What Is Robust By Anton Van Leeuwenhoek

Many people would say that they have a ‘robust’ understanding of an area of knowledge, and fully believe the claims which it supports. However, how much information is needed to gain a ‘robust’ understanding on the matter, and should we just accept the ‘knowledge’ which is presented to us, or is disagreement within an AOK necessary to achieve robust knowledge? ‘Robust’ is defined as “strong and healthy, or strong and unlikely to break or fail” , raising questions for the way of knowing, language, as there are multiple definitions of a word given by various sources. Can a word ever have one meaning? The answer would probably be no because language is ambiguous. Definitions can be vague and only explain a word by using other words. Language raises

In biology I learnt that Robert Hooke found that there’s empty spaces which are surrounded by walls through cutting a cork tissue, which he called a cell and also discovered the magnitude of cells that are in one cubic inch to be 1,259,712,000. Anton van Leeuwenhoek furthered Hooke’s research by observing and describing single celled organisms for the first time. Hence, the theories of cells discovered by Hooke were not altered, just added to because Leeuwenhoek agreed with the previous research that Hooke had discovered. However, this is not always the case, as some biological theories have been completely replaced with different ones. For example, the paradigm of blood circulation. Galen introduced the first theory of blood circulation, he believed that blood was created in the liver from ingested food which then flowed to the right side of the heart. Galen believed several arteries flowed into the brain, where ‘vital spirits’ were changed into animal spirits before being distributed around the body through hollow tubes called nerves, where blood was consumed by the

For example, they have their own likes and dislikes, different preferences such as favouring different religions, or view an event through a particular perspective such as political, social, economic or military. Consequently, historians can easily disagree over some events, which emotion, as a way of knowing, may be accountable for. It can be argued that emotion hinders rational thought, however if this is true, it must therefore interfere with how we view the world, linking to how emotion may unconsciously affect the way a historian perceives an event. There are, of course, some accounts which mirror each other with the historians in agreement, however is it possible that there were contrasting views which just weren’t documented, so is there really complete consensus and can this actually be achieved? While we can consider these aspects, if there’s no opposing view to an event it must therefore be accepted as there’s no way to verify this