“Robust Knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Paragraph 1
Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement
Robust knowledge: refers to knowledge claims that have withstood these constant challenges and have not been disproved
Robust: a type of ability that allows humans to apply it in their own world of things and at the same time be able to make use of it or refers to the knowledge which is strong, sturdy and resilient to change.
Arguing whether knowledge can be accepted or claimed as knowledge, requires a common agreement by authorities.
For knowledge to gain that quality, it must “stand trial” and face critique and disagreement to achieve consensus and solidity it’s something that its almost undisputable
Possible Questions:
To what extent can some areas of knowledge be better in providing a more justified belief?
Can robust knowledge be considered as truth or just knowledge that is agreed upon or that is consensus with other robust knowledge?
Does complete consensus limit the production of knowledge?
To what extent are the polarisation of views useful for robust knowledge to be established?
Is it more beneficial or damaging to the establishment of truth to have disagreements?
If robust knowledge can only be created from disagreement, and thus evolution, does robust knowledge, in its final form, truly exist?
Is ‘robust knowledge’ defined as knowledge that has withstood the test of time?
What qualifies as robust knowledge? can personal knowledge be robust despite not having gone through consensus and disagreement
What makes knowledge reliable and whether or not it is.
It’s debatable whether ‘non-robust’ information qualifies as knowledge at all.
For knowledge to be considered robust, it must be subjected to a healthy amount of debate from several perspectives in order to guarantee that the knowledge is not tainted by the prejudice of a single viewpoint.
Some knowledge, while robust, are meant to have a limited scope/application, in order to be useful.
Area of Knowledge:
Natural Sciences
This area of knowledge is heavily reliant on both consensus and disagreement (most of the time consensus)
Universally accepted in consensus
History
Since historical knowledge cannot be altered and remains objective, it can be considered independent of consensus and disagreement.
Transition to the body of the essay
Possible RLS for Natural Sciences balance of nature theory balance of nature theory was an old theory that basically everybody took as true which stated: predators don’t over eat prey prey don’t over consume their own system and instead of balance of nature theory we now have CHAOS THEORY robust knowledge is created from people disproving ideas arriving at new truths and then pronouncing those as robust knowledge
Newton’s law
