Every a consensus as they will have

Every single human being thinks in a different way about aspects they
confront day to day. So how is it possible to create shared knowledge, which is
knowledge most people accept and know, if each person has a different
perspective? Therefore, there is robust knowledge. Knowledge is robust when it
is sustained and prevails regardless of criticism and arguments against it, and
it requires both consensus, or a general agreement and disagreement to exist.
This also suggests that there are some types of knowledge, and in this case, it
is not only knowledge, which are facts that are justified by evidence and
valid, but robust knowledge, which needs to be justified, valid, and accepted
and shared by a group of people.

Robust knowledge does require both consensus and disagreement, as the
relation between them help to expand what it is already known. If there were
only one side, either agreement or disagreement, in the first case, no one
would have the motivation to prove if the knowledge that is proposed is valid,
reasonable and true as it is accepted by all the individuals, and in the second
case, people will never get to a consensus as they will have different
perspective, creating no concise and robust knowledge.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Why can discrepancies be fundamental for the construction of robust
knowledge in Natural Sciences? In natural sciences, knowledge is constructed
and created based on previous theories and thoughts, mainly based on shared
knowledge, and other areas of knowledge. From the beginning of time there were
theories which people, mainly scientists and specialists, construct to explain
and understand the world, and they were accepted by ones and denied by other
group of people. The ones that were against that theory, tried to prove it
wrong, by using methods like experimentation and observation, to recollect data
that could refute it. And that is how most of knowledge people considered
nowadays as share knowledge exists, because these people which tried to bring
down the theory proposed, could prove that the theory was wrong, and supported
with evidence such as arguments and data, they create another theory that will
remain and be accepted until someone else could prove the contrary. This is the
case of the atomic model, a scientific theory which created the composition of
an atom. This theory started in the ancient Greece, where some philosophers as
Leucippus thought that matter was made up of units. This is when, centuries later,
Joseph John Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr and James Chadwick
contributed to the creation of the model of an atom, which composed the modern
model of the atom. This is a perfect example of how robust knowledge requires
both consensus and disagreement, as each of these scientists based their new
model on the previous one, agreeing on the existence of an atom, but missing
its parts, and each of them prove their model by experimentation. Nowadays the electron
cloud model, the most modern model, is considered as robust knowledge, as it is
a shared knowledge that is accepted, and it is valid until other scientific can
prove the contrary.

Natural science is an area of knowledge that constructs knowledge based
on reason and imagination, by founding new theories in previous ones, first idealizing
and generating new possible ideas, and then trying to prove them through explanations,
and arguments given by data, which is why there is a greater amount of
disagreement in this area of knowledge that in other ones. In the case of Mathematics,
it is known that as it is precise and exact, as it uses pure reason, because of
the axioms that already exist, there is not a great amount of disagreement or
not at all, not as much as in Natural Sciences. But both areas construct their
robust knowledge thanks to agreement and disagreement. But in the specific case
of Mathematics, to what extent, the lack of discrepancies within this area of
knowledge, compared to the great number of axioms it has, also contribute in
the construction of robust knowledge? In Mathematics there is less known
disagreement than in Natural Sciences because first, in Mathematics when a
mistake is spotted, it is corrected easily, as there is a basis of exact math,
while in the case of natural science, it is harder to correct an error, so it
creates more points of views and opinions, generating more disagreements.
Second, the different mathematical theorems and models are easier to proof than
the natural sciences theories, as they have a basis of exact math, as it was
already said, while in natural sciences, the methods to gather data are more
meticulous and complex. These is proved, because to study, analyze and evaluate
Mathematics, the same mathematic basis is required, while in the case of Natural
Sciences, it is imperative and essential the use of mathematics and other
science knowledge, so to evaluate natural science it is required a greater amount
of areas of knowledge or disciplines. As it was mentioned before, Mathematics
also requires agreement and disagreement to create robust knowledge, as the
great amount of the recent shared knowledge of mathematics is proven and is
accepted by great portion of the world, and it stands criticism. Nevertheless,
Mathematics is an area that is not recognized by having a lot of famous
disagreements or discrepancies, because the development or evolution of this
area of knowledge, in terms of innovation or new models or theorems, is slow,
as it is difficult to not only create new theorems that explains new aspects of
the world, but to prove wrong the existing theorems and models. An example of a
discrepancy in mathematics is the foundations of mathematics, in which Euclid,
Greek mathematician, published Elements,
a compiled of mathematical theories related to geometry, which were criticized
and tried to prove wrong, but most of the Euclidian geometry was proved,
standing until nowadays, which shows that thanks to the disagreements Elements caused, most of the theories
and postulates could be proven, and they still exist and are studied.

It is possible that the discrepancies or disagreements in both areas of
knowledge could increase in the future, because when a subject is studied in a
greater amount, it creates each time more disagreement, as there will be more
information. This is shown in human history, because as more people knew about
certain subject or discipline, as science, they will propose new theories and
ideas, that will be criticized, and eventually, if they were not able to be
prove wrong, it will expand the knowledge humans had, and then will give the
opportunity to other people to discover new thing about the subject or
discipline, generating a larger branch that will pass through the same process
of evaluation, and will eventually make wither the scope. Therefore, there will
be always consensus and disagreements.

Also, it is important to talk about the personal knowledge in relation
with robust knowledge. Personal knowledge is also important in the creation of
robust knowledge, as it is the potential beginning in the creation of it. Personal
knowledge is the knowledge a person acquires by experience. Personal knowledge
by itself, could not be considered shared knowledge, as it does not have the
sufficient evidence that could give validity and make it a robust shared
knowledge. However, it is the beginning of the creation of shared knowledge and
consequently robust knowledge, as it is the individual´s perspective, that with
the help of data and facts that could verify, support and add validity to its
knowledge, it could be accepted and considered as shared knowledge. An example
is Isaac Newton, thanks to his experience with the famous apple that hits his head,
and inspired by this experience, he developed the universal gravitation law.
This was still personal knowledge, until he achieved to prove his theory with
experiments, which then, were accepted by the people, creating a shared
knowledge, that thanks to time, in which many scientists prove this theory, it
became a law, and consequently robust knowledge, as it remains in present days.

To conclude, consensus and disagreement are essential and required to
create robust knowledge, as it allows humans to expand the knowledge they
already share, giving them the opportunity, due to disagreements, to create new
perspectives, that could become robust knowledge if they can be proved, and to
prove the knowledge that continues to be considered as robust. This is the way
how areas of knowledge expand its content, as they can be evaluated and
improved thanks to the two possible sides of a debate, agree or disagree.