Disagreements and consensus in a knowledge area broaden people’s perspectives in many different ways. Disagreements are normal in many knowledge areas, from sciences, humanities, and technical areas, people experience different levels of disagreements on policies, theories, and rules. However, when such disagreements occur, they offer concerned people within the knowledge area an opportunity to rethink and do further inquiries on the disagreeable topics. In the process, experts find different approaches and broader perspectives of looking at an issue. Even though disagreements are common, sometimes experts do agree on important matters, they form consensus by finding common grounds on contentious issues.
Like disagreements, consensuses also strengthen an area of knowledge by bringing uniformity in ideologies. When people within a discipline, scientific or social agree on an issue, people who have doubts find reasons to believe in the findings of different experts because they are similar. They also build confidence in the area of knowledge. Therefore, this essay will discuss how consensus and disagreements help build and strengthen Buddhism, and economics are the selected areas of knowledge.
Disagreements and consensus improve the robustness of knowledge in myriad disciplines by bringing diverse ideas and harmony of ideologies. It is true that not anyone in the world has the monopoly of ideas and knowledge, people can think and do things different achieve great results. Perspectives and ways of seeing things are also different among people. When diverse ways of thinking and reasoning are brought together, diversity unleashes itself in a knowledge area, thus giving people more options of solving problems related to topic. For example, the disagreement between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism widen the scope of knowledge in the discipline. The two disagree on wide issues including the acceptance and treatment of Buddha. These disagreements do not break the knowledge area; instead, they widen it bringing diverse ideas and approaches to social and religious matters. Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism do not disagree on everything on some matters, the two agree. For example, the two strongly believe in Buddha’s teaching about life, making the religion stronger irrespective of the differences they have.
However, disagreements can sometimes be disastrous when it comes to strengthening an area of knowledge. Some disagreements bring terminal problems and divisions within a knowledge area. This explains the reasons there is a huge gap between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists today. One cannot simply state that they are Buddhist without stating their sect. The divisions have brought conflicting ways of worshiping and going about social activities between the two groups. In addition, it is also important to note consensus could also limit the way of looking at issues. For instance, if Buddhists strictly believed in either of sects, it would have been difficult to accommodate people with differing ideas about great matters of worshipping and social life. For this reason, disagreements might sometimes be unhealthy and consensuses may limit the scope of a knowledge area, but when they occur, experts should leverage and harness the opportunities they bring that could expand and grow the discipline.
Disagreements widen and broaden a knowledge area or discipline. Disagreements in a knowledge area indicate that there is no limit of thinking and finding new approaches to an issue policy or theory. They show that instead of focusing on way of going about an issue, people could still use different principles and get the desired results. Good examples of disagreements that have widened thinking in a discipline are found in economics as a knowledge area. The differences between Keynesian and classical schools of thought have widened and increased the knowledge levels in economics. Keynes disagrees with the classical economists on a range of issues including taxation, where he refutes the idea of raising taxation levels by the government, as they are counterproductive. Classical thinkers on the other hand, hold that the government should raise taxes whenever it is necessary. This case has given many economists a task to do for many years now, as they try to rethink the purpose of taxation by the government. Just recently, the government of the United States of America lowered the tax for high taxpayers, an idea that has brought discursive discussions on different forums.
Nonetheless, it is imperative to state that sometimes disagreements bring confusion even on straightforward matters. Sometimes, robustness of knowledge in a discipline should not depend on disagreements, because they cause confusion and ideological mayhem among people who rely on expert opinion to make policies. For example, theories of taxation from both the classical economists and Keynes are confusing because no one is clearly aware of the role of taxation by the government. Assuming the two sides agreed on what is the right way to follow, it would have been easy for policy makers to make policies with confidence because they would be following the right guidelines, but that is not possible given the uncertainty of the subject.
In conclusion, disagreements and consensus strengthen a knowledge area. When people disagree, they give different opinion and methods of solving problems. On the other hand, consensus arrived at after disagreements are thorough and intense because they are based on broader perspectives resulting from disagreements among experts. However, when not used well, disagreements could be the genesis of complete division and perpetual conflicts in a knowledge area as witnessed in the divisions among Buddhists and economists above.
