Disagreement Aid the Pursuit of Knowledge

Disagreement Aid the Pursuit of Knowledge Many people believe that disagreement is simply like a husband and wife arguing with each other about whether the dress makes her look fat. However there is a great deal more to disagreement than just conflict between two people and from understanding the notion of error, truth, mistake and belief and how they cause disagreement to occur or trying to win your claim leads to interesting knowledge. Disagreement can actually aid the way to pursuit the knowledge in the ways of knowing of reason, emotion and sense perception in the areas of knowledge of human and natural science. This essay will show you how disagreement helps to pursue knowledge. Is it certain that disagreement aids the pursuit of knowledge? This following example will show that it does. One disagreement in natural science that has aided us humans to know more about our universe than before came from the dispute between scientists in the Theory of Quantum. In 1905 Albert Einstein stated that Max Plancks theory of the quantum was right and he proved his point by using an experiment with light, which showed that sometimes light acts as a wave. This shocked a lot of scientists because to them it was crazy as saying a rock acts like a wave. Niels Bohr disagrees with this idea because it went against the classical law of physics which applied to every object in that time. This disagreement made Bohr come up with a methodology proving his idea against Einstein by using hydrogen atoms to show that light isnt a wave. The disagreement between the two founders of quantum mechanics caused them to think further to discover more of the truth. Later Bohrs idea of a fix equation for an atom to behavior like particle was disproven by Max Born who building on Einsteins earlier work said that the quantum mechanics could be found by probability. However Einstein spoke strongly against this idea because he believed God does not roll a dice  [1]  and disagreeing with Borns idea of probability which held that everything was made up by chance. Einstein refused to accept quantum indeterminism and sought to demonstrate that the principle of indeterminacy could be violated, suggesting experiments which should permit the accurate determination of incompatible variables.  [2]  Then he came up with the two slip experiment to help prove his theory by using reason. All of this back and forward arguing between scientists gave us the further knowledge of quantum mechanics bringing us closer to the real truth. By using the way of knowing reason, they experimentally proved facts to argue each other and showing way of knowing emotion, their pride made them stand for their point of view on which view of quantum was true. Another example that really shows that disagreement aid the way to pursuit the true knowledge is disagreement between Alice Stewart and other doctor during 1950s in Oxford. Alice Stewart was trying to identify the cause of child cancer which later discovers that it is cause by X-rays during woman is pregnant. From Ted talk by Mergaret Heffernan about this story she stated that, Alices daughter told me that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist,  they made her think and think and think again. It show clearly that disagreement between Alice and her fellow scientist help them to understand the true meaning and further information into the research.  [3]   Disagreement aid the way to pursuit the true knowledge because from disagreement over the answer help scientist find more way and perspective to solve the problem. On the other hand this disagreement may not aid the way of pursuit knowledge because of the close mindedness of the people. These people will not find disagreement and aid because from viewing their own result as the real truth which then closed down all possible answer from other people. For example in the past, it is how Catholic Church believing in geocentric and strongly against all other idea of heliocentric, that was claim by Nicolaus Copernicus. From this classic example it shown that Catholic believe in geocentric because they believe that god was born in planet Earth which mean that Earth is definitely the center of the universe. They believe in this theory and even against an idea of heliocentric. Even theory of heliocentric can be proving by an observation of star. As we have seen emotion also can play an important role in finding the truth because being scared to be proven wrong makes some people close the way to develop their idea or refuse to check their assumption so that the real knowledge of truth cant be revealed. From the article Separating The Pseudo From Science by Michael D.Gordin, we get a good idea on disagreement in science between science and pseudoscience. There is not a demarcation between pseudoscience and science because both areas can add to range of human knowledge. As Gordin said If scientist uses some criterion such as peer review to demarcate, so will the fringe. The brighter the light of science-that is, the greater its cultural prestige and authority-the sharper the shadow, and the more the fringe flourishes.  [4]  The pseudoscience on the fringe will expand the size of the knowledge because pseudoscience views and investigate thing from different perception than normal science. We do have to be careful that it is possible that someone who doesnt know anything about science can claim something is scientific and true based on non-empirical evidence which can lead them off the track. We need to justify any claim by peer reviews that scientist do before we can add to our theoretical or concrete knowledge bases. Disagreement in the human science field can be shown in the field of history which country disagreeing with each other to cause the war to happen. For example American civil war was happen from one conflict or one disagreement which is about slavery. Northern of United States claim to free and end the slavery in the country however Southern part wanted to continues with the slavery because it will affect their economic in a bad way if the slavery end. The disagreement led further to cause a war against two sides of United States. From historical point of view we can see that disagreements over time over how a war began help to find the true cause of the war. However the knowledge is not certain because of the perception of the viewer who views one country or bias one more than another. There are no absolute truth behind disagreement in human science because history can be record in hatred which causing the truth to be change. On the other hand it may not help to find the absolute tru th but from using disagreement help to increase and change the way to approach which can help to discover some knowledge behind. For me the most interesting areas where disagreement aids the pursuit of information are in the areas of knowledge of mathematics and human science. Disagreeing with teacher over either answer was correct or not help to pursuit more knowledge on mathematic than normal because from this I can understand more on how to solve the question by looking at why am I wrong or finding prove to show why I am right. There are a lot of formula and way to solve the question so it is certain by discussing with teacher and sharing our different views, he and I can help each other learn that even though the formula or method isnt the same but the answer in the end is the same. In human science there is a lot of disagreement, because human can understand each other behavior more through sense perception and emotion than by scientific evidence. This lack of hard proves easy lead to an argument. From my experience people will start to know each other more and more when they are disagreeing with each other because it is our human nature to control ourselves and present the information in the best possible way. If that isnt their real behavior, the real behavior will be revealed when they are face with strong rapid change of emotion from arguing with other people. On the other hand in some situation arguing with other people will not lead to knowing each other more but lead into destruction of friendship. Disagreement in both human science and natural science can aid the pursuit of knowledge like in the way like Einstein and Bohr arguing to discovered quantum mechanics through the argument between themselves and how historian discover the meaning and the purpose of history by learning about disagreement which led to war between country. However this knowledge that came from disagreement may be not the real truth for everything because my truth and your truth are not same, like each scientists and historians view thing in different point of view. So everyone must freely look at both sides. Disagreement can help the pursuit the knowledge if we have the reason and right emotions to be open minded enough to listen to other people ideas and accepts the fact that they also can be saying the truth from another perception. Disagreement Aid The Pursuit Of Knowledge Disagreement Aid The Pursuit Of Knowledge Disagreement may aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences because disagreement fosters new research to justify rival theories. Openness to allow disagreeing points of view and theories to be presented is important because it challenges scientists and prompts them to justify their points of view through a genuine dialogue. In this essay I will focus on biology and economics then I will try to discuss how ways of knowing are linked to disagreement. I will also endeavor to show how disagreement has helped me in the process of knowledge acquisition. 1858 was the year when Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallaces new theory was published the evolutionary theory that was thoroughly expounded in the famous treatise On the Origin of Species (1859)  [1]  by Ch. Darwin. In contrast to Lamarck, Darwin proposed the concepts of the common descent and the branching tree of life, which means that two totally different species could have a common ancestor. The theorys fundament was the idea of natural selection, and it was based on a variety of evidence from animal husbandry, geology, biogeography, embryology, and morphology. Evolution underlies every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms. We can see a proof of this in the way species behave and adapt as a result of natural selection. The ability to adapt is exhibited in activities such as locating food, keeping away from predators or finding mates. Life forms can also react to selection by working together with each other, by assisting their relatives or entering in a symbios is of shared advantage. In the end, evolution creates new species through separating the familial populations of organisms, forming new groups that are not able to produce a common generation. Today, the contemporary evolutionary theory is accepted by the greater part of scientists. On the other hand, evolution is still a controversial notion for a number of theists. While a number of religions and denominations are prepared to accept the theory of evolution, making it compatible with their beliefs, there are creationists who purport that evolution is opposing the creation myths present in their religions. As the responses towards the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844 show, the most controversial feature of evolutionary biology is the inference that human beings descend, together with apes, from a common ancestor and that the intellectual and ethical abilities of humans possess the same inherited attributes as those characteristic of animals. In a number of countries, particularly the United States, these strain between science and religion has produced the current conflict between creation and evolution, a religious conflict connected with politics and p ublic education. While scientific areas such as cosmology and geology also clash with a number of interpretations of religious books, evolutionary theory encounters noteworthy antagonism