in what ways can disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences?

Question 1: In what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the

natural and human sciences?

Naina Fahima Hussain

Candidate Number:

Examination Session: May 2013

Theory of Knowledge

Teacher: Ms. Jennifer Tickle

Submission Date: 13/12/2012

Word Count: 1,538

Candidate Number: 002163-011Theory of Knowledge, Essay

Question 1: In what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences?

In what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and

human sciences?

Disagreement as a form of knowledge is a topic of argument. Disagreement can be

defined as the lack of approval of information. (Webster) Simultaneously, knowledge can be

defined as the “fact or condition” of knowing information which has been acquired either

through “experience or association”. (M. Webster) Even though the knowledge one gains

can come from empirical evidence and/or reason; the variation of experiences among

individuals make it harder for them to agree upon offered statements. This results to

disagreement which finally leads to either knowledge or false information. However, it is

important to justify whether disagreement is the only source of knowledge. Therefore, one

question that might be asked in the context of the topic being addressed is, “To what extent

is disagreement the only source of pursuing knowledge?”

It is important to initially distinguish the difference between the natural and human

sciences. Natural sciences are the branch of science concerned with matter, energy and

their corresponding behavior between each other (i.e. physics, biology and chemistry). (M.

Webster, Merriam- Webster, Natural Sciences) On the contrary, human sciences are the

branch of science that deals with human behavior and the concepts which define the human

soul (i.e. ethics and politics). The human sciences however is not limited to the concepts of

ethics and politics only, but branches out to the social sciences such as history, economics,

geography and anthropology. (Filipo)

There are many forms of knowledge, some of them being personal, propositional and

procedural knowledge. (Doceo)As far as the context of the question is concerned, it is

noticeable that disagreement is an extent to which knowledge can be acquired in the natural

and human sciences. Disagreement may arise in the acquisition of personal, practical,

propositional and procedural knowledge. Personal knowledge is knowledge which is

concerned with the information provided by an individual based on personal information; i.e.

2



I know how to dance. This knowledge is based on theoretical information and therefore,

cognitive dissonance may come into consideration while dealing with this branch of

knowledge. One may know ‘how’ to do dance but personally knows they ‘think’ they can

dance but also feels that they are ineligible to be in the position to prove that they can

dance. As a result, in situations as such, practical knowledge is absent; where there is lack

of skills and practice for proof of knowing.

Propositional knowledge, which can be defined as the form of knowledge concerned

with the theoretical information based on information provided by philosophers,

mathematicians and scientists (Doceo); can be used in the context of this topic, when

dealing with the natural sciences. In the case of humans, one cannot possibly see the

individual atoms in the universe with the naked eye. However, science has made it possible

for humans to understand the theory behind atoms and their mechanics. Antoine Lavoisier

initially introduced the chemistry of atoms and their theoretical concept. However, it was

John Dalton who further developed the theory and discovered the mechanics of atoms. If

Dalton and other scientists were satisfied with the information that was initially provided by

Lavoisier, Dalton would not have experimented and researched further to develop the

prevailing atomic structure. However, certain disagreements in the information provided by

Lavoisier allowed Dalton to research and improve the information provided for the atomic

structure, aiding the pursuit of knowledge. (Textbook) Even though Dalton provided evidence

of his research and findings, it can be questioned; “How can one validate the reliability of

information provided by authority?” When looking at this issue from a personal perspective,

how I am supposed to believe that atoms exist? The only source of my knowledge of the

existence of atoms in this universe is the knowledge I gained from my physics class.

However, I personally have no evidence to show that atoms exist because I never saw them.

All my knowledge about atoms is therefore based upon deduction. The only reason the

information about atoms is a form of knowledge to me is because I cannot falsify the claim,

making the information provided by Dalton, knowledge. When looking into the branch of art,

3



and surrealism in art, our perception is skewed towards what the artist wants us to see.

Therefore, our knowledge of the particular artwork which we are being presented with is

based upon the perception of the artist (or at least, what the artist wants his/her audience to

see). We could say that work of art can be deceiving to knowledge. A branch of human

science deal with ethics and an artist could possibly want to produce an artwork that is

offensive when looking at it, in the context of ethics. However, in order to please the

audience, the artist decides to give it another meaning. In such an instance, the meaning of

the artwork is deceiving to knowledge and is providing the audience with false information,

where disagreement hinders knowledge.

