Disagreement In Scientific Theories

In anatomizing this question, we have to recognise the interrelation of facts and theories. Facts are considered as what is being perceived through observation, whereas theories are comparable to the clarifications to what has been perceived, or rather explanations for certain phenomenon. The knowledge we possess all derived from facts that have been processed by experts in their respective disciplines. Thus if the case that theories are contingent upon individual experts’ interpretations, it follows that disagreements are probable to arise over differences in their scientific theories and claims. These experts approach the same facts from varied perspectives as they possess different scientific methods, concepts and motives. Hence, disagreements

This is based upon Thomas Kuhn’s belief that scientists are deep-rooted in working within a given paradigm – a framework that upholds the theories of the discipline (Kuhn, 1962). Scientific information is entrenched in empiricism, regardless of the nature of the science. Scientific information is not solely liable to the fallibility of sensory perception – information discerned through our senses can be markedly distinct from reality (Finley, 1983) – but also to paradigm bias. This paradigm bias which stems from our explanation of empirical evidence could result in the occurrence of disagreement – disagreements over the paradigms that direct experts in their respective fields. This is apparent in different schools of thought in macroeconomics – for example, classical economists believed that the economy could achieve equilibrium under the capability of a free market. This established the foundation of their paradigm and formulated their models. However, there was a paradigm shift during the Great Depression and Keynesian demand theory became commonly recognised due to the prevailing unemployment that presented an anomaly to neo-classical theory (Keynes, 1936). Differences in these paradigms are vital as they have extensive implications on developing models and producing

There are immanent downsides in the respective methodologies scientists apply to develop their scientific claims. Some drawbacks are more evident in the human sciences, given that the methodologies implemented in the quest of knowledge in the human sciences are more subjective and diverse, as human sciences become increasingly complex. For instance, the Daryl Bem pre-cognition study has give rise to many criticisms over his methods and statistical analyses (Bem, 2011). Limitations, such as the Hawthorne effect (where the self-consciousness of being in an experiment alters the behaviour of subjects), cause human behaviour to be rapidly changing and more complex to study (Adair, 1984). There are multitudinous parameters that need to be taken into an account; and the varying natures of these key parameters involve the utilization of different methodologies. Moreover, the human sciences do not permit themselves easily to experimentation – there is an immanent deprivation of falsifiability and testability due to the un-replicable nature of human behaviour. Social scientists are mostly dependent on naturalistic observation – a comparative methodology in which scientists investigate the factors that systems hold, and through a process of comparison, ascertain which factors are causative. Irrefutably, confirmation bias may arise as a