Given the access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Tags:

• 20th century
• A Nation
• Academic
• Access
• According
• ACT
• Address
• American
• Analysis
• Answer
• Area
• Base
• Being
• Belief
• Bias
• Boundaries
• British
• Case
• Cause of World War
• Central
• Century
• Child of God
• Citizens
• City of God
• Common

Show more

Pages:

5

Words:

1375

Get document Get an original paper

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Number Date Theory of Knowledge Experts may disagree concerning the truth and validity of facts in a given discipline. A disagreement may stretch from the resulting explanation to a given phenomenon, methods of analyzing data, assumptions made by the facts and the hypothesis raised. The different perspectives of the same fact are molded by factors such as personal experience, history, culture, belief and environment which are all bound to change with time. Disagreements may arise by putting forward supporting claims and counterclaims with the aim of achieving a common central ground. However, a neutral ground is an opportunity to reconcile supporting claims and conflicting claims though this is not always the case. The reconcilability of the disagreeing claims over a common factor is based on the nature and strength of each claim. The element of rationality is pivotal while accessing supporting and counterclaims of any given facts. Rational disagreements are limited to individuals who can provide an explanation or outcome of a given fact based on the study of history and personal life experiences. They mainly encompass great thinkers in any particular area of knowledge and their contribution towards the theory of knowledge (Lehrer, 59). Irrational disagreements are based on emotions and availability bias of generalizing factual information. Every area of knowledge has a throng of complexities and related problems which call on philosophers for an explanation. However, this creates a loophole for analyzing the various perspectives of any given discipline with the aim of addressing issues raised (Lehrer, 150).