Theory of Knowledge Essay
Instructions:-
Title 5: Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Thoughts to consider with essay 5 include:
the difference between rational and non-rational disagreement
the relationship between facts and theories
the difference between common access and common perception of facts
With Reason, Emotion and Language as AOK/WOK
Paragraph 1
-Give your KQ. For example, “To what extent is math more reliable than other areas of knowledge?”
-State your thesis. What is your short answer to the KQ (your question of knowledge). “While looking at mathematics, natural science and ethics, we will see that mathematics isn’t necessarily more reliable; however, we will see that knowledge is different in different fields.”
-Give us a roadmap, a sentence that gives us a preview, showing us what you’re going to do in your body paragraphs. Make it clear how you are going to explore the KQ, which Ways of Knowing and/or Areas of Knowledge you’re going to use. This will make it easy for the marker to know what to look for. An example: “Mathematics can be seen as more reliable because it uses reason. Natural science can be less reliable because it relies on observation. And ethics can be less reliable because it is related to the norms of a person’s society. ”
Section 2: Two paragraphs totalling 600 words
Paragraph 2
-Claim. A claim a topic sentence that outlines your argument about the KQ. For example you could claim that, “Mathematics can be relied on because it is a purely logical system.”
-Explain. Elaborate and clarify your claim. “Mathematics is axiomatic and independent of subjective experience.“
-Example. A real life example, to clarify and support the claim from your own experience. Examples should be personal, specific, precise and real. Did something happen in your Science class? Did you have a conversation with your or hear a story from your grandfather? These are evidence from your own life rather than examples from Darwin or Lincoln. So you could talk about how, “In mathematics we learned that the inside angles of a triangle, in Euclidian space, sum up to 180 degrees.”
Paragraph 3
-Counter-claim. Argue against your claim above. “However, it is possible to come to different conclusions using different systems of mathematics.”
-Example. An example that supports your counter claim. “There are different It is not possible to demonstrate that the interior angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees in Euclidian space, this cannot be proven within other systems, such as spherical geometry or hyperbolic geometry.”
-Link to KQ. Quickly sum up the (complicated) insights of this section. “It is therefore clear that mathematics is reliable to an extent, but often it can only show something to be true within one fixed system or approach.”
Section 3: Another two body paragraphs, looking at your second AoK or WoK. Write these using the same approach you saw in paragraphs 2 and 3. 600 words
Paragraph 4
-Claim.
-Explain.
-Example.
Paragraph 5
-Counter-claim.
-Example.
-Link to KQ.
Section 4: Conclusion with two paragraphs totalling 200-250 words
Paragraph 6
-Implications and significance. Why is it important that we know about this?
-Perspective. Explain another view that someone may have (i.e. an older person, someone who’s had different life experiences than you)
Paragraph 7
-Sum up the argument. The thesis again, in short. What have we learned?
Solution
Theory of Knowledge
Among experts including any other person have disagreements in their interaction thus making it an unavoidable and definitely possible to occur (Chisholm, 8). After facts are offered to two individuals, they form a clarification of the information based on their understanding. The interpretation of the information may unintentionally be the same, although in most cases, each individual tends to have a belief in his own way (Chisholm, 10). Therefore, when an analysis is shared between the two individuals, one may have an opinion that is different. The reason behind it is the fact that most experts practice their knowledge in fields that are different. Through that, experts in the same field have acquired plenty of things that are different in the subject. Basing on such facts, it is likely that disagreements between experts may arise as a result of difference in experience, perspective as well as knowledge (Chisholm, 14). This paper will focus on arguing the ways that experts disagree in a discipline under the area of knowledge in natural science and human science.
The paper will begin by exploring the different applications of experts in human and natural sciences as the two areas of knowledge. Further, the paper will highlight on reason, emotion and language as the areas of knowledge and ways of knowledge. Arguments on the disagreements between experts will follow including the factors that encourage disagreements.
In the first place, human science is the dedication of time and awareness so as to obtain knowledge on activities, actions, behaviors, and artifacts that is in favor to humans. This is to be accomplish through a series actions, such as observing, taking a survey, or doing a social experiment to test how human conduct oneself and react to a situation.
In natural sciences, scientists with the same access to resources and evidence from experiments may however disagree over the scientific interpretation and findings. Disagreement is important in understanding the being of programs in biological research at any given time in science, since it is key to understanding the rise of traditions in research over the history of science. In addition, disagreement nurtures persistent questions for the recurrent philosophical argument about realism in science.
