The given paper closely addresses the idea that robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement. By robust one means strong, healthy, and potent. More exactly, the author of this paper advocates that without these two elements: consensus and dissent, knowledge would be significantly robbed of its richness and truthfulness. In particular, because it is through constant argumentation of a given subject that the latter grows and develops. Thus, evolution is attained through the volatile nature of argument.
In the body of this paper, the author aims to address the abovementioned argument through the lenses of two areas of knowledge: ethics and natural sciences. To begin with, ethics is an area which is rich with dissent. As a matter of fact, it depends on the angle that one is looking from. Each particular field views ethics from its own perspective. Some fields attribute it with greater flexibility than others. For instance, if ethics is examined from the point of view of philosophy, its postulates are deemed much more pliable than if it is looked at from a perspective of law. In truth, each society and person decides individually what is to be considered ethical and unethical. However, at the end of the day, it is this flexibility and the discord caused by it that stimulates the subject to truly evolve.
For instance, there are numerous topics that arouse disagreement from the perspective of ethics. For instance, subjects of euthanasia, abortion, and death penalty elevate numerous discussions. At the same time, as it was mentioned earlier, both agreement and disagreement lead to the evolution of the ethics field. Particularly, the proponent of each approach within the field of ethics goes to great lengths to seek out facts that will support his/her ideas. In the end, this multitude of knowledge is used to prop up each of the parties’ thinking. Now, it is worth asking: if there were solely dissent or consent, would the field of ethics really evolve? There is much doubt on this, since debate is what births search and, eventually, truth. Inquiry leads to discovery. In fact, when two groups (or individuals) clash in disagreement, their brains start to function more actively and openly in search of new information.
When it comes to the field of ethics, the subject is rather flexible and it is difficult to determine who is right and who is wrong at the outset. For one thing, someone who is backing abortions could prop his/her points up with a tragic story of a woman who has no means to bring up her child or became pregnant due to sexual abuse. From this standpoint, it may be completely ethical to give the woman the freedom to choose whether to keep her child or not. On the other hand, opponents may manifest that too many women are overlooking the grave moral and psychological dangers of abortion, approaching it as a casual operation to turn to. Thus, each of the parties is right in its own way. Yet, it is the debate that pushes each participant of the discussion to look for further supporting facts. As numerous perspective form, emerges a more robust and whole knowledge of the field of ethics.
In the second part, the essay will discuss in more detail the field of natural sciences. Here, the situation is quite different, since it is a field of much greater structure and precision. At the same time, it is also subject to the notions discussed above, which state that robust knowledge emerges where both consensus and disagreement are present. To demonstrate this, one could turn to the theory of evolution. This theory has been discussed by scientists for more than a century with each scientist backing his/her approach. Had there only been consent or only disagreement on the subject, the subject matter could not have been structured as meticulously as it was, leading to the birth of several well-structured theories.
In terms of natural sciences, consent allows researchers and scientists to group into societies that further the study of a certain approach. At the same time, there is always another group or several groups that challenge these views and meticulously search for facts to back their ideas. In the end, each of them could be wrong and each could be right (from their own unique standpoint). Yet it is not this righteousness that truly matters (in the case of this particular essay), but the mere fact that discord and agreement both have positive consequences for the field of natural sciences at large. For one thing, disagreement creates a certain tension that causes discomfort. This discomfort is the guiding light in the search for new opportunities. Here, the author is talking about scientific opportunities that abound in the search for truth. In particular, it is the scientist’s principal aim to establish a self-sufficient form of thought – a theory – that would explain the reality which one encounters on a daily basis.
One of the best known Socratic paradoxes proclaims: “I know that I know nothing”. This is a claim that leads us one step further in explaining why exactly robust knowledge is born amidst consensus and disagreement alike. These two can be compared to endless engines in terms of natural sciences and ethics alike, pushing researchers toward greater, more robust discoveries. The only difference is that one of them, consensus, helps to unite individuals around a certain topic or issue, while the second one – disagreement – causes them to pull away from the limelight and re-examine well-established truths. Oftentimes, this causes the debunking of old beliefs and the creation of new ones. Thus, knowledge and sciences evolve, becoming complicated, tree-like structures filled with a plethora of facts, many of them contrary in nature.