from religious theoreticians and practitioners. The debate over evolution shows how disagreement encourages more detailed research and, as a result, contributes to the pursuit of knowledge. However, it also shows that disagreement is not only about gathering reliable knowledge, but also about the way one undertakes the acquisition of it. Because theism had been a deeply-rooted philosophy for a very long time, people felt some kind of emotional attachment to it. The same, however, can be said about evolutionists. This can be seen from the fact that the supporters of evolution did not reject the theory in light of new controversial findings. In my opinion, the fact that the evolutionists accept evolution as a basic principle is not disputed by the creationists. It is absurd to say that creationists use the beliefs of the evolutionists to show that they doubt evolution. The purpose of quoting the supporters of evolution is to show the disputable issues in the field of evolution, which are being studied. Another example of the role of disagreement in science is exhibited in the field of modern economics, especially when it comes to the long-run equilibrium  [2]  . It is a notion that aggregate demand is equal to long-run aggregate supply. Given that there is disagreement among different economic concepts, we distinguish between Keynesian equilibrium output in the long run and the new classical equilibrium output2. According to new classical economists, economy will always try to achieve a long-run equilibrium at the full employment level of output. Thus, long-run equilibrium is where the aggregate demand curve meets the vertical long-run aggregate supply curve. The effect of any changes in aggregate demand will be only on the price level. In each case the equilibrium level of output is where aggregate demand is equal to long-run aggregate supply. According to the Keynesian economists, however, this equilibrium level of output may be found at different levels. They believe that the economy may be in long-run equilibrium at a level of output below the full employment level of national income. This will be the case if the economy is operating at a level where there is spare capacity. In this view, the equilibrium level of output depends mainly on the level of aggregate demand in economy. In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand can increase in such a way that there is an increase in the level of r eal output, without any resulting increase in the price level. No clear conclusion has yet been made concerning the long-run equilibrium in macroeconomics. Instead of having a weak and formal equilibrium, vigorous disagreement between experts would give the decision-makers the opportunity to come up with meaningful alternatives that inform and enrich discussions. Writing this essay invoked a memory of a disagreement I had with a classmate of mine over GMO (Genetically modified organism). Few months I watched a TV program on CCTV it was an attempt to introduce the advantages of GMF. I know that the problem with genetically modified food is probably the most significant one. But I am quite aware for the fact that there are genetically modified elements in many other products. This program is very interesting and it widens the eyes. The one that I am sure of is cotton. It has brought many discussions all over the world. However, at the same time a friend of mine was convinced by a text in a website called Ten disadvantages of genetically modified food  [3]  . We started doing a lot of research to support our personal argument. Thus disagreement aided our individual pursuit of knowledge. We did not reach a conclusion due to lack of enough reliable information. He asked me: Can you imagine a genetically modified human being- can it be perfect? Sure, we have to be careful as one day we, human beings, can be modified too. A genetically modified human is the logical continuation of this process. And as far as I know, many claim that choosing the genes for your children and improving their genetic material is good as long as we help them avoid diseases. But in my opinion is same of his, once we start doing this, there will be no going back. And one day some science fiction movies will become reality. When scientists aspire to speak in an unified voice, they usually do so in a quite scientific way: they make and launch consensus reports. The idea is to compress the knowledge of many experts into a single point of view that can resolve disputes and help policy-making. But the process of reaching such a consensus often works against these goals, and can challenge the very authority it tries to project. The idea that science best asserts its authority through consensus statements differs from the real process of scientific development. Consensus is good for textbooks; real science makes its progress by increase challenges to the existing state of always-incomplete knowledge. Science would present greater importance to politics if it uttered the broadest set of likely interpretations, possibilities and perspectives, anticipated by the top experts, rather than forcing meeting to a purportedly unified voice. To conclude, a disagreement can often stop you from rushing into dire decisions and choices. They allow you time and give you space to think over it though you may get annoyed by the delay and hindrances. It is always possible you that may have done big homework on a decision, but you still may have left unnoticed a simple, but vital point, which the dissenting person can perceive when looked from a dissimilar viewpoint. Disagreement has fostered the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences such as biology and economics, because disagreement has led to additional research. We should not be afraid to disagree or recognize disagreement. Real leaders accept disagreement as truly successful one must periodically welcome a liberal dose of disagreement in every main or significant decision one takes, even if one is a specialist in what one does.