In trying to explain concepts, language plays an important role. In theory of knowledge, communication between human can either be written or spoken through a language. It is through the basis of language that experts are able to share.
When making decisions, reason is what individuals use whenever they make a decision and it happens in an instinctive way. When experts in a field decide on which is the best way follow in an unconscious way depending on experiences that passed over conditions that are similar. It is important to consider reason in relation to emotion, that is, the level to which individuals can trust decisions without disagreements through reasoning. In addition, reasoning has been used to analyze the field of experts. However, majority of the experts work on problems that not specified in the right way. A lot of the investigators have argued recently the significance of theories in economics and statistics as a basis of forming decisions in the real world. Whereas statistical and economic theories cannot frequently be applied to the areas where experts work.
Besides this, in the introduction to ways of knowing which can be expressed as the manner in which emotions may interfere with how an individual views the world. Through emotions, an individual may have the ability to think about their relationship to other ways of knowing including their assistance when constructing areas of knowledge.
Most researchers in different fields find themselves most of the times puzzled when view consistent and sizable disagreements arising between subjects that are specifically experts in the discipline. For instance, when two financial experts are tasked with analyzing an investment, the most likely outcome is that their recommendations will be similar. If the recommendations differ then their skills are questioned. According to research, experts from different domains often disagree.
Among the structural factors as to why experts to some extent disagree include; experts offer human solutions in life that may not be achieved in any other way. A distinction must be created between the various levels of decisions that experts make (Coady, 68). For instance, when using language in medical field, it is possible to differentiate between the three levels. In the first place is the word diagnosis that is based on classification. Secondly is the word prognosis that is based on predicting scenarios in the future. Thirdly is the treatment that comprises of the selection of an action plan. In a nutshell, there are many forms of diagnoses as well as prognoses, however there are few treatments (Coady, 69). Therefore, experts may agree on the kind of treatment but may disagree on the level of diagnosis.
Another reason may be evident in the long term perspective that discloses that experts often work in fields that has the basic science evolving (Coady, 70). An example is evident in the fast changes that occur in medicine show that the best solutions for today are soon obsolete. Therefore experts in such a field may not be expected to agree on one correct solution when tomorrow a new solution will challenge the existing.
Among the functional factors that explain why experts may disagree include; in most cases, experts are expected to disagree between each other. For instance, in a discussion between two experts, it is evident that they will always have an issue to argue over. Suppose I the argument they agree over the issue by 99%, the experts will in a fast way try to find the remaining 1 percent and form an argument over it (Coady, 72). This will form the basis of disagreement between the experts. Therefore, for experts, disagreements forms part of their work.
Through disagreements, experts find a way through which they can increase their understanding in a specific field. By engaging into areas of disagreements, experts find the ability to question their knowledge and improve their level of competency in their field (Gobet, 34). To experts, disagreements can be seen as a way of increasing and maintaining their understanding of their field of expertise.
After a field has sufficiently advanced to a level where the entire issues affecting it are resolved, less disagreements occur between the experts since there is nothing to argue over (Gobet, 34). Once a field has evolved to such a level where all solutions have been met and agreed upon, no more disagreements is needed. Therefore, complete agreement between the experts is an indication that the role of experts in such a field is not available.
To conclude, the paper has addressed the question, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline. Disagreements between experts in a discipline is evident across different areas of knowledge. Experts have disagreements that an unavoidable and which are definitely possible to happen. When experts in the same field give a fact, a clarification is formed concerning the information and relates their understanding. Thus, the interpretation of the information may unintentionally be the same, different experts tends to have a belief on their own way. Therefore, when a study is shared between several experts, one may have an opinion that is differs from the rest. This is because most experts practice their knowledge in fields that differ. Through that, experts in the same field have acquired plenty of things that are different in the subject forming disagreements among facts. Therefore, disagreements between experts may arise as a result of difference in experience, perspective as well as knowledge.
The paper has in addition highlighted the reasons as to why experts in a field disagree and what factors contribute to their disagreements. Therefore, the view of disagreements between experts should not be taken as a source of apprehension over the aptitude of experts. Research work should consider views over the absence of consensus leading to a hypothetical incompetence of experts.
Works Cited
Chisholm, Roderick M. Theory Of Knowledge. 1st ed. Print.
Coady, David. “When Experts Disagree“. Episteme 3.1-2 (2006): 68-79. Web.
Gobet, Fernand. Understanding Expertise. 1st ed. Print.
