The Failure Of Robust Knowledge

This title, in my opinion, alludes to the idea that robust knowledge can only be obtained through the process of consensus and disagreement. Robust knowledge can be defined as the common knowledge shared by a community , which is the foundation of the areas of knowledge. The adjective robust, in this case, refers to the idea of solid and proven truthful. Robust knowledge is necessary in all of our daily lives as the basis of various applications. Agreement or, in other words, consensus, is required to achieve a conclusion and thus to generate knowledge. Even though it may sound odd, disagreement may also aid in the pursuit of knowledge, as the title suggests. It is indeed important as it allows openness to different point of views and interpretations,
Natural sciences aim to study the natural world. The theories in this area of knowledge call for a general consensus amongst the scientific community after the observations, investigations and results are found to be consistent, reproducible and in agreement over time. From intuition and sense perception, scientists can originate an hypothesis on patterns in data and information. This hypotheses must be testable in order to ensure their validity and are tested using the scientific method. This assures that the data is obtained in the most accurate way possible to assure that conclusions and theories are as accurate as possible. It is, therefore, used to provide a well balanced and robust foundation for the production of future knowledge. In this way, the scientific method is the major consensus in the scientific community. There is no debate among scientist over where or not to use it; if it is not used to obtain data the study is indeed considered invalid. This consensus helps ensure that results from studies are as valid as possible, therefore helping the scientific community gain more reliable knowledge. Observations and findings of experiments are shared and interpreted by the research community with the only objective to produce accurate knowledge for the
Disagreements in the natural sciences help advance knowledge by either confirming that existing beliefs are correct, or, creating new models of thought. When confronted with disagreements, it is a natural response to investigate, reflect and re-examine ‘what went wrong’. If there is only consensus it only strengthens existing ideas, strategy and practices, reinforcing credence to existing knowledge and information. That approach can be quite regressive in our present world of complex and interconnected systems that necessitate an all-round approach to cooperate and collaborate to solve and understand complex problems and events. Science works because scientists disagree, they challenge each other’s ideas, find better ways to interpret and analyse and eventually come to conclusions that bring us closer to truth. The periods between the breakdown of one system or theory and the consolidation of another are indeed always marked by numerous competing hypotheses bringing in both disagreement and consensus for filling in the flaws of the previous theory. The robustness of knowledge is established by this long process followed by the research