Title 6 – KQ 2     :    To what extent are disagreements and consensus valuable and contribute in building Robust Knowledge?

 

 

 

The theories in Natural Sciences call for a general consensus amongst the scientific community after the observations, experiments, investigations and results are found to be consistent , reproducible and in agreement over time. The claims and counterclaims stand to persevere from scrutiny and exploration, the resulting outcome is based on a well balanced and robust foundation.This examination through claims and conflicting claims entails deeper recognition and judgment instead of mere accommodation. Taking for instance, Theory building or Theory change in Natural and Human sciences involve a community process of sharing experiments, observations, feedback and interpreting the data in distinct ways and in varied settings. The process entails rigor and prolonged deliberation that has the higher objective to seek Accurate Knowledge for the entire Humanity.

The world around us consists of multidimensional , complex , dynamic and interconnected systems that necessitates knowing and understanding built through multiple claims and counterclaims/conflicting claims.

There lies an inherent value in getting to know the ‘other side’ of the argument. Not only the disagreements steer towards scrutiny and exploration, the resulting outcome also rests on a well balanced and robust foundation.

This examination through disagreements entails deeper recognition and judgment instead of mere accommodation or easy consensus. Taking for instance, Theory building or Theory change in Natural and Human sciences involve a community process of sharing experiments, observations, feedback and interpreting the data in distinct ways and in varied settings. The process entails prolonged deliberation that often sparks scientific controversy as witnessed in case of any ground breaking theoretical idea.

The scientific controversies involve strong disagreements either over the interpretation of the data, availability of conclusive evidence to support the idea or future investigation and yet the discussion and debate to overcome opposition is what persuades the entire scientific community for the theory or the idea to be ‘convincing’ if not ‘infallible’. Many a times, disagreements settle when further experiments are conducted and fresh data is generated.

Science works because scientists disagree – they challenge each other’s ideas, find better ways to interpret and analyse and and eventually come to conclusions that bring us closer to truth.

 

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/alternative-views-climate-change/p14318

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/underlying-causes

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443861/

 

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

https://core.human.cornell.edu/research/systems/theory/perspectives.cfm

 

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2008/04/17/the-evidence-for-belief-an-interview-with-francis-collins/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

 

http://dr-monsrs.net/2015/04/18/what-happens-when-scientists-disagree-part-i-background-to-controversies-involving-scientists/

http://dr-monsrs.net/2015/04/25/what-happens-when-scientists-disagree-part-ii-why-is-there-such-a-long-controversy-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/

http://dr-monsrs.net/2015/04/30/what-happens-when-scientists-disagree-part-iii-is-glyphosate-poisoning-us-all/

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/great-minds-think-unlike-cultural-perspective-opinion-forming

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/overview-the-conflict-between-religion-and-evolution/

 

 

 

 

mindpads.org@gmail.com