It is usual for people to think of knowledge as established fact. No matter the area, the knowledge is trusted as essentially unchanging, and as some form of information that may always be relied upon. The reality is different, however. On one level, varying ways of knowing generate differing types of specific knowledge. On another, there is no escaping the reality that humanity consistently confronts new evidence challenging existing ideas of what it true. Both circumstances combine to support that knowledge is, in fact, a living thing.
This being the case, it may only advance through the processes of argument, even as each stage of knowing is subject to further change as agreement and disagreement redefine it. In the following, an examination of history and the human science of psychology, viewed through the emotion and reason ways of knowing, affirms that any knowledge depends upon robust interactions of consensus and disagreement, and because all knowledge is inherently evolving.
To begin with, emotion as a way of knowing presents inevitable conflicts in itself, and simply because emotion is invariably subjective. It also is extremely likely to generate disagreement because its nature is volatile, and based on feelings rather than rationality. When, for example, emotion is applied to history, a range of potential conflicts and disagreements continually arise. People are not guided by historical fact, static or changing, alone; their thinking is very much reliant on cultural influences and perceptions. This is seen in how the identity of the Puritan settlers to the U.S. has changed over time.
The “textbook” idea of them as bravely seeking religious freedom has been greatly adjusted to more pragmatically recognize the Puritan intolerance itself. This alone leads to disagreement, particularly as modern American conservatives, typically Christian themselves, insist on the traditional admiration of the colonists.
(Zafirovski 58). This is, in fact, a striking instance of how knowledge is intrinsically robust, and to the extent that it exists as a process, rather than as an entity. It is as well clear that the subjectivity involved in emotional knowing reinforces the reality of knowledge as process. Those denying the virtue of the Puritans may be guided by emotional motivations to minimize religion, just as admirers of that population may be powerfully driven by their own religious feeling. Knowledge as truth is then all the more elusive, and the greater reality is that the knowledge is an evolving and debated thing. As will be seen elsewhere, “robust” equates to this shifting quality of knowledge, and certainly when emotion is the way of knowing.
The same process of robust interaction pertains to psychology, when emotion is the way of knowing. There is ongoing exploration of the innate nuances in psychological theory, in that there is a consistent gap between mainstream and critical thinking (Ellis, Tucker 182). Alternating aspects of consensus and disagreement, in fact, are healthy in encouraging knowledge in this area because they create opportunities for new thinking, even when beliefs are challenged. For example, there has long been knowledge conflict regarding the psychology of addiction. Some hold that it is a result of failures of will and character, others believe the addict is a victim of disease, and some consider addiction as generated by both. The primary point, nonetheless, is that emotion, if unreliable in attempts to define real knowledge, informs both critical and non-expert opinion. In plain terms, even the most objective psychologist must be, to an extent, influenced by personal experiences with addiction. As with the ordinary person, then, an underlying approach or emotional perspective directs inquiry itself. At the same time, however, this reinforces the value of debate as furthering the gaining of knowledge, if only by virtue of the value of questioning motives and frames of reference.
Turning to reason as the way of knowing, it may seem that this reduces likelihoods of the interactions required to support knowledge as a robust, living thing. That is not the case, however, and because reason permits all involved in an argument to assert exactly what is more valid as fact or knowledge. History greatly provides evidence of this conflict, because a vast range of forces creates what we consider historical events, and specific knowledge becomes questionable. For example, and for centuries, it was widely accepted that the attempted Spanish invasion of England in the 16th century was religiously motivated; Catholic Spain was motivated to attack Protestant England, as that nation had executed the Catholic Mary Stuart.
There is reason behind this argument but, at the same time, reason also applies to Spanish concerns about trade with the Netherlands and political ambitions to dominate Europe as equally impactful (Cruz 24-25). What then occurs is that debate is based on how each aspect of knowledge in this case may be prioritized; all are valid, but which is the most meaningful truth is subject to argument, as different reasoning supports differing ideas of import. Another example exists in how ancient history is known, as in the ongoing arguments about the primary reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, including reduced population, government corruption, and external forces of barbarism. As history, and especially ancient history, is so removed from modern access to relevant influences, debate is encouraged because any perspective may justly claim that one factor dominates the others.
The same duality exists when reason is used as the way of knowing in psychology. Consensus is in place with those who emphasize brain chemistry as biologically responsible for disorders, just as disagreement conversely emphasizes the rational fact that environment is an immense influence on human behaviour and motivations. Another example of how debate is inextricably connected to knowledge is seen when reason is directed to human potentials for psychological change. It is rational to claim that most people may develop thinking lessening any psychological disorder, but it is equally reasonable to argue that human character, at a certain level, is too resistant to change for this to occur. In each case, it is certainly possible to produce verified evidence of the reality behind the belief or knowledge. Once again, however, the noted element of prioritizing comes into play, in that the most critical basis for knowledge relies, reasoning notwithstanding, on which evidence is believed to be most impactful. All of this reinforces the core reality of all knowledge as inherently mutable, and its robust quality derives from how agreement and disagreement render it continually evolving, as well as subjective.
Just as humanity has always sought knowledge in as absolute a form it may take, so too has humanity struggled with the inescapable truth that knowledge is innately mutable. In plain terms, there is no knowledge that may not be contested. It must happen that new information is unearthed over time, and in every area of knowledge. Then, there is no discounting of how multiple factors, largely subjective, inform how knowledge is defined or refuted. This is the ultimate truth humanity must accept, if knowledge is to be pursued in an authentic way. As the above supports, and when emotion and reason are the ways of knowing applied to history and the human science of psychology, it becomes clear that any knowledge completely relies upon robust interactions of consensus and disagreement, and because all knowledge is inherently an evolving and living thing.
