To answer this question, we must first define clearly some of the words within the question. What constitutes a ‘fact’ and an ‘expert’? For example, a fact is simply data and an expert scientist may be obvious but what is an expert artist? Facts do not “speak for themselves”. As definitive evidence is unavailable, we turn to scientific and technical experts to go beyond the data, to make inferences about the nature and severity of our problems, and to recommend potential solutions to them.
While looking in the areas of the Arts and Sciences, we will see that facts are easily interpreted differently, and that even experts, who presumably exhibit the highest levels of judgemental ability, would each have different conclusions from the same facts.
Claims of expertise in fields such as philosophy, art, ethics, or literature, must necessarily be based on measures other than the correspondence of the judgement with the environmental criterion (e.g. consensus, coherence, or command of a factual knowledge base).1 Being an art student myself, I am aware that coming to the same conclusion within art is nearly impossible. Since art is all about interpretation, the viewers prior knowledge, beliefs, societal influence, religion, etc., will all influence and shape what they see.
1 “Epistemology – How can experts disagree despite having access to the same facts?” Philosophy Stack Exchange. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2017. <http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37784/how- can-experts-disagree-despite-having-access-to-the-same-facts>.
2
This also effects art critics who are viewers as well as experts within the discipline. There are also two types of critics: journalistic criticism and scholarly art criticism. Journalistic criticism is written for the general public, including reviewers of art exhibitions in galleries and museums. They usually deals with art mainly to the extent that it is newsworthy. These critics must respond to, interpret meaning, and making critical judgments about a specific work of art. Art critics help viewers perceive, interpret, and judge artworks.2 But what happens if the critics work is already influenced by previous knowledge which leads to a biased judgement of the artwork? The viewer of the artwork infers the meaning of the knowledge by viewing it in a shared knowledge context while the critic writes through a personal knowledge framework. Even when art critics write, they tend to focus more on modern and contemporary art from cultures close to their own. Scholarly art criticism is written for a more specialized art audience and appears in art journals. Scholar-critics may be college and university professors or museum curators, often with a particular knowledge about a style, period, medium, or artist.3
Art authenticators may also come across the issue of having different results when figuring out the artist of an unknown painting. When an unknown artwork is found and rumoured to be made by someone famous, art authenticators are given the task to find out if it is true or not. Some proven techniques include Materials Dating or Provenance Research. Materials dating uses carbon-14, which dates organic material. For paintings and drawings, this means that it can
2Barrett, Terry. (1994) Criticizing Art: Understanding the Contemporary. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
3 Barrett, Terry. (1994) Criticizing Art: Understanding the Contemporary. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
3
carbon-date canvas, wood and paper. Provenance refers to the ownership history of a particular work of art. In today’s increasingly complex and evolving art world, provenance is a powerful means of supporting an authenticity claim. For provenance to serve the purpose of establishing that a work of art is authentic, it must contain the entire and uninterrupted chain of ownership from the artist’s hand to the present day. Every owner of the artwork and every day since its creation must be accounted for and documented. It is this complete record of where the artwork has been during its entire life.
However, since it is not possible to pinpoint the exact date that a painting was created by materials dating, and that researching an artworks provenance is not the exclusive option for determining authenticity, these are not valid way of authentication. The most effective technique is known as “Morellian Analysis”. This technique seeks to distinguish individual artists by idiosyncrasies and repeated stylistic details that arise in their works. An artist, upon reaching a level of proficiency, develops formulas in the creation of figures, which maintain consistency and are sustained throughout his/her life, even as his style evolves. Through the close study of these repeated details, formulas are identified and mapped. This allows the authenticator to readily identify evidence of the hand of a particular painter in a work. The painting's features are then matched with the unique formulas by which the painter is known.
On the other hand, The Sciences do not derive from interpretations. A ‘fact’ in The Arts very different to a ‘fact’ in Natural and Human Sciences. In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is
4
intended to explain or interpret ‘facts’.4 Scientific investigation nowadays mostly follows the methods of Karl Popper who, in summary, suggests that scientific theories cannot be deduced from the facts, they are arrived at abstractly and then tested against the facts.5 Those that can be falsified are rejected, those that remain we believe until they too are falsified. This alone leads directly to an answer in that the fact does not produce the theory, the theory comes first, the fact then either falsifies it or not. Given that falsification is rarely complete (i.e. our data is often incomplete), the views of scientists about new or emerging theories depend more often on what they have chosen as their working hypothesis, than the facts against which they are still testing them.
Scientists might also disagree over whether to count what they see as the "same" one. That is, they might argue whether their different observations equal one same fact. There are many ways to characterize a fact. For example, it might be just one of many ways to express phenomena that you "see" a "stone" "falling". Is the stone "falling"? What does that even mean? Even if they set aside the problem of defining the "same fact", scientists may have different "agendas", i.e., what they want to achieve with their theories. We can assume: Scientists want their theory to (a) predict future events well, (b) show how things become so, and (c) give us an intelligible explanation for why they are so. And scientists often disagree which theory is the best in terms of (a), (b), and (c). That is, scientists have to choose a theory to explain the given fact.
4 Thakur, Arun. "7 Famous Disagreements in Science." TopYaps. N.p., 18 Jan. 2014. Web. 18 Jan. 2017. <http://topyaps.com/7-famous-disagreements-science>.
5 “Epistemology – How can experts disagree despite having access to the same facts?” Philosophy Stack Exchange. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2017. <http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37784/how- can-experts-disagree-despite-having-access-to-the-same-facts>.
5
scientists disagree which theory best accommodates the given fact. They see many ways to fit the fact into different theories.
However, scientific investigation nowadays mostly follows the methods of Karl Popper who, in summary, suggests that scientific theories cannot be deduced from the facts, they are arrived at abstractly and then tested against the facts. Those that can be falsified are rejected, those that remain we believe until they too are falsified. This alone leads directly to an answer in that the fact does not produce the theory, the theory comes first, the fact then either falsifies it or not. Given that falsification is rarely complete (i.e. our data is often incomplete), the views of scientists about new or emerging theories depend more often on what they have chosen as their working hypothesis, than the facts against which they are still testing them. Depending on which theories have been falsified or not, one scientist may reach a conclusion differently. Scientists who attempt to use Popper’s falsification approach, which will lead to theories all being around at the same time, having not been fully falsified yet. Cognitive dissonance (as well as other human weakness) leads to some theories hanging on for longer than they should while others push the boundaries, and the modern publication regime encourages new or exciting theories over re-affirming old ones, some are more tempted by this than others.
A fact is simply data. It is essentially meaningless until a human being invests it with meaning by deciding what the fact derives from, or is useful for, or what significance it has.6 And
6 "Given Access to the Same Facts, How Is It Possible That There Can Be Disagreement between Experts in a Discipline?" Quora. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2017. <https://www.quora.com/Given-access-to-the- same-facts-how-is-it-possible-that-there-can-be-disagreement-between-experts-in-a-discipline>.
6
that is where the disagreements come in. Since disagreement is inevitable, because a ‘fact’ is often useless without someone messing with it in some human, fallible way, adding their knowledge to make it worth something. However, I believe that since it is disagreement that result in new understandings, which leads to more progress, this is not necessarily a set back. If all experts had the same conclusions, this means that we are most likely looking at one perspective, therefore missing something in another area.
In conclusion, experts within the same discipline may disagree, even with the same data, about the resulting interpretation, the nature of applied statistical tools and analysis, underlying assumptions, hypothesis and conjectures, implications and extent of the outcomes and results. In addition to its practical significance, the issue has intrinsic intellectual interest. Because experts presumably exhibit the highest levels of judgemental ability, expertise has been and is a prominent topic in the behavioural study of judgement and decision processes.7 We must realize that it is disagreements can be exceptionally instructive and beneficial, since a disagreement encourages discussions and further testing of a theory until it is proven, leaving absolutely no room for disagreement. Those in different fields may have different reasons for disagreeing, but if we understood the disagreement better, then we might be able to devise better ways to reduce it or cope with it.