By reasoning, one comes to a conclusion that is different than that of another person using facts. One can also disagree based on his perceived reality, which may be opposite to the perceived reality of another person. For example, I used to perceive my father as extremely tall when I was a very little, but I perceive him as rather short now.
When I was little, I could easily disagree with anyone who called my father short and now, I might disagree with someone who calls him tall. However, perception alone is never enough is scientific debates. While perception is necessary in finding the scientific truth, scientific debates need facts which can be derived from experiments and observation in order to be meaningful.
By using these methods, one may reach a result that is able to contradict previous assumptions and demonstrate that they are wrong. My own experience with disagreement based on reason was theological in nature.
Because I strongly disagreed with my opponent on matters related to religion, I tried to look for facts that proved my points. The debate which took place on the internet was similar to a scientific debate because it involved an audience formed by other users, of which some supported me while others supported my opponent. Even though the debate between us was very intense and even caused users to switch from one side to another, no conclusion could be reached in the end.
This is because our disagreement did not benefit from factual proof in the form of experiment which could actually demonstrate the claims beyond the possibility of further argument. In this respect, my theological debate was similar to debates in the field of philosophy, for example, because in this field too, disagreements never actually end.
Scientific disagreements are different in the fact that researchers have factual ways of demonstrating their claims. However, my own debate showed me the benefits of disagreement because I was able to enhance my knowledge in the topic as well as that of the users who assisted to the debate and I was even able to change their pervious opinions on the topic.
Thus, disagreement may help the pursuit of knowledge in the human sciences and natural sciences because it allows researchers to come up with new ideas that might prove the falsity of a certain theory. Also, even when further advancements in the field show that both sides of the debate were wrong, certain issues rose in the disagreement or certain parts of the disagreement might prove correct or even important in the field.
Disagreement thus gives the possibility of enriching the field even when no result was obtained through disagreement. However, as shown above, disagreement is not always beneficial for the pursuit of knowledge.
When the disagreement affects the community, researchers should come together and find a resolution to the problem. Agreement may be the best practice in some human sciences such as psychology, education, or sociology because the disagreement of the researchers may cause a blockage in the advancement of the field or may even have direct serious consequences for patients or students, for example.
Egger, A. Ideas in science: scientific controversy. A claim that is put forward may be disproved by attacking the means by which it was created. Let as look at the first example mentioned above - the OPERA experiment, conducted to find an object capable of travelling faster than light.
With the potential discovery, modern physics would have to be restructured entirely, and theories would be based on different sets of empirical data. The horizon of the subject would widen, leading to a leap in the pursuit of knowledge.
While it may have cost a lot to scientific research, the experiment has made an effective statement of how natural sciences are limited when it comes to accuracy. Moreover, it is a clear example of how disagreement has aided the search for knowledge; the neutrino anomaly was deviant from a universal law of physics and brought to attention the uncertainties caused by the resources available for scientific experimentation.
These effects of disagreement are not exclusive to the technology though. Charles A. Without internal disagreement, a science is cold and dead. In the process of experimentation, knowledge is gained and we see that the argument is the cause for a boost in the search for knowledge.
Conversely, disagreement can be hostile to the natural sciences as it hinders knowledge with false claims. A renowned example of this scenario is the Copernicus-Church controversy over the layout of the solar system. An act of heresy, Copernicus challenged the church as an advocate of astronomy, claiming rightly that the Sun was in fact the center of the solar system. In this case study, we see that the disagreement of the Church redirected the pursuit of knowledge.
Another catch to a science-religion debate is the clash between emotion and logical reasoning as subjectivity meets objective data. Posted November 18, How do we use the ways of knowing in the essay? Is anyone know what is the knowledge issues for this topic? Posted November 20, Lena Q. Posted November 24, RubberChicken 0 Posted November 27, Posted November 27, Simone 0 Posted November 29, Posted November 29, Here they are: -Disagreement usually occurs on two levels; a moral level and an ethical level or somewhere in between that spectrum.
IB-Adam 29 Posted December 6, Posted December 6, edited. Posted December 8, Ryan Giggs 0 Posted December 14, Posted December 14, RileyK94 0 Posted December 15, Posted December 15, ChocolateDrop Posted December 16, Posted December 16, Posted December 16, edited. Edited December 17, by norsul. Posted December 17, edited. EDIT: Nevermind, this was a horrible idea. Sorry for posting this. Edited December 21, by norsul. Whenever the intentions of individuals are genuine, the differences in viewpoints will lead to a higher consciousness of different possible facets as well as the different analysis of the evidence of the knowledge issue under discussion.
These differences will therefore lead to the generation of intellectual verve and a cross breeding of thoughts and ideas. This process then will lead to the generation of varied hypotheses to deal with a specific matter and as such will then present a range of solutions that will help in sorting out situations in the best possible manner and with the best available solution. Within the gamut of natural sciences, so many times it has happened that disagreements to the given and accepted have led to advancements and began very early on when it was believed that the earth is flat.
About years back the notion that the earth could be round was rejected citing reasons such as if the earth was round, people at the bottom side of earth would fall from that side. But later this myth was debunked when while thinkers began to disagree with the commonly accepted fact on the flatness of earth and many valid evidence was brought forth to reject the theory of the roundness of the earth.
Evidence like the projected shadow on moon of earth at the time of lunar eclipse, different lengths of shadows at the same time on different places on earth and the fact that gravitational force exists on earth and if it were flat then earth would collapse around its centre. Thus, the differences in opinions of thinkers backed up with irrefutable evidence against an existing theory ultimately leads to the truth.
There are two postulates of natural sciences that imbibe two different ways of scientific life and of the rationale of scientific inquiry. As per the first postulate, science is all about imagination and exploration and the scientist is somebody who is involved in an intellectual adventure when he tries to concept something in his mind and then tries to find the answers to it using the laws of different bodies of science, like physics, chemistry and biology etc.
He or she therefore arrives at any discovery by first imagining about it and then actually creating it. It may be also when the scientist is undergoing any scientific expedition then on his or her way might stumble upon something of interest and that may lead to development of a scientific theory.
There is another postulate within natural sciences on the way to arrive at truth or knowledge, which is that the whole activity of science is an analytical activity that requires evidence to proceed before any opinion or viewpoint can be generated.
Thus science is a critical activity and the analysis of evidence can lead towards knowledge. The evidence can come in the form of established theories and making the use of the same to create something new, something worthwhile for the human race. This point of view finds support in many corners of the. Some scholars say that: "One's preliminary hypotheses have a decided advantage in the judgement process. This is what is agreed upon as a definition by most researchers who undertake the phenomenon of social study.
The human behavior is itself unpredictable and will vary with different individuals behaving differently, thinking differently based on the set of their own experiences. One of the characteristics of human sciences is that it results in a body know organized knowledge which will have a broad consensus of researchers and only due to this broad consensus, is human science is actually termed as a science.
However, when we compare the social sciences to natural sciences, we find that there will be a lot less agreement in the human sciences as compared to the natural sciences with respect to what will be known as knowledge or truth since natural science is related to the physical objects but human science is related to human behavior which varies individual to individual. Humans will tend to disagree with each other in their daily lives on an everyday basis.
Thus social reality might be different for different individuals. But when the humans share their viewpoints, it is only then that some kind of consensus may be achieved post discussions on disagreements for it is through disagreements only then different viewpoints can be taken up for discussion, argues upon logically and made to arrive at the best possible consensus based solution which will the constitute knowledge as it would be agreed upon the majority of individuals after much delving upon the topic of discussion or issue of interest.
0コメント