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.

Across the Areas of Knowledge (AOKs), disagreements typically occur when knowers

draw multiple conclusions. These conclusions are often created on the basis of facts, or the form

of truth that has been verified and justified repetitively and accepted by the consensus of people

within the realm of shared knowledge. However, as knowers, we often find it difficult to accept

that the same combination of facts could lead to differing, sometimes opposing results. This can

be shocking, causing skepticism toward the results and whether we can discover truth. Ironically,

this also occurs among experts, or knowers associated with mastery within a particular field of

study in which they contribute and synthesize knowledge. The aim is to understand how experts

within the same discipline develop different conclusions in their synthesis of knowledge when

given access to similar facts. To explore this issue, disagreements in the arts and natural sciences

will be examined to discover the means by which they occur, particularly in reference to the

Ways of Knowing (WOKs) utilized.

One way disagreements occur among experts is due to the acquisition of facts through

sense perception. Although sense perception is considered subjective, the school of thought

called empiricism “claims all knowledge must ultimately be based on sense perception”

(Lagemaat 31). Therefore, according to this philosophy, sense perception can be used to derive

truth and therefore facts which can by synthesized to produce art by experts like Nick Ryan.

Ryan, a British composer and thus artistic expert who contributes to the arts as his field of study,

hears sounds similarly to everyone else. Therefore, he receives the same facts, or sounds in this

case, empirically. However, he chooses to communicate them differently because of his

synesthesia, causing him to see colors, shapes, and textures in response to certain sounds. Even
when the world’s facts are the same, the results of Ryan’s orchestrations occur differently: “Highly

textured, precisely coloured digital imagery was projected on a large screen, morphing to match his

music” (Williams). Ryan intertwined the perception of sound with sight for listeners to experience,

even though the facts of auditory information do not inherently have visual information associated

with them. Therefore, Ryan conveyed the facts he acquired through sense perception differently,

merging senses normally experienced separately, and causing disagreement: “some graphic

matches felt satisfyingly correct; others, downright wrong” (Williams). Because art as an AOK

works as a form of language, experts can alter their perceptions of the world to communicate the

message they desire. Thus, sense perception may inherently be the same for all when acquiring the

world’s facts, but when used within the arts, they can be easily manipulated to form differing

results.

Within the AOK of the natural sciences however, sense perception is utilized with other

WOKs to combat the potential manipulation or uncertainty associated with solely applying sense

perception. Oftentimes reason is employed, especially for coherence checks in the form of the

scientific method or the combination of qualitative with quantitative evidence. However, experts

within this discipline still disagree, and this occurs due to the different combination of their facts

and their means of reasoning. In 1559, France’s King Henri II was hit in the head while jousting,

requiring two neurosurgeons: Ambroise Paré and Andreas Vesalius. Both received the same facts

because they could observe the same King in the same room at the same time. Additionally,

because they lived during the same time period, both men had similar training and knowledge of

medicine. However, their diagnoses differed, between themselves and the other court physicians.

“Paré and Vesalius found no fractures on Henri’s skull” (Kean 32) which, according to the court

physicians’ reasoning, meant Henri would live since common knowledge of the era suggested
people only died with a skull fracture. However, after Vesalius perceived a screaming King after

yanking a cloth from his mouth, experience from Vesalius’ previous patients suggested that

“people with pain so intense usually didn’t survive” (Kean 33). Paré, however, drew on common

battlefield experience and previous autopsies to note that soldiers did not always receive external

signs of damage, similar to the King. Rather, Paré deduced Henri had a mortal contrecoup

concussion. In this case, experts came to differing conclusions based on their means of reasoning

in addition to sense perception, causing disagreement. However, disagreement does not indicate

that multiple conclusions cannot be correct. In fact, in the case of the two neurosurgeons, both

deductions were accurate. This indicates that a combination of facts can affect the extent to which

an expert agrees with another, because the way they are combined can affect the outcome that is

drawn.

A similar process ensues between critics in the arts when they disagree about the

interpretations of works of literature. Critics are considered experts because they contribute to

their field by writing critiques on novels to improve the knowledge gained from them. They are

also given access to the same facts as other critics: the literary devices and evidence created by the

author in a given novel. In my Extended Essay, I analyzed George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion and

found many differing conclusions drawn by critics about the themes within the novel. For

example, Berst suggests Pygmalion is about the development of Eliza’s independence: “Our

primary attention focuses on the human ramifications of Higgins’s experiment rather than the

mechanics themselves” (Berst 58). Nonetheless, other critics like Crofts, Alexander, and Shaw

himself claim the main theme is about phonetics and accents causing social barriers within society.

Ironically, it is possible to find all of these themes. Even the Prequel and Sequel to Pygmalion

contain this discrepancy, with the Prequel suggesting the main theme to be about accents, while the
Sequel suggests it to be about a love story. Either way, critiques of literature require justification,

and only those that provide evidence within the text to explain their assertions can be considered

credible. Like the natural sciences, the arts also employ rationalization and reasoning, indicating

that a different combination of the same facts can lead to disagreeing conclusions. Additionally, in

relation to the natural sciences, disagreements among critics do not mean a single conclusion is

correct. Rather, it is more important for a conclusion to be justified and defensible.

