At its most basic definition, the term robust implies something that is well-developed and well-rounded, the criteria of which varies largely. In debates, crafting a developed and founded argument means assessing your ideas complementary to the others’ or evaluating the information that is accepted (consensus) and unaccepted (disagreement). In relation to knowledge, the term robust begins to become more specific, as its denotation can be akin to the meaning of certainty, which refers to knowledge that is assured, accurate, and objective. If we were to fit this definition of certainty to robust knowledge, it becomes evident that the way in which such knowledge is achieved differs for some areas of knowledge. For instance, while the Natural Sciences show a heavy reliance on evaluating accord and dissent, the dependence on consensus and disagreement is not as significant or even required under specific knowledge spheres like Religious Knowledge Systems.
A clear example of robust knowledge requiring consensus and disagreement is apparent within the Natural Sciences, especially when examining how the methodology of various scientific disciplines commonly leans toward evaluating accord and dissent to determine the certainty of a hypothesis or theory. In fact, within the natural sciences, robust knowledge is equivalent to scientific certainty or conviction, the term described to be perfect knowledge that is objectively defined and removed from error. Scientific certainty relies on the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study who assess a series of accepted and unaccepted values until it reaches certainty. Their rubric goes on the basis of accuracy, consistency, broadness of scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness – the foundation of the scientific method. Stripping this methodology to its core, the most significant ways of knowing are sense perception and reasoning, the former serving as observation to note qualitative data (the first step of the scientific method) and the latter supporting the bulk of the data through a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning.
Take, for example, the old debate over whether the Earth was geocentric or heliocentric. When looking up at the skies, it was reasonable for those in ancient times to believe that the Sun, Moon, and stars rotated around the Earth as they stood on what seemed like a fixed point of reference where the cosmos circled. As a result, a geocentric universe is what many agreed to be true until inherent inconsistencies would lead to the model’s abandonment in favor of the heliocentric model. Today, scientists can prove a heliocentric model of the universe, basing their certainty on the culmination of years-worth of research from a number of classical astronomers who did not support the geocentric view, such as Copernicus. By evaluating the opinions of heliocentric favoring scientists, mainly their views on why evidence of a geocentric universe is fickle, other scientists can then determine and invalidate contradictory information. This removes both error and doubt, leading scientists to form knowledge with absolute certainty.
Yet robust knowledge in the sciences is not entirely secure, for consensus does not necessarily equate truth as scientific certainty can never truly be entirely objective or precise. This was scientific philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s contention. Kuhn believed that accounting subjective perspectives is inevitable in science, since all objective conclusions ultimately stem from the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants. Kuhn proposed scientific knowledge is not linear or continuous, rather progresses through periodic paradigm shifts, opening up new approaches to understand what scientists would never have considered valid before. An example of a paradigm shift can be seen under the discipline of Biology, specifically gene transfer. Humans, along with other plants and animals, transmit genes to their descendants through sexual reproduction. In the 20th century, biologists later discovered that bacteria undergo horizontal gene transfer, a different method of mixing DNA compared to humans. Thus, evolution and natural selection work differently for bacteria. This discovery counts as a paradigm shift.
While Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts fits with the refining knowledge of Earth’s placement in the universe, it places current scientific theories or phenomena that are being or have been recently evaluated under question. If science is constantly being purified and processed, is the knowledge truly robust? What is treated as certain cannot be truly credited because the knowledge is not solid, rather fluid. Treating the knowledge as definite until proven otherwise does not speak a confident level of conviction, and the level of certainty further decreases when understanding conclusions in science are founded on subjective thinking. In the end, consensus and disagreement are relied in crafting scientific knowledge, but does not necessarily guarantee it is robust.
Using the definition established in the introduction, robust knowledge in religious knowledge systems can infer conviction that one’s beliefs are valid or legitimate. In the natural sciences, achieving scientific certainty means making refinements in knowledge which requires evaluating the full spectrum of what is known and unknown, what is considered correct and incorrect, what is accepted and unaccepted. In contrast, certainty in religious systems does not carry a heavy emphasis or reliance on assent and demurral. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses have received criticism from mainstream Christianity, members of the medical community, former members and commentators regarding their beliefs and practices like their rejection of blood transfusions in life-threatening medical situations, mistranslations of the Bible, and failed predictions. Yet, despite obvious problems, there were a reported 8 million practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world in 2017 . It becomes evident that the clout of one’s faith and emotional connection to what they accept to be true can deeply outweigh general agreement or argument. Thus, instead of consensus and disagreement, emotion and faith are the two impactful components to forming robust knowledge in religion.
These particular ways of knowing play a role in fortifying belief(s) in specific religious knowledge systems. For example, religious experiences usually involve powerful emotions such as love, awe, joy, and fear. Particularly intense experiences, noted as religious ecstasy, is usually associated with communion and oneness with God in monotheistic tradition. Such experiences can be personal and mystical, the significance of which is entirely dependent on the person experiencing them, like the firewalkers of Greece who dance themselves into a state of ecstasy, believing themselves to be under the influence of Saint Constantine.
Faith acts as an attitude of openness to ideas or practices to help one assume a more trusting disposition, rather than an assent to a particular knowledge claim that lacks convincing support. For Christianity, faith can imply obedience to a set of rules or statements such as the Ten Commandments. A form of consensus does materialize in religion. In Christianity, faith is built on the foundation of the community of believers, scripture, tradition, and personal experience. Despite however many problems non-believers may point out within a religion, a person can continue their religious practices because emotion and faith encroach disagreement.
Conversely, consensus and disagreement can be used to form robust knowledge in religion when deciding a higher power does not exist.
The significance of understanding how we achieve robust knowledge and the role consensus and disagreement play can help us to acknowledging and setting up standards for what we know to be certain or not. While robust knowledge is not entirely achievable because (following the definition above) it requires the highest degree of precision and complete objectivity – both of which the Natural Sciences and Religious Knowledge Systems fail to follow or attain – evaluating a variety of things like consensus, disagreement, emotions, and faith can guide us towards (and sometimes closer) to forming knowledge that is well-developed and well-rounded.