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 Nevertheless, assessment of knowledge based on specific criteria, including historical references, in-depth analysis, and objective opinion based on correct insight, are some criteria that can ascertain the validity of the knowledge and, thus, of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...