Consensus and disagreement both play a role in the production of knowledge, whether it is necessary or not is up for discussion. This claim implies that in order to have a knowledge that is “robust”, by expert opinion, we must have two conflicting perspectives on the topic at hand. “Robust” is a term used to discuss the quality and value that is placed on the knowledge that we discover. ‘Robust knowledge’ can be referred to as a knowledge that is applicable universally to a wide range of things; one that has practical use or application. ‘Consensus’ Is basing knowledge on the fact that everyone, or at least most people agree that something is knowledge, whilst disagreement is the exact opposite. I agree with the claim that you must have both consensus and agreement to get a good understanding on a certain topic. From this I derived the question ‘In what ways does disagreement create doubt in the production of knowledge?’ & ‘To what extent do consensus and disagreement go hand in hand?’
Disagreement can be defined as the contradiction over the logic of arguments or evidence, whilst consensus is basing knowledge on the fact that a large sum of people agree that something is knowledge, both consensus and disagreement go hand in hand to a great extent. Disagreement is the process that leads to consensus. In reference to the natural sciences, the natural sciences often require general consensus for theories or laws brought about. Theory building in the natural and human sciences involves a community process of sharing evidence, experiments & observations. The process itself entails rigor and prolonged deliberation that has a higher objective to seek a ‘robust knowledge’. Within this process, the various shared thoughts and findings often contradict and lead to disagreement. The action of disagreement incentivizes those to seek a solution, which in return leads to a consensus. Disagreements highlight differentiating points of views and brings about thought provoking ideas. Disagreements entails deeper recognition and judgment instead of mere accommodation or easy consensus. There lies an inherent value in getting to know the ‘other side’ of the argument. Not only the disagreements steer towards scrutiny and exploration, the resulting outcome also rests on a well balanced and robust foundation.The scientific controversies involve strong disagreements either over the interpretation of the data, availability of conclusive evidence to support the idea or future investigation and yet the discussion and debate to overcome opposition is what persuades the entire scientific community for the theory or the idea to be ‘convincing’ if not ‘infallible’. Many a times, disagreements settle when further experiments are conducted and fresh data is generated. Science works because scientists disagree, they challenge each other’s ideas, find better ways to interpret and analyse and and eventually come to conclusions that bring us closer to truth. The process of which disagreement leads to consensus. An example of this can be seen in the alternative views on climate change, which in term has led to a scientific consensus that climate change is real.
On the other hand consensus and disagreement do not go hand in hand. This is because disagreement depending on the situation hinders the process of consensus by creating a hiatus in the process of the development of knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge through disagreement could be obstructed by human emotions and the accompanied biases which transcend logical reasoning; religion and age old traditions that virtually descended into the hands of their followers are common examples. In such cases, disagreement, either fails to penetrate human thinking or else, serves to further strengthen the existing belief. Similarly, reasoning (inductive or deductive) help the two parties demonstrate the truth in their arguments. Therefore, certain ways of knowing can influence the extent to which disagreement may aid or hinder the pursuit of knowledge. An example of disagreement hindering the production of knowledge would be the crisis in Myanmar, their buddhist government doesn’t like the Muslim minorities the rohnya, the government at the time is not recognizing them as citizens. Here we see disagreement between people because of religion, leading to a hiatus in consensus of peace amongst people driven by faith and emotion. Overall the people can’t move forward together, pausing the development of the Myanmar people, because of a division created by disagreement. Here we see that disagreement does not lead to consensus hindered by religion.
In the same manner that disagreement arises further discussion on a topic to further advance knowledge as well as hindering knowledge due to a direct cause of a hiatus, disagreement creates doubt in the production of knowledge. Disagreement creates doubt by questioning a set logic. When confronted with disagreements , it is a natural response to investigate , probe , inquire , reflect and reexamine ‘what went wrong’. If there is only consensus it only bolsters existing , ideas strategy and practices , reinforcing credence to existing knowledge and information. When we have doubt we are further motivated to increase our knowledge and absolving our doubt. I can personally relate to this, coming from a strict catholic family and entering school where there are varying religions and aspects, the disagreement brought about which religion is the ‘actual’ ‘right’ religion created doubt within my faith in my religion. This led me to inform myself on other religions and helped me gather a rather more robust knowledge.
Another way in which disagreement creates doubt is it probes people to further look into a certain topics in which at the time though inherently subjective had become widely accepted beliefs. Such as the role of slavery in the civil war, while it’s inherently up to the historian to say to what extent slavery was the cause of the war. Though it’s role is subjective and up to the historian it has been widely accepted up until the rise of the alt right in 2016. Beliefs that were inherently subjective but yet were accepted until disagreement between liberalism and conservatism led to doubt in belief. Giving more insight, and a more robust knowledge on a topic.
In conclusion as seen throughout the natural sciences, religion and history we can see that disagreement creates doubt which further informs others on a certain topic, and that disagreement is the process that leads to consensus and overall a robust knowledge. In terms it is seen that to have robust knowledge you must have both consensus and disagreement.