Consensus And Disagreement In The Pursuit Of Knowledge

Consensus and disagreement both play a role in the production of knowledge, whether it is necessary or not is up for discussion. This claim implies that in order to have a knowledge that is “robust”, by expert opinion, we must have two conflicting perspectives on the topic at hand. “Robust” is a term used to discuss the quality and value that is placed on the knowledge that we discover. ‘Robust knowledge’ can be referred to as a knowledge that is applicable universally to a wide range of things; one that has practical use or application. ‘Consensus’ Is basing knowledge on the fact that everyone, or at least most people agree that something is knowledge, whilst disagreement is the exact opposite. I agree with the claim that you must have

This is because disagreement depending on the situation hinders the process of consensus by creating a hiatus in the process of the development of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge through disagreement could be obstructed by human emotions and the accompanied biases which transcend logical reasoning; religion and age-old traditions that virtually descended into the hands of their followers are common examples. In such cases, disagreement, either fails to penetrate human thinking or else, serves to further strengthen the existing belief. Similarly, reasoning (inductive or deductive) help the two parties demonstrate the truth in their arguments. Therefore, certain ways of knowing can influence the extent to which disagreement may aid or hinder the pursuit of knowledge. An example of disagreement hindering the production of knowledge would be the crisis in Myanmar, their Buddhist government doesn’t like the Muslim minorities the Rohingya, the government at the time is not recognizing them as citizens. Here we see disagreement between people because of religion, leading to a hiatus in consensus of peace amongst people driven by faith and emotion. Overall the people can’t move forward together, pausing the development of the Myanmar people, because of a division created by disagreement. Here we see that disagreement does not lead to consensus hindered by

Such as the role of slavery in the civil war, while it’s inherently up to the historian to say to what extent slavery was the cause of the war. Though it’s role is subjective and up to the historian it has been widely accepted up until the rise of the alt right in 2016. Beliefs that were inherently subjective but yet were accepted until disagreement between liberalism and conservatism led to doubt in belief. Giving more insight, and a more robust knowledge on a topic. In conclusion as seen throughout the natural sciences, religion and history we can see that disagreement creates doubt which further informs others on a certain topic, and that disagreement is the process that leads to consensus and overall a robust knowledge. In terms it is seen that to have robust knowledge you must have both consensus and