Good and Bad Interpretation of a Phenomenon as According to the Theory of Knowledge

How can we distinguish between good and bad interpretations?
Interpretation of a phenomenon involves examining it based on available information regarding a phenomenon, and this information constitutes knowledge. The available knowledge can lead to correct or incorrect interpretation of a phenomenon as according to the Theory of
Knowledge. The authenticity of knowledge is not something irrefutable. Nevertheless, assessment of knowledge based on specific criteria, including historical references, in-depth analysis, and objective opinion based on correct insight, are some criteria that can ascertain the validity of the knowledge and, thus, of interpretation. Inclusion leads to either a good or bad interpretation, respectively. Therefore, a good interpretation is one that involves dedicated efforts to approximate knowledge to facts by correlating and confirming it via all the criteria mentioned above, and a bad interpretation would be one that ignores the characteristics of a good interpretation. Consequently, this essay aims to assess good and bad interpretations of first a famous work of art and second a subject related to natural sciences to ascertain the prerequisites of a good assessment.
A classic example of a large number of wrong interpretations is the world-famous painting of Mona Lisa or "La Gioconda," painted between 1503 to 1505. Some of these interpretations are merely based on speculation, subjective analysis, and lack of historical background knowledge. For instance, many viewers and the so-called scholars claim that the painting Leonard deliberately painted very thin eyelashes, and the eyebrows are non-existent altogether. This superficial interpretation is based merely on speculation and surface observation by a so-called critique without taking into account the painting's centuries-old status. The truth is Leonardo did paint the eyelashes and eyebrows; however, with the passage of time but they wore out with the passage of time.
In this regard, a French Engineer, Pascal Cotte, used the ultra-high-resolution camera to take a picture of this painting and showed a very faint remnant of eyebrows in the form of a single brush stroke showing a hair. Here, one can see how bad interpretation is rejected based on interpretation based on sound method and concrete proof. This judgmental error is just a single example of a number of misinterpretations about the Mona Lisa.
One of the recent research studies regarding the identity of the Mona Lisa reveals concrete evidence that suggests that this painting is of Lisa Gherardini del Giocondo. For
instance, one research team of Italian scientists has examined the bones of remains of this lady buried under the ground of Sant'Orsola Convent, located in Florence, Italy. The carbon dating of the bones had verified her existence during the time period when Da Vinci painted this painting (Boren, 2015). This concrete and scientific evidence proves that interpretation about a work of
art should be based on concrete evidence and historical records, and mere speculation based on anecdotes and subjective interpretations leads to the formulation of wrong hypotheses and
conjectures. Similarly, another recent scholar has verified that this painting is of Lisa Giocondo by quoting and referring to another scholar's research, Carol Veece (Zöllner, 1993). Thus, this discussion verifies the fact that a good interpretation, especially of a work of art, should always be based on verifiable historical data and objective analysis.
In the same way, another myth associated with this painting is related to Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile that appears smiling when looked at from sides and plain-faced when looked from the front. This apparently allusive smile of hers leads to speculations regarding her
mysterious powers and enigmatic characteristics; however, recent research has also busted this flawed interpretation through evidence-based research and concrete proof. A team of Harvard scientists studied the painting in 2000 and attempted to explain the neurological causes of this alluring smile. According to their finding, upon looking at her eyes, the viewers get the smile's
peripheral vision that highlights only black and white colors. Consequently, the viewer sees the
highlighted shadows at the corners of her mouth, and her lips, therefore, appear more stretched, making her smile broader. On the other hand, this effect disappears upon looking straight into it, and the viewer gets the blank face expression (Kontsevich & Tyler, 2004).
Thus, these two examples clearly explain that to reach a sound conclusion about a work of art, one must adopt a historical, objective, and concrete approach to acquire credible knowledge. The Theory of knowledge further substantiates this stance as it involves different questions to ascertain the validity of knowledge before concluding. Some of these criteria include the assumption made to make a conclusion, whether the evidence produced is good and reliable enough to make a conclusion, and what kind of research tools and methods are used.
Based on these criteria, an interpretation can never be incorrect or flawed; however, an interpretation that lacks any of them will always be a subject of speculation, as it happens in the case of mythical interpretations regarding the Mona Lisa. Based on the scientific data, the myth of her alluring and mysterious smile and the stories of its supernatural powers associated with it turn out to be a mere biological phenomenon.