Robust Knowledge Requires both Consensus and Disagreement

Robust Knowledge Requires both Consensus and Disagreement
Name
Institution
Introduction
Knowledge is defined as an understanding, familiarity, or an awareness of someone or something, like facts, information, descriptions, or skills that is acquired through experience or education. Famous world’s philosopher Plato posits that all true knowledge is about recollection. Plato points out that all human beings have got innate knowledge that tells them about the things that they have experience in the world. Plato explained all this in his Theory of Human Knowledge. According to this theory, human beings acquired this innate knowledge when the soul lived in the unseen realm; the realm of The Forms and the Good. The theory of The Forms states that everything that exists in the natural is a representation of the ideal of that very form. Different scholars have pointed out that robust knowledge needs both consensus and disagreement. Cornell et al (2013) points out that knowledge is robust only if it can survive a sustained criticism, and the surest way this can be tested is with disagreement. Therefore, if it comes out that with consensus, then it is robust; nonetheless, it will be stop being knowledge at all.
This essay examines to what extent must knowledge not to be able to change in order for it to be robust.
To What Extent Must Knowledge Be Unchanging In Order To Be Robust?
Most of the theories in the natural science demands for a general consensus amongst the community of science after experiments, investigations and observations and results have shown to be reliable, reproducible, and in agreement over time. It is important to note that claims and counterclaims have stood to persevere from exploration and scrutiny, and the result is based on a proper unbiased and robust foundation. This test via claims and conflicting claims shows that there is deeper recognition and judgment rather than just accommodation. For example, the Theory of change or the theory of building human and natural sciences consist of a community process for sharing experiments, feedback, observations, and also interpretation of data in specific ways and in different settings. This process consists of rigor and protracted deliberations that possess higher objectives to get precise knowledge for all humanity. Controversies that are there in science entail sharp differences either because of elucidation of the data, accessibility of decisive confirmation to assist the thinking or anticipated inquiry and yet the conversation among people to conquer resistance is what persuades the whole scientific society for the model or better still the thought to be persuading if not foolproof. More often than not, disagreements come up when additional tests are carried out and a new data is produced. Science is working due to the fact that scientists differ, they confront each other’s reasoning, come up with proper ways to construe and analyze and finally reach a conclusion, which brings people closer to the truth (Messina, Ortolani & Re, 2007, August).
Achieving Robustness of Knowledge
The moment large scale of computations became feasible as witnessed in the middle of the twentieth century, the immediate concern was as to whether the executi...