However, it is also important to acknowledge the application of the WOK of language to

literature and its effect on the reasoning involved. Critics, such as those aforementioned, are often

tasked with deducing the most significant or important theme in works of literature. When these

qualifying terms are added, disagreements arise in logical thinking, particularly because of the

inherent limitations found in language. Terms can be ambiguous or have connotations. They can

also be applied differently, or evoke certain emotions, especially those associated with opinions.

Additionally, this combination of the two WOKs can affect a critic’s interpretation. Critics may

emphasize certain pieces of evidence more than others or deduce alternate meanings from textual

evidence. For example, some interpret Eliza’s desire to “look for the ring” (Shaw 53) as symbolic

of Eliza’s love for Higgins, while others decide the ring is insignificant since common knowledge

of literature suggests a symbol must be repeated, but the ring is not. Multiple interpretations could

also be because of the addition of the critic’s emotion leading to confirmation bias and the

manipulation of facts because of the desire to prove oneself correct. Therefore, reason, even when

combined with language, can affect the creation of various conclusions, especially when emotion is

evoked, indicating its involvement in the disagreements found among experts.

Finally, disagreements can also ensue due to the lack of reasoning by other experts and the

use of emotion instead in the natural sciences as well as the arts. Wegener, an expert geologist,
deduced the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift, challenging the previous theory that

the Earth cooled and hardened after formation into what it is today (Egger). He had access to the

same facts from previous research, yet he reasoned differently to draw a different conclusion.

However, he could not explain what made the continents move, lacking reasoning in his

argument. Therefore, fellow experts refused to redo the last seventy years of research without

appropriate justification, sparking emotions like anger and anxiety. However, instead of using

reason to attack the logic of Wegener’s argument, certain experts in the American Association of

Petroleum Geologists organized people to use petty, emotional methods to criticize Wegener

personally and indirectly discredit his theory (Mendoza). Even with other research and facts

supporting Wegener, indicating the justification of his reasoning and establishing credibility of

his knowledge, the Association organized people to write papers attacking anything or anyone

agreeing with the continental drift theory. Irritation caused fellow experts to refuse to agree with

an overall reliable theory. Therefore, even with the best rationalization, emotion as a WOK can

still lead to disagreements among experts in a field.

In light of these scenarios, it appears that, in the synthesis of knowledge, experts come to

differing conclusions due to the WOKs they employ and their effects on the facts attained.

Whether that be sense perception, reason, language, or emotion, each retains its own inherent

limitations and affects the experts and other WOKs to cause differing results. Discrepancy also

occurs when experts employ the WOKs differently. Thus, we find the acquisition of knowledge

to be difficult in many of its aspects, particularly since discovering the absolute truth is hard to

do. It is wise then, to use a combination of WOKs in the synthesis of knowledge in order to

account for their limitations. Additionally, justification and coherence checks are also important

since two disagreeing arguments do not necessarily indicate that only one is correct.
 Works Cited

Alexander, Nigel. "The Play of Ideas." George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, Edited by Harold

Bloom, New York: Chelsea House, 1988, pp. 19-44. Questia School,

www.questiaschool.com/read/102674279/george-bernard-shaw-s-pygmalion. Accessed

12 Mar. 2016.

Berst, Charles A. "Pygmalion: A Potboiler as Art." George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, Edited

by Harold Bloom, New York: Chelsea House, 1988, pp. 57-76. Questia School,

www.questiaschool.com/read/102674317/george-bernard-shaw-s-pygmalion. Accessed

31 Aug. 2016.

Crofts, Thomas. Note. Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw, Edited by Thomas Crofts and

Stanley Applebaum, 1st ed., New York: Dover Publications, 1994, pp. v.

Egger, A. E., Ph.D. (2003). Origins of Plate Tectonic Theory. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from

http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/Origins-of-Plate-Tectonic-

Theory/65

Kean, Sam. The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons: The History of the Human Brain as

Revealed by True Stories of Trauma, Madness, and Recovery. New York: Little, Brown

and Company, 2014.

Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. 2nd ed., Cambridge,

United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Mendoza, Jack. “7 Incredible Scientific Innovations Held Back by Petty Feuds.” Cracked.com,

Cracked, 30 May 2010, www.cracked.com/article_18501_7-incredible-scientific-

innovations-held-back-by-petty-feuds.html.
Shaw, George Bernard. Preface to Pygmalion: A Professor of Phonetics. Pygmalion, by Shaw,

Edited by Thomas Crofts and Stanley Applebaum, 1st ed., New York: Dover

Publications, 1994, pp. ix-xii.

---. Pygmalion. Edited by Thomas Crofts and Stanley Applebaum, 1st ed., New York: Dover

Publications, 1994.

---. "Sequel". Pygmalion, by Shaw, Edited by Thomas Crofts and Stanley Applebaum, 1st ed.,

New York: Dover Publications, 1994, pp. 72-82.

Williams, Holly. “BBC - Culture - How synaesthesia inspires artists.” BBC News, BBC, 21 Oct.

2014, www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140904-i-see-songs-in-colour.