#1: In what way may disagreement aid the pursuit the knowledge in natural science and human science?
Is disagreement always necessary in both natural science and human science? Well, without disagreement we can never progress in both the natural and human sciences. Yes, disagreement is a necessary evil, if we do not disagree or argue with others nothing will change or nothing will want to change. Personally I believe in Mahatma Mahanadi’s claim which is an honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress, to this view of disagreement; Carl Sagan argued that at the base of science is an essential balance between two contradictory opinions, this is an openness to new ideas. No matter how weird they might be, to be wary of all ideas, whether they are old or new. The fact that the human mind is to believe in falsification; disagreement will not leave not leave this earth. For once you get a working theory then the rest would follow. This is that you would expect. For example, if you get a working that says that atoms behave in a certain way, then you would expect that you can make an prediction and the it will be true. And if it doesn’t come true, this shows that the current theory is incorrect. The more often it is true the more certain you become that your theory is right. However, not everyone can agree. In order to disagree you must know the fundamentals and be familiar with the issue. Therefore in order to move on to the next level in both natural and human science we need to disagree. In this essay I am going to look at how the roles of logic, emotion and cultural background help gain new knowledge in both natural and human science. New knowledge in natural science can be gained by falsification. Falsification makes you change the model of belief; however the new changes the model of belief but doesn’t discredit the previous model. It only shows that the new model is more reliable. Different methodology, uncertainty and evaluation in natural science...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document