Firstly, this question needs to be broken down and understood. The first thing that must be understood is the definition of robust. Robust for me, and this essay, is that robust is going to mean a large and solid amount of something and in this case it is describing knowledge. Therefore this knowledge will be very vast and also understood to a good degree. Though more importantly what is consensus and what is disagreement?
Disagreements, also known as falsifications to the flow of evidence, just make a theory stronger and more reliable, especially when they are overcome. So disagreements are pretty useful in the pursuit of knowledge in both human and natural sciences. Disagreements are quite a fundamental unit of epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge in connection of validity of evidence, opinions, scope of knowledge as well as methods of understanding. This arises from the idea that humans have limited knowledge, contrary to their thinking and therefore, have a large amount of problems and uncertainties when it comes to making general
Raju: Yes of course, but one has to identify and develop it through various ways. OBJECTIVES: • Identify pros/cons of an issue • Provide logical connections for an idea • Think logically plus sequentially A critically thinking person would be able to do the following: • Understands the logical connections between ideas. • Identify, construct and evaluate arguments. • Detect inconsistencies and the most common mistakes in reasoning. • Ability to solve problems in a systematic manner.
Epistemic Knowledge -what is it and why is it important? Epistemic knowledge is a knowledge of building knowledge itself, the crucial components of involved in the process of building knowledge and the capacity of justifying the knowledge produced by science such as a hypothesis, a theory or an observational claims(diSessa, 1993; Duschl, 2007). Epistemic knowledge plays a paramount role on how we know what we know. Such knowledge enables to understand the nature of science(diSessa, 1993). Understanding nature of science demands to identify scientific theory from hypothesis as well as scientific facts from observations (Hammer, 1994; Laudato, 2010).
“All progress is born of inquiry. Doubt is often better than overconfidence, for it leads to inquiry, and inquiry leads to innovation or invention” -Hudson Maxim This section aims to explore the methodological tools and techniques that are implemented in the research project for fulfilling the aims and objectives. The section explores various subs –sections such as philosophical posture of the study, approach to the research, research strategy and methods to deduce the arguments with substantiated evidence. There has been paramount importance given to this chapter. The importance of research design and methodology has been also been noted by (Kothari, 2006).
However, as a counterargument, his intent could be considered to not be neutral, as he clearly makes a statement on how knowledge should be perceived; based on sense perception and reasoning as ways of knowing only, and his way of leading a discussion, with language as a way of knowing might influence the public. Language as a way of knowing can consist many flaws, as the speaker can produce an idea using certain words, influencing the listeners, and thus, neutrality is hard to find in speeches and discussions, as there will always be preconceived ideas. We can look at another example: the Socratic method. Socrates designed a method of finding knowledge through discussion, and through accepting that he had no knowledge of anything whatsoever. By acknowledging this, it
They develop both concrete working practices and theoretical assumptions. Although practitioners of interaction analysis come from various disciplines and use, the results of their analyses for different aims share more or less obvious perception of the world that is shown and supported by the work of doing this kind of analysis. Moreover, they hold a common set of opinions about how to access that world. There is not still an obvious constitution of these framing assumptions and there is likely to be lack of agreement about which assumptions are more or less essential. In spite of that, it is important to begin to make the theoretical grounding of our work
In The Fear of Knowledge, Boghossian deduces how knowledge is defined, created, and perceived by different collective groups due to the context of time, place, and cultural perspectives. Although Boghossian is a strong supporter for attaining and conveying knowledge that is objective and universally understood by everyone, the structures of language and social situations cause the interpretation of knowledge to be much more complex. In response, Boghossian explores various theories of knowledge such as the classical picture, social dependence conception, fact constructivism, and epistemic relativism to further understand the unique human processes and reasoning of knowledge. The Classical Picture of Knowledge The classical picture of knowledge
I will be exploring these two knowledge questions from the aspects of the human sciences and the natural sciences in pursuit of answering the overall prescribed title “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement”. On the whole, I agree with this statement to some extent, because I believe disagreement is essential in the
Some authors interchange the two terms, others point to conceptual differences, even if they are blurred. However, 'Conflict' and 'dispute' are two distinct notions. Conflict, it is proposed, exists wherever there is incompatibility of interest, and therefore is pandemic. Conflict can be managed, possibly to the extent of preventing a dispute resulting from the conflict. Dispute is associated with distinct justifiable issues.