As mentioned before, knowledge is a variable that differs from person to person and

there is always some form of disagreement or miscommunication, even of a minor extent

within information provided to us. Disagreement manages to play a vital role in the natural

sciences too, such as economics. When I am assigned a debate topic in economics class, I

am always looking forward to learning the counter arguments during the debate. Most of the

times, the disagreements with the information provided by the opposing team allows us to

understand the topic in more depth. For example, I was once given the role of looking into

the negative consequences of a single currency used by two or more countries. I knew that

there were positive arguments for the notion but liked to believe that there were more

negative consequences for the argument. However, after the debate, the opposing team

mentioned several benefits of a single currency such as lower market prices, more choices

and economic development. Whereas, my arguments for a single currency were about loss

of national sovereignty and the loss of political power. After analyzing, I realized that

economics is more concerned with the economy as a whole rather than politics in general

and so it would be better to consider single currency as a benefit for the economy rather

than a disadvantage. This debate as a result helped me acquire knowledge and aided my

information about single currencies. In the case as such, disagreement did lead to

knowledge. Contrarily, many students in the class may have disagreed with the arguments

4



provided by my opposing team and therefore the disagreement did not aid their pursuit of

knowledge. In such cases, it could be asked, “How is knowledge mutual among individuals?”

What I may consider to be knowledge can be false information to someone else. This opens

up scope for more discoveries; however, how can it be justified what is absolute knowledge?

The title question seems to provide disagreement as a source of knowledge.

However, in many cases disagreement can hinder knowledge (such as the artist example).

Disagreement to knowledge only occurs until it is falsified where the disagreement then

becomes knowledge. Therefore, it could be said that disagreement cannot hinder knowledge

unless it falsifies presented information, or else it lacks sufficient evidence or sense

perception to hinder knowledge. Science, in present days has reached a state where non-

scientists merely question the validity of scientific explanation. This includes both natural and

human sciences. We tend to believe upon all scientific theories, economic theories, political

theories, ethics, etc. However, the over dependency on scientific claims (both on natural and

human sciences) is slowly decreasing the scope of disagreement of information provided to

us. For example, if I was ever diagnosed with a claimed incurable disease (in the case, that

the doctor- who here, is symbolic of scientific theory), I would not fight to get my disease

cured. I would already assume that it is actually incurable. However, my grandmother might

say that according to old folk tale, one who consumes natural herbs can possibly fix any

disease (this is all theoretical). I will tend to yield towards the doctor’s claim and stop fighting

rather than disagreeing with the doctor and take my grandmother’s advice. In this particular

situation, it could be questioned, “To what extent should we reconcile scientific explanation

with emotion or perception?” My grandmother’s advice could help me cure the “incurable”

disease; however, the doctor said that this disease is “definitely’ incurable. Here,

disagreement has not taken place and its absence, in this case is hindering knowledge.

From my viewpoint, I would say that we only believe in disagreed information once it

has falsified previous claims. Our minds are inclined towards believing information based

5



upon evidence and unless the evidence can be supported with valid arguments, it is not

knowledge. It has been proven by scientifically and with provided photographs that the world

round, I therefore do not believe in the previously claimed observation of the Romans that

the world is flat. Here, I have used my sense perception to believe in a disagreement. Since

different people see knowledge in different ways, it is up to their sense perception to either

believe in disagreement aiding knowledge or not. But from my analysis, it can be justified

that disagreement, in most cases aids the pursuit of knowledge.

6



Works CitedDoceo. Forms of Knowledge. November 2012 <http://www.doceo.co.uk/tools/forms.htm>.

Filipo, David San. What is Human Science? . Nov. 2012 <http://www.lutz-sanfilippo.com/library/general/lsfscience.html>.

Textbook, GenChem. Gen Chem Textbook- The Atomic Theory. 2012 <http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu/chempaths/GenChem-Textbook/The-Atomic-Theory-687.html>.

Webster, Merriam. Disagreement. November 2012 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disagreement>.

Webster, Merriam-. Merriam Webster Dictionaries- Knowledge. November 2012 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge>.

Webster, Merriam. Merriam- Webster, Natural Sciences. November 2012 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20sciences>.

7

in what ways can disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences?

Documents