Disagreement And Knowledge Analysis

My personal understanding of this prescribed title is that, well rounded, developed and applicable knowledge requires both general agreement and disagreement. After reading this title, two further knowledge questions have become apparent to me. One of them being: To what extent does disagreement construct knowledge? And secondly: To what extent is knowledge with pure consensus applicable and what does it entail? I will be exploring these two knowledge questions from the aspects of the human sciences and the natural sciences in pursuit of answering the overall prescribed title “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement”. On the whole, I agree with this statement to some extent, because I believe disagreement is essential in the

The development of our understanding and treatment of malaria is a compelling example. Our current robust understanding of malaria has been developed over time due to new knowledge attained through improvements in technology, experimentation or pure imagination based on some evidence at the current time. The most popular explanations for malaria were that stagnant water was the reason for malaria and secondly that mosquitos pass on the disease through various fluids and microorganisms. In 400 BCE, Hippocrates, the first malariologist, suggested that ingestion of stagnant water was the cause for malaria because of its similar effects on the human spleen. This theory was supported for many years to come by some of the most accomplished scientists. However, in 1816, Giovanni Rasori doubted the “bad air” swamp theory as he was infected with malaria while in jail. The lack of bad air caused by swamps was the evidence needed to disagree, therefore it supported the theory that malaria is caused by parasites and microorganisms. Theories continued to develop with more evidence being discovered, the evidence lead to more accepted theories and ideas. Now it is understood that malaria is transmitted by mosquitos and we have even developed vaccines in order to prevent infection (“Journey of Scientific Discoveries”), due to early disagreement

Disagreement in some aspects can hinder the value or the extent to which the knowledge is applied in the real world, therefore reducing the “robustness” of it, when using my definition of robust. An example for this counterclaim is the frequent hostility towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs) predominant throughout Europe. Despite the positives these crops offer to consumers and farmers, the European Union heavily regulates their consumption, production and importation in hope of protecting its population and the surrounding environment (“Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003”) . Judging by the fact that 71% of French people who completed a survey about GM food completely rejected the idea, the culture throughout Europe heavily disagrees with GM food (Bonny). Only 5 countries within Europe produce some sort of GM crop, predominantly maize, reducing the application of the knowledge which GM crops bring to farmers, producers and sometimes even consumers. Furthermore, 19 countries within Europe including Germany and France have voted to prohibit the cultivation of such crops (Bonny) further hindering the development of our knowledge of GMOs, reducing its practicality and robustness. The disagreement throughout Europe discourages the production and development of such crops, which can increase yields and improve nutritional