Generally, a fact can be defined as a piece of information which is justified beyond doubt in a certain area. Although, what a fact is and how it is justified depends heavily on the area of knowledge in which the information originates. Therefore, there are always arguments about facts and how they may be untrue in one area, but true in another, yet that may render them no longer a fact as it is no longer justified beyond doubt in the other area. This is a naturally occurring process, although this situation begs the question; how can two experts in a certain discipline disagree, yet have access to the same facts? If the facts they have are completely justified beyond doubt in a certain area, how can an issue arise between these two experts? This will be answered through both the human sciences and the arts as the areas of knowledge.
“Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.” (1) - Thomas Robert Malthus
In the human sciences this is an ongoing debate between the Neo-Malthusians and the Anti-Malthusians. Both of these valid expert groups are arguing about the exact same situation in the exact same area. Although, one believes that the malthusian theory is correct, in relation to modern medicine and birth control methods (Neo-Malthusians) and there are the ones who believe that the malthusian theory is incorrect (Anti-Malthusians). But how does this situation arise? In the human sciences there are generally two ways in which experts take data, this being quantitative and qualitative. This Malthusian theory uses both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data is more on the descriptive side, rather than numerical data as it is conveyed through the way of knowing: language. Generally speaking, language is mainly based on personal knowledge and interpretations, which can get meaning and sentiments of a situation across to another person, allowing them to gain shared knowledge. Based on this assumption, one of the weaknesses with language is the fact that humans tend to interpret things differently. With language being the way one acquires qualitative data, it is assumed that it is based mainly on interpretations of situations that occur, which could be disfigured when replicating it through language, as the situation is translated. Now relating back to the essay question, this situation of interpretations gives an unknown factor to the human sciences in which, due to language usage they may disagree and have disputes eg. the neo-malthusians and the anti malthusians. Although in this specific situation between these experts, the main unknown is the fact that one believes that resource consumption is eventually going to reach the population growth level, and surpass it. These anti-malthusians base it off of quantitative data which they obtain on resource consumption and population growth. They base their knowledge on a belief, which is backed up by reason and intuition. But that is also the exact same fundamental beliefs as the neo-malthusians who think that there will always be a bypass for resource consumption. In a way, the disagreement seems to manifest itself in the ways of knowing, the ways in which one builds their personal knowledge, and it does not cohere in both parties. There if valid evidence that humanity tends to find ways around using a resource by substitution such as soy milk in replacement for a cow’s milk as certain people who are lactose intolerant cannot process the milk, therefore coming up with a new resource to substitute the old, useless one. But the real question is if this coheres to resource consumption as a whole? What do the anti-malthusians base this on? It seems they base it on the same ways of knowing as the neo-malthusians do, reason and intuition. It is generally observed in human nature that if they do not get ahold of a certain resource, they find another to substitute it, it is just a behavioural characteristic. Based on this assumption we assume that we are in fact always going to find a bypass for a resource, it generally makes valid, logical sense if it is an actual element of human behaviour. Although this intuitive response is also seen in neo-malthusianism as they believe it is in human nature to mass consume until the resource runs out completely, without restraint. This evidence is generally backed up by resources such as fossil fuels. At what point will it no longer become sustainable? At what point will we finally exhaust this finite, slowly spawning resource? How do we know that this is certain doom for this resource? Quite simply put, we don’t. If the anti-malthusians are correct humans will find a bypass for it, and forget the resource, allowing for it to go back to its regular spawn time. Both of these arguments have valid counterclaims although they seem to see in different emotional lights. One may even go so far that the neo-malthusians are presenting an adhominem, as they share their knowledge of humans being resource consuming monsters, which would greatly appeal to one’s emotions, and the belief that humans cannot control themselves, which can shock the person who is gaining this new shared knowledge of the situation. But the same can also be said about the anti-malthusians, if their predictions which are being based off of reason and intuition are in fact wrong in the future, it is already too late to start conserving a resource, which leads in a mass famine, or other disaster depending on the resource(s), one could even deem it an “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam” in that respect. So, do we have the right to assume this almost ‘certain’ future?
Secondly, in the arts there is a large classification dispute between art philosophers and art historians, generally there always seems to be classificatory disputes in the art philosophy area, but it is now against experts in the historical background of the arts. This will mainly be focusing on stuckism as a historical group in the arts. Generally in the arts, the fundamentals are sense perception, emotion, imagination, and memory, although for the categorical groups of art it uses reason, sense perception, and intuition. In art philosophy there is for the most part, an agreement on the fact that art has the characteristic of an entity being produced with aesthetic interests and purpose (2). However, in stuckism it claims that conceptual art, isn’t truly art (3) Right off the bat, this is already a major disagreement between the two expert groups. How is conceptual art not truly art if art is deemed “a piece with aesthetic intention”? It seems the answer may lie in the way in which each group builds its knowledge. The stuckists use intuition and sense perception to further their knowledge, and discuss with each other what constitutes as art, whereas in art philosophy it is mainly based off of reason and sense perception and they naturally share personal knowledge and acquire shared knowledge to come up with an agreement. The arts are a very subjective topic, due to the fact that everyone has their own ideas as to what truly counts as art, which can in fact be a great thing, as one can learn off of another. But once groups start appearing, does that then override an individual knower’s perspective of where a piece of art should or should not be placed due to the fact that more people would disagree due there becoming a large group of people with shared knowledge on this topic? Possibly not, as even the group, in this case the stuckists, people tend to view them as making hasty generalizations without looking into a certain art piece, and deeming it as not art. But then, how long and to what depth would a person need to look in order to realize that a certain piece of art may actually constitute as art, and would they even be able to see it? Perhaps, due to the unreliability of sense perception they do not see the piece in the same light as, per say an art philosopher, who would then label a conceptual piece, art. It seems the unreliability here is the way in which we acquire and produce knowledge through these ways of knowing, as most people interpret them differently, and learn through them differently.
In conclusion experts in a certain discipline may argue due to how they build, pursue, and create knowledge, as most people find different interpretations within these ways of knowing, such as sense perception and reasoning. So, to what extent can we truly deem the other person wrong, if they’re wrong in any sort of way, assuming there must be an outcome of one or the other? Maybe the fact lies somewhere in between the two arguments after all.