art didn’t see any particular revolutionary advance in techniques or see any new discoveries. 3-D shapes, like cubes and pyramids had already been discovered some years earlier, and some artists had already painted them before. However, this artistic movement unified the knowledge of three-dimensional figures with style, perspective and shading effects, to make something which would have altered for decades the image of art. As I said before subjects where dissembled, studied, and resembled back together in mixed orders, to give to the viewers not only one point of view but many, from which the painting could have been analysed with more depth.
The point which I wanted to make with this claim of knowledge, art, especially Cubism, is that during this period, also if made of plentiful ideas which reshaped the concept of art and data of many countries during the 20th century, it didn’t originate itself from new data or new information, but was borne from previous already known subjects and techniques, and in such a way, it created an entirely new way of thinking.

In conclusion, only after having analysed two great areas of knowledge, Economics and Art, I can judge whether in my opinion the statement: “It is More important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts”, is true or not, whether I agree with it or not. In economics, I got to the conclusion that new ways of thinking what was is already known, would lead to greater benefits and so be of more relevance than discovering new data or facts.
In the same way, in art, after having analysed very closely the Cubism movement example, I arrived to the conclusion that, old data and techniques very often lead to the discovery of new ways of thinking, however based on topics that are already known. In conclusion, I am glad and ready to say that I entirely agree, basing my answers on two areas of knowledge, with this statement.

Words: 1,424.

Bibliography. I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_economics II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics III. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004323/low/macro1.html IV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque V. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism VI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionism

-----------------------
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_economics
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
[3] http://library.thinkquest.org/C004323/low/macro1.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressionism