How Does Robust Knowledge Provide Consensus And Disagreement
“Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge. Robust Knowledge is defined as “strong and healthy” knowledge that is “sturdy in construction”. This presents the idea that robust knowledge must have a degree of certainty and must be usable for the growth of even more knowledge, and must have a strong degree of personal certainty, and that one could use in their everyday dealings in the world. Robust knowledge must be able to be the base of further knowledge that can be acquired in the future.
Are there ways to quantify this knowledge?
To a certain extent. Robust knowledge can be defined as all knowledge that is observable, quantifiable and reproducible. In terms of …show more content…
The idea that there must be consensus and disagreement for fruitful debate and fresh open ideas is presented by Hegel’s dialectics. ““Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel, which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides. The “opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work on logic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that are opposed to one …show more content…
It can be argued that all knowledge is unquantifiable and that there really is no true way in knowing if the knowledge that we humans have is true or not, this is described as the idea of ‘Philosophical skepticism’. Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that there is “no probable reasoning that can provide a just inference from past to future. Any attempt to infer (2) from (1) by a probable inference will be viciously circular—it will involve supposing what we are trying to prove.” Meaning that there is no way to infer based on the past. Knowledge is constantly changing. There is no way to create Robust knowledge even when both agreement and disagreement are
Are there ways to quantify this knowledge?
To a certain extent. Robust knowledge can be defined as all knowledge that is observable, quantifiable and reproducible. In terms of …show more content…
The idea that there must be consensus and disagreement for fruitful debate and fresh open ideas is presented by Hegel’s dialectics. ““Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel, which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides. The “opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work on logic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that are opposed to one …show more content…
It can be argued that all knowledge is unquantifiable and that there really is no true way in knowing if the knowledge that we humans have is true or not, this is described as the idea of ‘Philosophical skepticism’. Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that there is “no probable reasoning that can provide a just inference from past to future. Any attempt to infer (2) from (1) by a probable inference will be viciously circular—it will involve supposing what we are trying to prove.” Meaning that there is no way to infer based on the past. Knowledge is constantly changing. There is no way to create Robust knowledge even when both agreement and disagreement are