Ways in Which Disagreements Promote Knowledge - Essay Example

Ways in Which Disagreements Promote Knowledge Introduction The theories or principles we learn today from the natural and human sciences are actually products of remarkable ideas from the past and present. Some of them would bridge the gap between certain thoughts, but on a number of points, many of them also come in disagreement. Just try to understand how Galileo disproved the conformist idea that the earth is the center of the solar system. Consequently, today we are freely accepting the academic thought that the sun is the center of the nine planets, including earth curving around it, just because we could also freely use cutting-edge technology that could help us explain what is happening in space. However, from the past, they solely relied on empirical evidence and analysis in the absence of enhanced gadgets and technologies. They were challenged to do almost the impossible because they were motivated to think outside the box so as to discover new learning, idea or concept. Outstandingly, Maslow managed to interpret the hierarchy of the human needs, but other psychologists believe that there are other important points that one could use to explain “motivation.” Understanding motivation requires knowing human’s complex emotions and personality. One, therefore, should expect that this area of academic interest should involve myriads of ideas that have to be taken into account prior to forming concrete information on the whole thought about human needs and motivation. It is, therefore, clear that disagreements involved in pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences could provide a substantial advantage not just for the preservation of the body of knowledge but for taking it to the next level in an upward spiral. It is, thus, the main concern in this paper to explicate the ways on how disagreements aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences. Below are the following ways by which disagreement can support the hunt for knowledge. Disagreement Opens up Potential Ideas Knowledge on a positive side of it is equated to the idea of truth. The scientific inquiry is one of the usual means to know the truth especially in the field of natural and human sciences in order to generate knowledge. Empirical evidence in this area is a significant requirement in order to prove that something like important claims concerning certain ideas, events, observations or concepts potentially exist. However, various other thoughts using empirical scientific inquiry sometimes would put each other in a clash, leading to a significant consideration about the situation. Let us take the case behind Genetically Modified (GM) crops. Just before the end of 2012, in September, Monsanto was bombarded with another controversial issue concerning the safety of their products. A study from French scientists revealed that Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or top-selling weedkiller was found to cause rat mortality due to tumors, multiple organ damage and premature death (Palma). The implication of this result could lead to the idea that Monsanto’s top-selling weedkiller GM crops might have a potential impending toxicity level that could be detrimental to the human health. Rumors were able to spread concerning this report leading to the point that there is a need to consider further investigations on the actual methodology used in the entire research process, and to initiate other series or relevant independent studies so as to confirm the reliability of the published results. There are more other potential concerns aside from these. However, it is also good to look at the side of Monsanto, particularly at their strong stand on GM crops, stating that their safety is the same with existing food crops, so they do not exactly make a difference (Monsanto Company). Monsanto remarkably offered a high level of confidence in their GM crops because they also initiated relevant scientific inquiries in order to prove the safety of their product offerings. Any independent studies that would try to disprove this claim could make a difference of their original claim and, therefore, would create remarkable implications. Upon hearing some clashes on the safety of GM crops, another important idea surfaces behind genetic modification of traditional crops. One may, therefore, consider the thought about exactness of science in the aspect of genetic modification. One would try to question up to what extent empirical evidence would suggest about the scientific truth. For this reason, there is a potential need to understand the logic behind the actual experiment that could potentially enhance the credibility of the scientific truth. It is at this point that the opposing evidence associated with genetic modification creates remarkable knowledge of the said scientific issue. The disagreements specifically open up potential ideas. Such ideas could be in line with other relevant issues associated with genetic modification. In the case of Monsanto and its GM crops, the company has long been involved in the controversy of profit making, so relevant economic concerns add up to the knowledge associated with the actual disagreements. For some, there is a political issue involved as the US and Europe, two politically powerful groups on earth, differed on their stand concerning the safety of genetic modification. Thus, whatever may be the responses, there is only one clear-cut idea, and it is the point that there is something that somebody will be able to learn. Remarkably, the exactness of science behind GM crops, for as long as there are disagreements of scientific results, would remain a big puzzle waiting for every piece to be put together. Thus, the disagreements of results concerning GM crops lead to the idea that genetic modification could not provide a high level of confidence in considering it as an exact science, a potential idea produced out of disagreements. Disagreement Can Help Uncover the Truth On the other hand, the controversial issue about global warming remains not just a scientific issue but politically, economically and socially, it ignited varying responses and diversified reactions leading to the point of questioning the exactness of science involved in it. Our knowledge about global warming has widened up as we heard many things about it. For instance, global warming alarmists are trying to prove that the cause of abrupt weather changes in the world are caused by human activities of burning more carbon dioxide directly emitted into the atmosphere (O’Hara 124). However, global warming skeptics, who are economists, and skeptics with scientific arguments try to prove the other way around by pointing the idea that the recent weather changes are just natural environmental processes (Arnold 3). These definitely are two opposing sides, but out of these, one could potentially deduce the fact that there are other potential ideas that are waiting to be found, and that would involve the truth itself. Just like with the case of Monsanto’s GM crops, the controversy behind global warming and its associated controversial divergence on its potential cause leads the scientific community to consider global warming way far from becoming an exact science, a potential idea generated out of disagreements, if further explored in detail, could qualify as the truth. The development of an idea could bring the truth, but in the event of disagreements, this would make the actual formulation of exact thoughts take longer. However, there is a significant case when disagreement can help uncover the truth. Let us take it once again in the case of global warming which the only obvious truth in it so far is the existence of disagreements. Understanding why there are disagreements potentially leads to another level of truth. This could fundamentally be elaborated by the idea that in every action there is corresponding reaction (Bryan 188). Global warming skeptics reacted aggressively to the claim of global warming alarmists. The action here is the claim itself created by the alarmists, and the potential justification against the assertion is the actual reaction shown by the skeptics. This is a specific manifestation of disagreement, but understanding its existence will eventually lead to the truth. Thus, one may ask some questions associated with knowing why the alarmists made their claim and then why the skeptics just reacted that way. The truth lies behind understanding how every action creates reaction. Disagreement Can Ignite the Right Action So far, we have discussed the existence of ideas and truth out of disagreements, allowing us to understand that this could help increase our knowledge. Upon arriving at the truth, moving to the right action is another logical step. As discussed earlier, there is existence of ideas out of disagreements. Understanding the nature of disagreements can basically lead us to dig deeper into the truth. Thus, in the existence of truth and the right idea, man is given the opportunity to generate and apply the appropriate action. Thus, if polluting our environment leads to mortality of species, and if this is the truth generated out of a certain idea, then the right course of action would be to alleviate pollution and eventually put it into a halt. Having this knowledge, we could apply this into the context of global warming debate, so there must be potential truth that will be uncovered out from it, and from that, the right action should prevail. Conclusion In this essay, it is implied that disagreement can only aid the pursuit of knowledge if it could open up potential ideas, uncover the truth and ignite the right action. Works Cited Arnold, Denis G. The Ethics of Global Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Bryan, Willie V. The Professional Helper: The Fundamentals of Being a Helping Professional. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 2009. Print. Monsanto Company. Food Safety. Monsanto, 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. . O’Hara, John M. A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending and More Taxes. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print. Palma, Arthelo. “Monsanto’s GM Corn and Weedkiller Cause Rats Tumors and Mortality.” Digital Journal 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. . Read More

 

Read More