#Title 5

Given 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.

It is very common for events to occur in which experts in a certain discipline may have disagreements
on the same topics. One of the distinguishing abilities of the human nature is their ability to reason.
These reasoning abilities are customarily based on facts and logic. This difference in opinions leaves the
space for disagreements to occur. Since the past few decades, knowledge advancement has occurred
through increasing specialization. We have understood our world by creating disciplines and
subdisciplines that have dedicated all the resources at their disposal to create experts in their respective
fields. These experts, though highly specialized, over a period of time, acquire a kind of tunnel vision
when it comes to a particular discipline. Disagreements arises between experts in spite of referring to
same facts because of difference in views i.e. they belong to different schools of thought and therefore
have completely different interpretations of the same fact. Disagreement tends to stem on emotion,
reason and intuition as a way of knowing and thus affecting the shared knowledge. Disagreements can
be resolved by producing new facts, concepts, and theories and ideas, but can never be resolved from
emotionally.

The first AOK I will be examining is Natural Science. The scientific method itself encourages the need to
testify all the theories Though in science, it is possible to do one single problem through different
methods. In science, disagreements mostly happen because of differences in how the experts observe
the subject and different ideologies. When it comes to explaining gravity, Einstein's theories of
relativity are the gold standard. In order to account for the large-scale movements of galaxies under
Einsteins theories, scientists have to postulate the existence of the dark matter which is a mysterious
undetectable substance. A renowned expert in the string theory, Erik Verlinde, disagreed with the
theory of Einstein regarding gravity stating that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an
emergent phenomenon. In the same way, temperature is also not a fundamental force, but rather a
phenomenon that arises from the movements of particles. So, if gravity is emergent, like temperature is,
that means it must be emergent from something. But from what? This is where Verlinde borrows from
the holographic principle. His theory suggests that gravity is emergent from fundamental bits of
information that are stored in the fabric of spacetime itself. In his latest theories, Verlinde has been able
to extend his ideas about gravity expanding it to a larger scale such as movement of galaxies. There are
also proofs that Verlindes theory is more compatible with quantum physics which is a fundamental
branch of physics. This impacted the shared knowledge of the people about gravity. Here, experts
differed due to different theories and their ideologies.

Science is an area of knowledge where the development of said knowledge is supposed to be based
upon fact, however, much of its development is based instead upon subjective interpretation--which is
greatly influenced by a persons faith. When people in the scientific community are presented with
facts, the way in which these facts are perceived by each individual is not the same. For instance, until
the 6th century BC, it was believed that the earth was flat, an idea that was accepted between
intellectuals across the scientific community. It wasnt until the philosopher Pythagoras developed the
theory that the earth was spherical in shape that there was any challenge to this notion; in later years,
Aristotle would prove this theory by using the circular shadow the earth cast on the moon, and
alignment of the stars based on location, as evidence. Although the spherical earth theory was now
presented with actual evidence, several other philosophers denounced Aristotles proof and continued
to believe that the earth was indeed flat. For example, the philosopher Lucretius found the concept of a
spherical earth absurd, even when presented with the same facts as other philosophers who now
accepted the theory to be true. When an individual examines evidence, their own perceptions of said
facts are strongly based on the individuals faith. A person develops their beliefs and faiths based on
how they were raised, the environment they grew up in and the people with which they surrounded
themselves. In the case of Lucretius, he was raised having been taught the earth was flat, and believed
the earth was flat; when presented with facts that challenged a fundamental belief of his, he denounced
them because it is difficult for an individual to change an opinion that they have ingrained in their mind
for a significant amount of time. This creates disagreements in the development of knowledge in science
because when people are less susceptible to change, the introduction of new facts and theories are far
less likely to be accepted regardless of whether they are right or wrong--causing experts to come to
different conclusions. Furthermore, no one is raised in the exact same way, meaning individuals develop
different biases and hold certain beliefs to be more important than others. Lucretius held onto the belief
that the earth was flat, stronger than Aristotle did. Their individual faiths and subjective interpretation
caused a disagreement in science because it led them to come to different conclusions, even though
they were examining the same evidence. The way in which a person is raised causes individual people to
develop different beliefs and ways in which they perceive information, therefore, when given access to
the same facts said facts are interpreted subjectively, which causes disagreement between experts
working in the same area of knowledge.

Polygamy- knowledge religious scriptures-

In the area of ethics in combination with law, you rely on experience and culture to develop an
understanding of the legislative laws of the country you live in, and to develop an understanding that
these laws apply to you even if you don't want them to. For example, in most of the western countries,
polygamy is illegal. To develop sound understanding this law, all citizens, even those who disagree with
the morality of the law, must comprehend that the law applies to them and should all decipher the law
the same way. However, in some countries, Polyamory is legal and even encouraged. Those laws were
made by the government who had understanding in law and ethical issues. However, different
government officials came to two different conclusions. To justify this law, the used reason to establish
the morality of it. Reason is defined as the cause, explanation, or justification that we use whenever we
make a decision. Polygamy is an alternative to divorce in case of some marital problems. Instead of
divorcing a sick or infertile wife, Islam permits a man to marry another woman while taking care of the
first if she chooses to stay with him. Men and women differ in their desire for sexual variety. These
differences are universal.

sexual partners than women do. The Islamic solution provides the only responsible alternative to the
naturally ingrained desire in men. Islamic polygamy tends to the social issues of prostitution and
extramarital affairs common in the West. Rather than conning, unfaithfulness is one of the best
purposes behind divorce in the West. Islam enables a man to wed more than one spouse, with full
acknowledgment of the privileges of every one of them. The basic principle in Islam is that men are held
responsible for their behavior towards women. While one group decides to pursue other means to deal
with the surplus of women, the other gourd turns to polymers. They both use Reason, and come to a
disagreement. However, different cultures can be regarded as a factor of disagreement between the
experts. And so rather than being a moral decision, it becomes an ethical one, not based of off concrete
evidence but of intuition based of culture.

The two experts may also disagree because of their moral beliefs which are ultimately created by an
individuals values. This raises the question does knowledge have a moral responsibility? Do the experts
have different knowledge because of what they value? Someones knowledge will affect their morals
because the knowledge holder will try to keep their beliefs consistent, or in other words without any
contradiction. In a time that immigration issues have become extremely relevant around the globe,
different, opposing viewpoints have also appeared. The topic of refugees has become one of the most
discussed in the European Union and immigration without documentation, such as a green card, in the
United States as they are the two most affected unions. The two differing viewpoints have been a result
of what either side believes is moral or immoral. What each individual believes is moral or not is decided
by their existing knowledge formed by what they know of the laws, religion, ethics, and ultimately what
they value the most. An individual may believe that immigrants should be welcomed into their home
country because their religion, there are several quotes from the bible that state that one must
welcome foreigners with all their compassion, or the laws of the government may dictate their beliefs
such as in the United States where it is illegal to reside there without a form of residency. Therefore, the
knowledge of the individual is affected by their morals which is influenced by the areas of knowledge
such as faith and reason.

When given access to the same facts, individuals do not always draw the same conclusions as others and
disagreement arises as a result. The way in which a person is raised, the environment they grew up in,
and the people with which they surrounded themselvesawith greatly affects the development of their
faiths and the way in which they perceive information. When a person has had a concept taught to them
that they have believed to be true throughout the entirety of their lives, and a fact is presented that
challenges this belief, they often disregard the opposing idea because it falsifies a truth of theirs. The
result is a disagreement between experts in a discipline because their personal perceptions and faiths
greatly affect their interpretations of the same facts.a